settsu

> Do people actually believe public transit is meant to be some kind of giveaway to a small number of riders?

Yes. Absolutely yes. I mean I don't know what "people" "believe", but that's how public benefits are supposed to work in an equitable system.

"An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport." In my opinion, that idea extends to anything that we know makes a society better: libraries, public education, etc. It shouldn't even be controversial to a sensible person that those are not revenue generators, let alone profit centers.

It's analogous to "handicapped parking" (as it's called in the US) and similar accommodations: people will balk at the costs or other arguments used when compared to a relatively large population who don't need them, until they suddenly require those accommodations for themselves or a loved one.

Be a poor, physically-disabled human being in a small, underfunded town, then come at me with "farebox recovery" BS. We need to stop pretending like we don't live in a post-scarcity world, but we just choose to allow terrible people to run things and make bad faith arguments to keep ignorant people ignorant.

This makes me wonder, for a truly travel-size solution (or just otherwise compact needs), if there's a viable alternative that directs filtered air at a sleeper's head? In other words, would the net effect be equivalent for one person (such that they're breathing more or less the same cleanness of air)?

I grasp that such an approach might draw unfiltered surrounding air along with the filtered stream of air, and imagine that it would likely be easily overwhelmed by a steady supply of exceptionally polluted air (wildfire smoke or simply a heavily polluted urban area), but I still would be interested in knowing if the compromise never overcomes a level of placebo effect, or if there's a point where it actually achieves measurable benefit (both in efficacy and portability—like a even more compact and directional version of the Corsi-Rosenthal computer fan solution.)

Survival? Fear is a powerful motivator.

A workplace can have good work and great coworkers, but have truly awful people in positions of power over you. Which you may not realize until you're suddenly at risk.

I'd never heard that stat about Samuel L. Jackson and find it interesting because I don't think of him as a particularly versatile or prolific actor, though good in his roles and typically well cast. The stat is believable (apart from verifying it) given the massive franchises and singular hits he's landed.

> huge proportion of the US population wants

Thinks they want (where "think" is doing some massive heavy lifting because it's simply factual that wide swaths of voters have demonstrably exercised very little "thinking".)

It's absolutely what some powerful and well-funded people are actively pursuing.

https://www.project2025.observer/

They want a Autocratic Theocracy AKA God's Chosen One-ocracy (and take a wild guess at which demographic gets to decide who the chosen one is...)

Genuine ELI5 question: in this metaphor, which "old" models are steam engines at this point? Which are Model Ts, etc.

I understand the various justifications for why school districts choose Chromebooks, but those devices were... dying since the day they were born. In other words, I'd confidently bet that the useful life of any school issued Chromebook ends the very second the student no longer needs it for school (whatever the reason may be.) I'd be just as confident that the vast majority also see zero use aside from directly pertinent school tasks. Basically the technological equivalent of No Child Left Behind.

Yeah I was going to comment about this: how, for years now at this point, kids have worked around district-enforced security against chat sites/apps on their school-issued Chromebooks by using various Google Workspace apps and features.

I didn't even realize that page existed, and I'm a developer. Could I have found it if I was determined enough? Sure, of course. But starting from the homepage as an impatient average user, there's nothing obvious. I found it under "Gift MUBI" (which presents entirely different pricing schemes than what you linked) but that was after putting thinking and hopeful clicks into it. It shouldn't be that hard. Why isn't RIGHT ON THE HOMEPAGE?? It gives me the "Am I gonna have to call and talk to a human to cancel?" ick.

My working theory to this point is that he made the movies he had to make then, as he got increasingly successful, he gradually transitioned (back?) to making movies he wanted to make. Which, as it turns out, I'm less enamored with then his post-big break efforts. Oh well.

As others have said, it's certainly justifiable for anything with rewatchability. You can find 1080p Bluray players at thrift stores for under $20 (it took some patience for me to find a relatively newer one that was more compact and didn't have a slow interface), and Blurays are usually under $5.

I've come across sealed Blurays or even the occasional former Blockbuster rental so it's actually kind of fun in a record-crate-diving sort of way, if you're into that. But of course you can always just buy new, which you'll probably have to do in some cases: the odds are against me finding Koyaanisqatsi at the thrift, let alone the Criterion Collection Qatsi Trilogy, but I'm okay with that.

I know it's a meme at this point, but being an "idea person" is legitimately a thing. But there is also being self-aware enough to recognize what your strengths are and when you should call in reinforcements, as it were, to fill in where there's a need. Seems there's a spectrum where people fall in how readily they will recognize this and Lucas falls more towards the reluctant side perhaps.

As a side note/game: imagine you're not particularly tech savvy. Now figure how much Mubi costs using only their website.

(Why? Why do companies do that??)

> We don't have to use doordash or claude code or aws or amazon or anything else.

