ogre_codes

I was thinking the same thing as I read this. Keep in mind, these examples are meant to illustrate how Actors work, not how to write good banking code.

> You seem to be claiming it's better to travel 50 miles a day by car than 10 miles a day, which is clearly wrong.

I don’t understand at all how you interpret what I said to mean this.

The catch-22 of solar roofed cars is the time of year when they are likely to be most useful—during the summer—the last thing you want to do is park your car in the sun to charge. Whatever benefit you gain from solar charging, you lose as soon as you have to fire up the AC for 10 minutes to make it livable.

In general, it’s a good idea to park your car under cover for a lot of reasons. Fabrics don’t do well when exposed to the high heat you get parking in the sun for prolonged periods. If you live or work in a city, chances are high that you are parking in a covered garage or basement.

Solar roofs on cars are a neat idea, but not likely near as useful for most people as spending the money on more batteries for longer range.

> Given a choice between a car that slowly loses a bit of charge daily, or one that gains charge, everyone would pick one that gains.

I suspect most people would choose the one which is $2000 less and looks nicer.

> Could go on camping trips a bit further away and let it charge for a week, or use the AC/heater occasionally.

Totally agree here, but I’m not buying a car based on what I do a half dozen weekends a year either. More important is to ensure you have bigger battery capacity. Buying the Model Y Long range, I paid $8k 80 miles more range. That’s going to be far more useful than the 5 miles per day you might get out of this.

This is all around something I might pay for as an upgrade, but certainly not an important part of the purchase decision.

If your commute is less than 5 miles a day, you should probably be riding a bike or an ebike. Pushing around a big car to travel what is essentially walking distance is a waste (and expensive). Even 10 miles a day is easy ebike range.

> But it isn't a well-rounded laptop because of the screen size, OS, lack of GPU power, etc.

You are off in the sticks. By your definition, nothing is "Well rounded". Every product is designed for a purpose. Value is about how well a product suits its that purpose. When I buy a hammer, I don't complain because it doesn't work as a screwdriver.

Your continued assumption here is that every computer needs to be suitable for gaming and that assumption is nonsense.

> original discussion was about comparing entry-level laptops and high-end laptops to the Macbook Air, and excluding Ryzen because they aren't in high-end laptops.

Your original comment which I replied to was talking about how Ryzen wins on value. Which is only the case if you are willing to accept lower end components, less battery life, and fan noise.

SpaceX satellites are designed to remove themselves from orbit and burn up. Few of them will be space junk.

They are a headache for astronomers. Its debatable which is the bigger public good.

> I guess as a customer I don’t really care why they suck, I just know that they do. I also don’t care about small business if they provide bad service.

I guess it depends on what you mean by bad service. If by "Bad service" you mean don't return calls when your service is down, then I agree. If you are referring to bandwidth or latency, you are likely getting the best they can afford to give you for the price. It's the price you pay for living in the sticks. (I suffered with crap small ISP "high speed" internet for years so I sympathize).

I'm not suggesting anyone should stick with an inferior product to bolster small business. Their run at being internet providers is coming to an end.

I live in Oregon which is the same latitude as much of Europe. In the height of summer, days are 16 hours long which leaves a near perfect 8 hours of dark for sleep. It's just a tiny bit south of London and Berlin. About even with Paris, and further north than Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece.

It's mostly not about the middle of summer. We have fabulous long summer evenings. It's the interim months like right now, where I most miss having that extra time in the evening. I want long evenings every day possible.

> Noon is the only easily measurable time point in the day that is always (approximately) 24 hours apart.

DST resets the time to move noon closer to sunrise, not closer to midday. There are currently 4h30m before noon and 7h30m between noon and sunset. In the middle of summer, it's 6h30m before and 9h30m after. Noon isn't well indexed at all.

You are missing the point.

It is difficult to sleep with natural light. That doesn't mean we collapse to the ground when it gets dark.

As I said, we rise with the sun, and stay awake so long as it makes sense.

I was referring to the cost of pruning free comments. If people had to pay, comments sections would be almost completely empty.

Any fee attached to commenting is little different from just banning comments. Few will pay to put their $0.02 on a story they disagree with even fewer will pay if they agree with it. They'll go bitch about it on FB, then bitch about the commenting system too.

As you say, fighting comment trolling and spam is expensive, news media isn't making money hand over fist. I've rarely seen comments add value to a site so why pay to keep them?

There is crap in every comments feed everywhere. There is crap on Twitter, on Facebook, on YouTube.

If good auto moderation tools were readily available, they would be used on a lot of these platforms. Moderating comments is hard. The big guys can't get it right. You can't expect little companies who make their money on something other than user content to get it right. Most blogs have binned comments ages ago because the comments add near zero value to the site and often bring it down.

Hacker News sells inline advertising. Job posting adverts crop up pretty much daily on here which are adverts. It's a recruiting tool.

As for expenses, HN seems like a lean site and likely doesn't require a ton of resources. I think there is only 1 full time moderator, dang. I have no idea whether YC makes money on HN or not, but I'd be surprised if it didn't at least break even.

If everyone did it, it would work fine.

Business hours : 1 hour after sunrise until 10 hours after sunrise.

