macspoofing

It's universal enough. There are people who are not cut out for having a spouse or children - they are a minority.

>I am absolutely blown away by the number of people who are saying that this person, who is clearly depressed and likely burnt out, can solve all of his problems by having children.

You're outright stating OP is suffering from depression ("clearly depressed"). How is that assessment any better? In fact, it's probably worse because that's a clinical judgement.

In terms of the general advice that he build a family - how is that wrong or 'insane'? OP is looking for some kind of purpose or meaning in their life and coding isn't cutting it, and neither is building a tech startup, or travelling, or exercising. It just so happens that being part of a family and being responsible for their welfare has provided purpose for much of humanity throughout our existence. At the very least, it gives you a solid reason why you should get out of bed (the kids need to eat, they need to be taken to school, etc.). Why is that advice unreasonable?

Google finally got NaCL/Pepper into the browser.

Of course, if you could just wave your magic wand and change the meaning of commonly understood words, you can make the semantics work. Unfortunately, you can't. In this case, "permission to use at X time" does not have the same meaning as "permission to perform action X".

I get what you're doing, but the problem is that "login" and "permissions" are ambiguous in the context of Identity Management. For example, "Delete-User" is a permission that defines some 'permitted action', but it does not imply "Administrator" role or a set of policies that should be governing access to some resources. So by trying to fix one semantic issue, you're introducing a bunch of other ones.

>Is that not clear from the landing page?

The marketing byline you have on your landing page is clear enough, but nobody will take that seriously without a deeper technical description.

When I read it, I assumed you wrote some code to move data in and out of lower-cost S3 or Glacier storage tiers because you don't control storage pricing and you run on top of existing public cloud infrastructure. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong - but if I'm looking for a solution, I need to assess whether I should invest time and effort to do a deeper dive, and that's the box I would put you in, without any more detail.

Anyway, good luck. Hope it works out.

>I guess what I’m trying to say is that I was hoping that someone with a write intensive workload would want to spend some time evaluating a product built specifically for that.

Again, it's not clear to me exactly what it is you're doing that's any different from the plethora of existing off-the-shelf solutions.

You're saying that you started this project/company because you were looking for a solution to a specific use case (write-intensive workloads) and existing options didn't work - can you expand on that? Can you create a chart, for example, that lists out the specific things that Haystackdb does and alternatives don't? Presumably, if you optimize for write-intensive workloads, there are some drawbacks when it comes to reads - no? Or maybe storage? That's good to highlight.

What you need are whitepapers/blog posts/youtube videos/talks at conferences/etc. that highlight the technical details of your solution, because you're trying to get technical people interested in your product to the point where they will invest time to learn more.

>When I’m on the other side of the table I do that

No, you don't. There are many established storage solutions out there. If you're in the market for one, you can easily fill days, weeks or months vetting those. So, why would you bother dealing with a sales rep from a random one you never heard of before, and isn't used by anyone. You don't even provide any details on what makes it different or better from anything else out there.

The market is saturated with storage products, so it's tough to differentiate yourself. Your site does not help by the way. You're also not selling an end-user product to the public, rather you're selling a technical and infrastructure solution to very technical people - that's a different type of sale. To get those people interested, you must put together technical whitepapers/blog posts/webinars/youtube videos/etc. to explain your approach.

"Super fancy autocomplete" may not be that different to us, or at least some substantial part of us. Do you think when you speak colloquially with a friend or a colleague, you are engaging in a deep reasoning exercise? When you speak, the next set of words you utter feels like a 'fancy autocomplete' because you don't think through every word, or even the underlying idea or question that was presented - you just know how to respond and with what set of words and sentences.

No. Developing on a bigger monitor is always going to be a better experience, but you can certainly develop on a 13inch screen as well (when traveling or out and about).

Nah. I suspect that if Apple enabled multiple accounts, it would be a feature used by a very small minority of iPad users. It wouldn't make a dent in their sales.

It's a UI/UX thing - Apple decided that iPads are single-user devices and login switching is too complicated. That's apple for you. Also, you still can't install runtime environments, making the iPad Pro a poor laptop substitute for developers - again, for no good reason. That's Apple for you.

Who is complaining? And if containers do not offer enough of an isolation, why would you think VMs do? There are use cases where you have to have host-level isolation - for example, if you want to build a HIPAA-compliant cloud service, your customer data has to be isolated at the host level and VMs are not enough.

>On the downside, containers offer weaker isolation than VMs, to the point where people run containers in virtual machines to achieve proper isolation.

That's not really why containers are deployed in VMs, especially in the context of on-prem enterprise software. I think that's more of a legacy issue. For example, for on-prem enterprise software, the enterprise already invested millions into their VM infrastructure so deploying a containerized stack means deploying into their VM infrastructure.

