Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more kingaillas's comments login

I'm the same as far as Netflix, they have enough "good enough" shows for me to keep them around. I figure if I average ~2-3 hours a week it is still worth it.

Yes some of their new shows are... not to my liking (hey, maybe somebody out there really loves Warrior Nun but I stopped after a few episodes) but several are (Shadow and Bone, Witcher, Umbrella Academy, Ozarks, Cobra Kai, Lupin) I'm looking forward to future seasons, or finishing the series (in the case of Ozarks).

HBO Max might fall into the season-subscription category for me, where I take it 3-6 months a year. And maybe Disney+ too except I've got a large backlog there.

Anyway, the behavior change for me is to watch a show sooner rather than later. I was working my way through Brooklyn Nine-Nine on Hulu and reached season 6, taking a break for a few weeks, to return and discover the remained of the episodes are tied to a live TV subscription. Not sure if some license deal expired in time I took a break after season 5, or if it was always like that (however, I don't think so).


Everybody is suspicious of Microsoft's motives but I think in this, you gotta consider how many windows systems are out there used by security novices.

Lots of people are computer savvy but want to use a computer to do something else not under the umbrella of hobbyist sysadmin work.

I don't see the downside here, again, considering the multi-millions average users Windows/Edge has. If you are savvy enough to roll your own VPN using algo from Trail of Bits, then do that. If you are able to weigh the pros and cons of VPNs from having one or not, or which one to use, you are ahead of 99.99% of the people this will help.


Microsoft shutdown stores, resulting in loss of purchases for customers. I lost a few ebooks when they shut down their ebook store, their Zune Marketplace and Play For Sure was a confusing fiasco with the final result of authorizing purchases for one final resting place before the DRM servers were killed.

So they don't exactly have a spotless record.


Another vote for Endeavour.

I already run Ubuntu on my NUC, and when I was looking around to install on my former gamebox (i.e. computer with a graphics card unlike NUC with onboard graphics only) I wanted something with good steam/nvidia integration. It came down to either Pop! OS or Endeavor... because while I develop software I also want to play games without futzing around too much.

Very happy with Endeavour: pacman or yay for nearly everything, no hassle graphics drivers updates (system always suggests a reboot after and I always do that).


But what to do or how to fix it?

All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the free market, except in this case where corporate America sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit margins today.

Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.


>So what's Google to even do?

If they were serious about Stadia, Google should have worked to provide experiences only Stadia could allow. That was one tagline of SG&E before it was canned a mere 18 months in - clear failure on Google's part because you can't develop a game that fast.

As for what could have gone differently - cut deals with smart TV manufacturers to include the Stadia app on the TV, making it easy for millions to try it out.

Instead, the Stadia app wasn't even on the Chromecast initially. (OK, memory vague here but I remember having to fiddle around and after upgrading from the Chromecast that came with the Cyberpunk 2077 bundle to Google TV with Chromecast or whatever they were calling it, it was still a while before the Stadia app was there or left beta).

I also thought Google should have done a sports game tie-in, or perhaps F1 racing, to essentially let viewers replay something they just watched. Kind of a live replay, where YOU control the offense/defense/car. Say you're watching a soccer match and team X scores. During a break, advertise Stadia's version of FIFA, click a button and replay the scoring play where you control one of the teams. Can you also score, or can you defend??

Yes this would be complicated licensing and software between TV ads, game maker, license holders, etc. but it would have showcased an advantage Stadia had over traditional consoles/pc gamers - immediacy, play right on your TV in response to something you just watched. Brady just score a touchdown - can you do it to, or play defense and stop it (pick up Stadia controller, click some buttons or whatever and get dropped into that scenario, ready to play)??

I think this would have had insane appeal among sports fans, building excitement, etc. But no, Stadia just crapped itself and cancelled their in-house studio and basically tread water for the rest of the time.


>Those breakthroughs you mention, you think they wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for the military?