Even without that, many of us have flexible hours and can either start work earlier, or just do something before work when we have time. Waking up early in the summer means you can catch a bike ride or take a short run or hike before work. Since it's too hot in the afternoon/ evening this works quite well for much of the country.

> I don't think most people really care about sunrise. Humans don't seem to naturally rise with the sun.

I do regular trips in the back of beyond. The first day everyone is up until 10-11 O'Clock in front of the camp fire hanging around with a beer. By the third day, everyone is up at dawn and asleep at 8 O'Clock.

Humans absolutely rise with the sun naturally. We've just isolated ourselves from the natural environment and forced ourselves onto arbitrary schedules most of us have a completely screwed sense of time.

If you flex your day based on sunrise, you get more useful sunlight hours... which means more time for being outside enjoying the day instead of stuck indoors. It's also a lot easier to get moving based on natural light, our bodies are programmed for it much like they are programmed for a 24 hour day.

The big issue with daylight savings time is the loss of sleep due to it all happening at once. You don't have that issue if you just have an alarm that wakes you at sunrise.

Glad for the decode on that typo. I thought it was some new word.

Like this term a lot.

We live fairly rural so it's not a huge issue. The moon is usually the brightest thing we have to deal with. I have considered automated black out blinds even for that (plus for daytime movie viewing and naps!)

You and I are very much alike in thinking. Sunrise is the logical start of the day.

For appointments and scheduling, using GMT makes sense. For any other reference, hours after local sunrise makes much more sense.

I actually do something very similar. The light doesn't fade in, but I have some strip lighting which turns on before my alarm. It's a great way to get moving in the morning without a jarring alarm.

A vertically integrated company owns increasing amounts of production of their end product. Apple is vertically integrated, they have products where they make the CPU, the device, the OS, and retail the devices. But ultimately they only sell the end products.

If Apple were to start selling CPUs, you could argue that they had a similar model, but they don't (and won't because their CPUs are a competitive advantage).

What Amazon and SpaceX are doing isn't vertical integration in the classic sense. While Amazon sells AWS, they also have an online retail platform. Their retail platform consumes AWS services. Similarly, SpaceX is both the supplier of launch services and the consumer of launch services.

Amazon's retail operations are profitable, but by being their own best customer, they help Amazon drive profitability and demand for AWS.

I try to keep my sleep schedule so I wake up shortly after daybreak for exactly this reason. I love natural light and loath sleeping through it. I've considered writing an app that sets an alarm to sunset and a reminder 9 hours prior to sunset so I can always wake with the sun and have plenty of sleep. Should be pretty simple I just haven't gotten around to it.

(Though personally, I'd prefer it were a personal choice and not the random, sleep disrupting change that DST ends up being)

Many of these ISPs are shitty because they service the hardest to reach places. Comcast and Verizon have gobbled up billions in government aid to bring service to rural areas and end up delivering only to fringe areas which they can reach easily. The small companies end up struggling to get the government cash and end up underfunded providing service to the absolute-most difficult to reach consumers. It's a real crappy deal.

Arguably satellite service erases all of this and is a hard reset on rural telecommunications. Unfortunately, it's not a industry small businesses can participate in.

MacBook Air isn't marketed as a "Gaming" laptop, nor would anyone buy it as such. Claiming it's compromised because it's not great for gaming is like claiming the Xbox is compromised because it's not good at video editing.

Removing comments is "censorship" which is liable to get your site boycotted or troll bombed. Removing the commenting system is just good sense.

> Next time there’s a destructive unpopular war or bank bailout or police shooting or event that threatens corporate profits there’s no public ability to call the corporate press out on their BS.

They would have to get rid of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, HackerNews, on down the line for this to be true. There are dozens of places where you can call out the media for their nonsense.

As recent politics have proved, calling someone out for their bullshit is pointless when you have millions of people willing to buy into their bullshit regardless.

Starlink is SpaceX's way of guaranteeing SpaceX has a launch client. It increases the number of launches they make, and drives down the cost per launch, both for themselves and for their other customers. They are creating a business model which is both profitable and drives profits to their launch business. This is similar to the synergy Amazon's online store and AWS have with each other.

If SpaceX has room on a launch vehicle or an empty launch vehicle, they stuff it with Starlink satellites. Since Starlink will require constant refreshes, SpaceX has a constant client, it becomes far easier for them to offer smaller payloads at good rates. This is SpaceX's way of commoditizing launches and keeping their launch service running regularly.

It's extremely clever use of complimentary resources.

I suppose it depends largely on whether you consider a laptop with a 1080p laptop and a sluggish SSD a good value. Seems to me often the “Value” you get is simply going cheap on components. Mediocre display, barely useable trackpad, slow SSD, fan noise, thermal throttling, etc.

The current MacBook Air is a phenomenal value with almost no compromises.

It is an entry level chip. And it’s a fantastic one.

But a comparison is a comparison even if lopsided, and when people are pushing this as “As fast as high end Intel”, it’s going to be squared against high end intel setups with discrete GPUs.

The M1 is absolutely fantastic. But it does absolutely fall short in some (arguably small) ways. Pointing those out isn’t unfair.