stackcollision

Competition is great. It will help both of these companies refine their product and that's awesome for the users. That's the point of this article, but all I can think is:

But damn does the Uber CEO look like a cunt.

There's absolutely no reason to treat your competitors like that in order to feed your tough-guy ego.

> Would have been a bigger fan of a more serious take on the subject matter.

But...it's a comedy. Isn't the point of a comedy to take a not serious approach to things?

I haven't actually used Windows 8 because I've heard it's so terrible. What I don't understand is this:

> In the future, all of Microsoft’s Universal Windows apps will also run in a window.

What does this mean? Are you telling me that every program I run in Windows 8 is full screen? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The OS is called WINDOWS.

At first I thought you were joking, but then I realized that's actually a really good question.

It'd be interesting to see a breakdown that took the top 1% of successively smaller chunks until we see just how small we can get until the chart starts to flatten out. But then again, maybe the author has already done that and just didn't feel it was important to mention. Maybe 0.01% is the point at which the disparity stops being so gigantic. E.g. the difference between the 0.001% and the 0.01% is not nearly as stark as the difference between the 0.01% and the 0.1% like we see on that second chart.

There was an interesting section in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" where Heinlein writes about electric cars, and how the law eventually required them to install speakers which produced fake engine sounds. This was because the cars were so quiet that no one would hear them coming, and they'd step out into the road without looking.

The Tony Stark from the comics is very different from the one in the movies. He specifically said the "films' portrayal".

I don't think the title of the article ever implied they would be offering a solution. It's vaguely informative and speculative, as with most news articles. There's nowhere in there that they claim it's a thesis on how to solve inequality.

I don't think robotic cars will ever happen, and I'll explain why.

Let's look at the recent MetroNorth railroad accident. Immediately afterwards, people were inevitably throwing around the idea of "why do we need train drivers at all?". The reason we need drivers is to satisfy a fundamental human misconception:

A while back, the DC Metro installed an automated train control system, with the intent of making the system independent of human operators. They flipped the trains onto automatic, and for a while everything ran fine. Then, one day, a sensor failed and one train plowed straight into the back of another at full speed while it was sitting in the station. That was the end of automatic train control in DC.[1]

Keep in mind that railroad traffic is a much more controlled environment than the open road.

Everyone knows that people make mistakes. We're (mostly) all engineers here, and we understand that technology is also flawed, like its creators. However, the public at large has this opinion that technology is magic; computers _don't_ make mistakes. The second that belief is proven wrong, people are immediately afraid of it.

Maybe one day a few robot cars will make it onto the road. But then someone is going to get killed by one. And despite these robotic cars having a stellar record up until their first accident, especially when compared to their human-operated counterparts, they will be taken off the road so fast your head will spin.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2009_Washington_Metro_trai...

I don't see a (TM) on the Y Combinator logo. Is that necessary for this sort of thing to be enforced?

3/10 had a brief chuckle.

As a DirectX developer who's tried out OpenGL a few times, I found it horrific and painful to program in. But then again, I'm sure OpenGL devs complain about DX in the same way.

I honestly think DirectX is a great API. And let's be honest, by the time this is release in "Holiday 2015", it'll be at least until mid 2016 before anything comes out that uses it. Combine that with the rule about every other MS OS being good, and we should have a fairly decent Windows 9 to run these games on.

I think there are a lot of services that are trying to put their own unique spin on how to teach code. My problem is that a lot of them seem to miss the point. What this is teaching is basic syntax and how to understand sequential execution. But being able to write code is not the same thing as being able to program, in much that same way that being able to write English is not the same thing as storytelling.

The game looks like fun and I'm sure it'll be able to spark the interest of a bunch of young people. Once they get out of this, hopefully they'll look to other sources to learn more in-depth skills. But IMHO services like this need to stop advertising themselves as "Learn to code", and instead admit what they are, which is something to pique the curiosity of a newbie and get them started on their own path. That's a noble goal in itself, but passing off the absolute basics as knowing how to "program" could be dangerous.