I don't think we'd have GPS (for example) without the military, among other things like nuclear energy/weapons and so on.

Do you seriously think a corporation would have invested the money creating everything needed from the ground up, including ongoing maintenance of a satellite constellation, to let people fix their location on the earth? Where's the profit/ROI in that?


> I don't think we'd have GPS (for example) without the military, among other things like nuclear energy/weapons and so on.

I think you are wrong. Nations that don’t have a military (e.g. Iceland and Costa Rica) still build entire systems of lighthouses, they chart the seas, they map their mountains etc. Countries spend a lot of money into civilian infrastructure. The ROI is in enriching local industry. A GPS system is no bigger ask for civilians then e.g. a railway network. In both cases the ROI is huge for local industry.

As for nuclear energy. A lot of the scientist working on the bomb later became a huge proponents of non-proliferation (J. R. Oppenheimer being a prominent example). I think it is safe to say that the same scientists would have been even happier to work on the technology even if the motive was entirely peaceful.


>My car for example has four tires each at a pressure of 32 PSI.

The air pressure of your car/bike tires doesn't matter - all tires could be flat. Try comparing (vehicle weight + your weight) / (vehicle contact surface area) where vehicle is either your car or your bike.


For tires that support the vehicle via air pressure in the tires, contact area is roughly weight supported by tire / air pressure in tire [1].

[1] http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2013.web.dir/connor_matt...


When the tire is flat it is being supported by the sidewalls and by the wheel.

And if you notice the contact patch of a flat tire is much larger.

The ground pressure of any vehicle is almost exactly equal to the psi. With the exception of force carried by the sidewalls.


>The trend over the last 50 years is clearly away from car dependence.

Uh... no. The few streetcars and bike trails built are drowned out by the massive growth in suburbs and people living even further away from city centers (or these stadiums).

Your trend comparison is leaving out the majority of the picture.


>And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?” Republicans won a majority of the Congressional popular vote in 2016. They got a million and a half more votes than Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re.... They’re on pace to do it again this year.

You left out the Senate, the other house of Congress, which Democrats won by 10 million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_elec... using your comparison metric.

This coupled with Presidential votes, even though technically only the electoral college counts, makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.


> makes it quite fair to imply it is the Republicans that represent less than a plurality of voters.

Clearly that's not true, since Republicans are currently two points ahead of Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

The House popular vote more accurately reflects nationwide sentiment because both parties have an incentive to campaign in every state. Indeed, the leaders of both parties in the House are from California.

But both parties lack an incentive to try and win statewide "winner take all" contests in opposite-color states. Cross-referencing those results against polling suggests that this effect hurts the GOP, with their geographically more spread out base, slightly more than it hurts Democrats.


> Clearly that's not true, since Republicans are currently two points ahead of Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.

Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error. Filter down to just the polls rated A+ and you only get an half point advantage for Republicans. Change the filter to the polls rated B+ and above and you get a full point advantage for Democrats. Also, consider the changes over time. How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?


> Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong.

The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.

> Second, the 538 poll aggregation has massive margin for error.

And in the last several cycles, polling error has undercounted conservatives.

> How confident are you that a 5% swing from Democrats to Republicans over the past year represents an actual ideological change mapping directly to abortion ideology?

I didn't say any of that, and I don't think that's true. My point is refuting this idea that Republicans are some sort of minority party. We're a closely divided country, as demonstrated by the fact that the GOP has won an absolute larger number of votes in more than half of House elections since 1992, and regularly pulls ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot.


> > Rayiner. Dude. First, using the word 'plurality' the way you introduced it is confusing at best, and possibly just wrong. > The polls literally show Republicans with a plurality in the generic ballot.

I missed that the first comment you responded to was the one that suggested the Republicans didn't have a plurality. Thought you brought up a question of who has less than a plurality when both Republicans and Democrats clearly have at least a plurality.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: