ascv

It seemed to me the entire point of the legal structure was to raise private capital. It's a lot easier to cut a check when you might get up to 100x your principal versus just a tax write off. This culminated in the MS deal: lots of money and lots of hardware to train their models.

Honestly it seems like you didn't read the thread. He's not talking about how Twitter itself works but about problems in moderation more generally based on his experience at Reddit. Also, he specifically advocates public disclosure on ban justifications (though acknowledges it is a lot of work).

> That's just silly. China hasn't infiltrated HN.

This kind of assumption is naive (no offense) and reminds me of the denialism regarding Russian disinformation. You do not need to "infiltrate" the site with "agents". It's fairly easy to write a script checking the front page for mentions of China and manually checking the thread to possibly respond with a comment. Before dismissing concerns like this as conspiratorial or silly, you should do some research on the topic:

[1] https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf?m=146479...

[2] https://www.info-res.org/post/revealed-coordinated-attempt-t...

[3] https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/15/how-china-uses-western-i...

[4] https://www.state.gov/prc-efforts-to-manipulate-global-publi...

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/05/dozens-of-fake-news-websites...

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/28/china-m...

[7] https://www.lawfareblog.com/understanding-pro-china-propagan...

[8] https://mediamanipulation.org/case-studies/astroturfing-how-...

> the general implication here on HN is that China is the current Big Bad and everything they do is uniquely bad

The CCP is hostile to many Western values (e.g. free speech) and they are a primary geopolitical antagonist to the U.S. It's not unreasonable for a mostly U.S. user base to see the worst in CCP behavior or be biased against the CCP.

The authentic HN experience.

Yes it seems to be worded incorrectly.

Except that you literally said it wasn't surprising b/c gc sucks. You were "not surprised" in response to the assumption that they DIDN'T test the latest version. However this was just a mis-understanding and you're re-casting your comment to make it seem like you were right all along. If you knew they tested the latest version all along then you couldn't have been surprised or not surprised to something that didn't happen.

It seems like my comment was just an entry point for you to shit on gc which, ironically, I mostly agree with in this context.

Actually it turns out that they DID test the latest version which at the time was 1.10 (see my edit). I guess you should be surprised now? :D

It's still a huge whoosh. You're starting at 1.9 and you're testing 4 micro versions to 1.10.. what is the point of that? None of those non-major versions are going to significantly change how the GC works.

They could have tried 1 other version (not 4) and picked either the latest (1.13) or the version that contains the GC improvements (1.12) to test. Usually when you are looking to upgrade something you skim the release notes so testing 1.12 or 1.13 is obvious especially when 1.12 seems to specifically address their performance concern.

If upgrading something avoids a service re-write that is usually the way to go unless you were looking for an excuse to re-write the service in the first place which may have been the case.

edit:

It turns out they did exactly what my comment stated: they tested the latest version (1.10). It's just that this article was published recently but the events happened quite a while back.

It's surprising they didn't test upgrading to 1.13.

This was what motivated me to switch to Chrome several years ago.

I've had similar experiences. I had a recruiter set up a technical phone interview with the developer who never called. No brief email saying something like, "Hi, our developers thought your qualifications weren't a good fit for the position. Good luck on your job search." After emailing the recruiter she said she would talk to the developer and "look into it." I never received any further responses.

My favorite is when you apply somewhere and receive no response. Then several months later, you're contacted by a recruiter from the company at which point you've long past moved on with an offer from somewhere else.

To some extent, the pay scale is relative. SF is very, very expensive. You can earn far less in another city, yet enjoy a higher quality of life.

edit: to answer your question, I don't know. You might find this interesting though:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2763932

The link doesn't work (it is directed to HN).