I think when centralized container orchestrators get enough market penetration with properly trained IT, you'll probably see that change.

Also, very few people choose containers for security and isolation. Typically it's for flexibility in deployment, and control of the environment (no more dependency hell).

Because it's the most generic ad you can have. All it says is: "Look how many things iPad can help you do". This ad could have been made for any computing device released in the last 20 years (or more!). It's completely generic and corporate. This is a quintessential first-world freak-out - take something that is completely inconsequential and work yourself into a hysteria.

Per the article, they have 3 different Fitness/Health APIs. Having no cohesive corporate strategy around initiatives like this, and instead letting individual departments chart their course, leading to confusion, duplicated work, and diffusion of focus, is very typical of Google.

Oh brother. You have to have at least some perspective. The American median income is one of the highest in the world (top-3 or top-5 depending where you pull your numbers from) with some of the lowest taxes. You have a huge middle class that lives a very comfortable life. You have millions of people trying to immigrate to your country every year. You have very low unemployment rates. You have a highly diversified economy (from the best tech and financial sectors in the world, to mineral, oil and gas extraction). I get it, it's expensive to own property in California and New York and maybe it shouldn't be ... but you can't have everything!

>It comes from the company taking 75% of profits

I know nothing about Roblox, but this YouTube short (from Pirate Software) came up for me recently, and made it seem like the revenue cut is a bit more nuanced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkihEtuVliU

His pinned comment also goes into a bunch of detail.

>Given how many stories there are of people wandering around looking for chargers, it is clear that Hertz did a terrible job of informing customers of how their cars worked.

If that was the core issue, that's solvable. They didn't fail because of that either.

>In an alternative world, Hertz could have become _the_ EV rental company if they turned every rental office they have in the US to a fast charging center, and told customers "Look, just drive this thing and dont worry about returning it at a certain charge level". Such an action could have actually had a positive impact.

I think you just demonstrated exactly the thinking that got them into trouble. EV rental business, turns out, has superficial benefits, but major underlying issues. They failed because of the basic economics of EV rentals: maintenance costs and depreciation. Also, there are massive challenges with building out a charging network as well. And yes, they pretty much have to give the option to customers to not return car fully charged, especially business customers. For business, taking 15 minutes to tank up is reason enough to overpay for the option to not do that, and that's 15 minutes - for EVs, charging up is a 3 hour exercise. Who would sit at a charging station for 3 hours (so now you need to be 5-6 hours before your flight at the airport?)?

>Instead they focussed on "technology that will automatically open the doors for the users, adjust their seats, adds their favorite playlist"... I mean

They didn't fail because of that.

>people who I know tried it (e.g Atkins) had their moods significantly worsen

Dieting is stressful?

They own the building/storefront (i.e. no lease and no mortgage)? If you're a retail outlet and you own the property outright, you can weather almost any storm.

>Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money.

This is not a question of resources but of political will. There is no appetite, especially on the left, for any kind of forced institutionalization. There is an ideological aspect to this as well, where it is more ideologically aligned to pretend that homelessness is mainly (or wholly) caused by a lack of affordable housing, and therefore _only_ affordable housing polices are put forth as a solution.

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't matter because there is no option to stay on the street and continue open drug use.

>The problem, and why we will never get these programs, is that no one actually wants to put up the resources to help drug addicts.

It's not a question of resources but politics. There is a segment of the left that links homelessness to housing policy (as in they don't consider homeless drug addicts as a drug addiction problem, but rather an affordable housing problem) and is also against any forced institutionalization.

>Didn't both Seattle and Portland try Portugal-style decriminalization + treatment incentives, only to see a massive spike in drug overdose deaths

They didn't do 'Portugal-style' decriminalization/treatment because in Portugal a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Open drug use is also not allowed.

>Its sad that Vice feels like they can only gain value from social media and YouTube.

It's not that they 'feel' this - this is a fact. You cannot survive on ad revenue running a web magazine anymore. Also, people don't browse the web anymore the way they used to. Everyone hangs out on social media platforms on their phones.

Not surprising. One of the big changes over the last 10-15 years was the centralization of content onto Social Media Platforms (with textual content being completely sidelined). That coupled with the advent of smartphones, means people don't browse the "open" web as they did pre-2010. This in turn collapsed ad-revenue and companies like Vice are paying the price for that.

What do you mean it "CAN" be retrofitted? Based on what?

The fact is there is NO infrastructure for any of this. It's also a fact that there are MAJOR (and unsolved) challenges with building out a hydrogen collection/storage/transport (regardless of the source) infrastructure at scale. It's why it hasn't been done even though many governments throw billions into non-fossil fuel initiatives (and even close down working nuclear reactors).