Didn't we just get over 3 weeks of people screaming about King's trademark attempt on "Candy"?

And now we see that this isn't just a problem with software. Who knew?

e: Apparently everyone thinks I'm confusing a trademark with a copyright or a patent, but I'm not. We just got done with several weeks of people screaming their heads off about King's attempt to trademark the word "Candy".

In this thread, everyone is defending Fluke because this yellow outline is a distinguishing mark on their product, and these multimeters DO look like ripoffs. And you know what, I agree. But how is this any different from what everyone was up at arms about only a few weeks ago?

Mortal afterall...

I really hate how every scandal now has "-gate" appended to it.

The problem with this title is that in the reference, "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel", the character actually has something that's relevant to his travels.

It must suck to live in a third-world state.

Autpilots existed long before GPS. Most of an aircraft's sensors would be considered primitive by the standards of this site, including measuring airspeed by literally sticking a straw out of the nose.

I'm not too familiar with modern autopilots, but afaik the systems are not the magic machines people think they are. All they do is hold course and speed by monitoring sensors such as the pitot tube, air density gauge, gyroscope, and compass.

When the summary says "planned route", they probably mean inputted heading and altitude. The aircraft would carry enough fuel to complete the route from start to finish, so we can infer that he means it will fly in a straight line until it ran out of fuel, not that it would land at the destination airport itself.

Agree completely. As soon as I read that sentence I knew to take this article with a pinch of salt. These very subtle drops of ancient memes are a great way to help raise a warning flag.

If you go back far enough eventually some germ will get the credit.

Yes, the A-10 is outdated and couldn't tear through the armor of a modern tank like it could to the tanks of Yore. But you also need to remember that the chain breaks at its weakest link. A strafing run from the GAU-8 will absolutely shred the tracks, gun, and exterior sensors of anything it comes near. Sure the crew might live through the concussions and blunt force trauma, but that vehicle is no longer in the fight.

And that's how the US Air Force became Rent-A-Warthog.

Why does everything, including their ad program, have to start with an 'i'? Maybe I can understand the marketing side for consumer electronics, but ads? Really?

What really drives me crazy is how people are still surprised by this kind of thing. I stopped using Facebook four years ago, and I think it was one of the smartest decisions I've made. I value my privacy. There is so much complaining online about how Facebook is taking over everything, yet there is no action. If you have a problem with it, then don't use the service!

I believe this is known as "reducto ad absurdum".

Actually, I believe the words were "Flight, go SCE to AUX." But an awesome story nonetheless.

I think people tend to romanticize old technology because it did so much with so little. My dad always makes fun of these people by saying "They don't build 'em like they used to: They build 'em better."

I don't entirely agree with his sentiment but it's still for the most part true. I have no doubt that, given a proper budget and mandate, NASA could once again build a heavy lift vehicle like the Saturn V. However, I think we've lost a certain elegance that was present in that age. Sure, our technology is much more capable now, but it's definitely not as 'charming', for lack of a better word.

I think the point that I'm trying to get at is this: I used to commute on NJTransit, and every day I would get into crappy "modern" brushed aluminum railcars with a freight locomotive pulling them. And one day, while I was waiting, a refurbished Pennsylvania Railroad train rolled through with its beautiful shiny brown paintjob, elegant railcars, and even people in period garb. I have no idea what it was for - it didn't stop at our station - but it was much more pretty than anything we see today. My dad was there too, and for once he actually said without irony, "They don't build 'em like they used to."

But who knows, maybe fifty years from now people will see us the same way we see them.

The OP is not necessarily talking about operation cost here. For the cost of what Facebook paid for WhatsApp I could launch 4.6 million kilograms into orbit on a Falcon 9, which is essentially the cost of lifting the ISS. When you're talking about space, the cost of launching should be included in your asset cost, because otherwise you're million dollar satellite is worthless.

"It’s a decidedly contrarian approach shaped by Jan’s experience growing up in a communist country with a secret police. Jan’s childhood made him appreciate communication that was not bugged or taped."

How ironic that they sold to Facebook.