tene80i
tene80i on Hacker News
But that’s exactly the point. A passport (assuming it’s a British passport) proves you have the right to work in the U.K. The commenter above is claiming all you need or ever needed is an address and a driving licence, and that’s nonsense.
Partly true, but rudeness is the fault of the employee.
Sure, but if someone’s being an asshole they don’t always respond well to being confronted. If they were a calm and reasonable sort they wouldn’t be behaving like that in the first place.
What do you mean? Any major employer in the UK will need more than that for you to work there.
When your entire intellectual model is based on famous quotes, you eventually run out of ideas.
But besides, it’s not about a unique economic malaise. The USA has plenty of affordability problems too. The French, and in particular their students, are just very good at direct political action.
Antisemitism is not welcome on this platform.
I would be more concerned with playing video games half the day than whether the PMs are slowing you down by figuring out the requirements
It’s a perfectly clear argument. If you disagree, explain why. Ranting about it being nonsense is tedious.
Proofs are valuable but I believe the mathematical community values understanding more. Proofs were previously a great way to develop understanding. Now, less so.
Assume it’s not obvious and offer an interesting contribution, such as an alternative.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility that the author genuinely believes this.
Don’t try to shout people down. If you think someone is wrong, go read DHH’s writings on race and come back and defend them.
It’s not behind your back. It’s what being in the EEA means.
"Pipe down" is disgraceful language. Conduct yourself better.
But that’s not more philosophical. It’s a perfect parallel! Enormous amounts of work, vacuumed up and resold. What’s the difference? If it’s ok to vacuum up all the knowledge in the world, then that includes knowledge of how to use all that to power an LLM.
Yeah it’s rough not to be able to get whatever you want without paying anyone or experiencing any downsides
Without consequences? Where?
[Edit:] Oh you’re quite right. In the USA that’s legal sometimes. Where I live that would be seen - reasonably enough to us - as a call to violence.
Speech is already not entirely free and it works fine. You can’t scream “murder all the X” in a theatre. It doesn’t break the concept of freedom to have regulations, and assuming nothing can be regulated just leads to governance by corporation.
That was something of a public speaking trick, though. “How many of you are STILL doing X” is never likely to get many people to put up their hands. The speaker is framing it as stupid and backward.
“Europe was better when it was more white”, more or less
Why is it strange? Millions of people use banking apps daily to make transactions essential to their lives and businesses.
You seem to be trying to argue “this is actually fine” but what you’re actually saying is “I do not care what the family want, I will continue to enjoy the thing they hate”.
So… ok? You can go and knock over headstones in graveyards too. So what? It doesn’t prove anything except you’re a jackass.
If what you mean is “She is wrong to ask for this, our entertainment is more important than her grief”, then, well, I guess that’s an argument you can make, but you haven’t actually made the argument.
What do you think US bureaucrats do other than regulate? The federal government drives people crazy. Have you ever tried to file taxes in the USA? It’s so complex you end up having to pay for the privilege.
The innovation gap is real but it’s not just to do with regulation. It’s a lot to do with concentrated capital networks (eg Silicon Valley). And sure, the tech giants are in the USA but it’s not like there’s no innovation in the EU. Spotify in Sweden. Challenger banks in the U.K. (included as Monzo predates Brexit). And plenty of innovation - they just get bought by US companies. Which is a financial market weakness, not a regulatory one.
The staggering lengths to which some people will go to avoid actually creating or enjoying human art, even the very most average of which is better than this.
This is, with respect, a naive and ideological take.
Imagine you create a highly niche board game. Or a new kind of fabric scissor. Or you are a new bike shop, just opened up on the edge of town.
Let’s assume what you’re providing is great. It’s not enough. You need to find customers. You can’t just rely on everyone doing methodical research. People are busy and you’re not well known yet anyway, so how are they supposed to find out about you?
Ads can obviously be deceptive and a vehicle for getting junk goods to market. But it’s silly to just insist that’s all they are. Sometimes they connect customers and companies in mutually beneficial ways. If you don’t like them, fine! But don’t insist nobody benefits at all.
You're both right. Some people hate ads. Some people find ads (usually well-targeted ads) helpful for discovering new things that could help them. Different people find different things helpful / intolerable.
Right, you’re just getting lost in the statistics. Overall revenue is a function of revenue per user and number of users. They could go after you by reducing the ads, but they would also be reducing the revenue per user, and they might not gain enough additional people for it to be worth it.
That is a strong selling point! I didn't see it front and center. Maybe I'm not the target market, or maybe the contrast could be highlighted more.
However, beware the strategy of undercutting your competitors, unless you have some way to ramp up the value later. There's a reason they go for subscriptions. Good luck with it!
You're experiencing market segmentation. You won't pay $8.99 a month, so you don't get an ad-free product like the people who will pay. The service would rather get less than $8.99 from you than nothing, so you get ads.