I know you think you're dunking here, but unfortunately you're just proving that either: - You genuinely don't understand how the real works for vast amounts of people, in which case it would behoove you to educate yourself (maybe start by looking into topics like food deserts or Walmart's business practices in small towns) - You're consciously making a strawman argument, in which case please don't insult us with that BS

I've been in and around hobbyist computer topics for decades, and I'm still not 100% sure if this comment is straight serious or a really well executed humorous trolling. They'd read essentially the same, so IDK...

I grasp what you’re expressing, I really do. I’ve probably pondered this very thing too often in my life and can think of very specific examples where purchasing a non-brand name version of a particular product really froze up the decision making process.

However I think as I’ve gotten older, certain realities have occurred to me:

1. there is a fairly significant amount of people that would still pay more for the shirt the “right” logo and who would absolutely not pay less if it had the “wrong” (I.e., vs no logo). In fact, they wouldn’t wear the wrong logo even if the shirt was free. I include myself in this under certain circumstances and would conclude that some times the recognizable name actually helps put my mind at ease about the purchase, while being fully able to acknowledge that it was entirely a psychological thing.

2. Unfortunately there’s just simply no way of knowing this information (brand name product vs essentially same product without brand name) most of the time so letting that weigh too heavily on an otherwise thoughtfully considered purchase achieves effectively nothing.

3. The thing was probably entirely discretionary for my existence, so don’t buy it (otherwise, see #2…)

Maybe they ARE lazy. Maybe they are unapologetically bullish on AI AND they did it just to spite the haters.

But it’s also possible that they have other, more important stuff going on in their life? Or that they find writing legitimately difficult?

I’m not excusing anything, or saying that you can’t feel dismay or even sickened.

I was merely proposing another perspective, that’s all.

I too was strongly inspired by the ideas that CSS Zen Garden was promoting, even if little to none of the real world work looked or worked like that.

Always weird to see what posts really bring out the negativity on HN, but pay that no mind. Some people can't stand others being happy (and some are just having a bad day...)

Be proud of what you accomplished and it must feel great to have contributed to something like Firefox!

I get the sentiment, but what if it was the difference between not getting the thoughts out there and being able to celebrate the fruits of their labor?

It's okay to exercise nuanced views (as well as choosing to say nothing.)

This or even properly dedicated indicators that aren't orange.

Surely, SOMEone at these companies realized training LLMs on the content of the internet (namely the vast amount of comment sections) would result in such outcomes. Or at least that they should weight heavily against that content for purposes of writing voice.

This concept of, say, "productive downtime" was the topic of an article I encountered/skimmed not long ago: "There are no easy calls anymore" https://www.customerexperiencedive.com/news/agents-are-overl...

Editing to add my own salient tl;dr: shifting the "easy" tasks onto AI agents leaves the human ones to shoulder the cognitively demanding loads, resulting in burnout.

There are nuances, of course, but if you imagine that while once a human might have been responsible to move 500lbs a day, broken up into primarily small loads, now a robot is moving anything under, say, 20lbs and the human is left to only carry the heavier loads across the same time period so is now hefting 50 or 100lbs at a time and required to do across the same day, so now they're moving 1,500lbs a day.

Sounds like you'd make a fantastic iOS App Store submission reviewer!

So, cynically, (and I say this with no disrespect intended to the author directly): a screed about how to continue justifying your existence as a—ostensibly "good"—middle manager (using, as its basis, one of the most nausea-inducing jargon terms to ever claw its way out the semi-sentient Dunning–Kruger ooze that is corporate-speak.)

And, to be clear, I do actually think a good middle manager is beneficial, if most commonly in the way of any necessary evil, as a very effective grease for the oft poorly meshing cogs of business. Not unlike the fresh breeze of an actually effective project manager or personable AND productive engineer.

If only there was a way to find out the truth. But who has the appetite for that these days? Or the appetite for the effort required?

The irony of this comment can even be found in the post itself:

> ...the magazine’s fortunes soared by exploiting the public’s appetite for outrage. Articles frequently relied on exaggerated – and at times outright false – stories... Accuracy and integrity were secondary to the relentless churn of opinions. The formula worked.

What you're describing more often applies to retail and service workers whose pay provides little incentive to do more than the absolute minimum to maintain employment.

Whereas it seems this might be a situation where the situation is actually inverse: being paid enough to not care.

> We believe that we’re on the face of the Earth to make great products, and that’s not changing.

That this is a foundational idea for anything is nauseating...

I dunno, the "complexity" seems mostly from:

10 Brute force medium into doing what it was not originally designed to do

20 Insist on native support for what was once a hack

30 goto 10

On the one hand you could say it's clever. On the other hand you might insist it's foolish to repeat this cycle. I'm not naïve, complaining, nor suggesting I have a better solution, but rather just making a personal observation.

(And regardless, I've been fortunate enough to make a living off this cycle for about 20+ years, having done it for fun for about 10+ years prior.)

The chances of being struck by lightning are exceedingly slim. But if you're venturing out on a mountain top in early summer your odds skyrocket. So shouldn't we widely inform people who are doing so of the dangers and what to be aware of?

https://www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html