throw646577

8 ms·

1.
by throw646577 2y ago
All of this I agree with.
2.
by throw646577 2y ago
Oh fuck off, I am not Matt and it should be obvious. > so why is it so unlikely that he could have potentially hired people to write code that he claimed under his moniker? Sure and he could have bought loads and loads of monkeys and giv
3.
by throw646577 2y ago
??? This is a fair bit of silliness now I'm afraid. Like him or loathe him (and he's making it so very easy to do the latter), Mullenweg was one of the only developers of WP for years back when it was starting. He wrote it part ti
4.
by throw646577 2y ago
IIRC yes.
5.
by throw646577 2y ago
Whatever the latest move is, it's clearly a dick move. He is in a bad place, if he wins anything it is going to be a pyrrhic victory, and he needs to stop. If he really does still have Neal Katyal working on whatever the merits of his
6.
by throw646577 2y ago
> Mullenweg is a cuckoo. He did not create Wordpress and yet has managed to closely associate the product with his own persona and ever since has spent most of his life wringing money out of Wordpress. This is quite inaccurate. Sure, WP
7.
by throw646577 2y ago
Like clockwork. The HN community's response to the Raspberry Pi is the most sustained example of tech industry gift-horse-examination I can think of. Here they are with a wide range of SBCs and microcontrollers at a wide range of price
8.
by throw646577 2y ago
Netscape didn't just try to "latch onto" the popularity of Java. Netscape _and_ Sun, together, called it JavaScript. The point was that the renamed language had rudimentary bindings that you could use to connect functionality
9.
by throw646577 2y ago
Everything old is new again.
10.
by throw646577 2y ago
Except they didn’t merge patches from RealThunder’s fork for TNP, for example. They used it as a guide and reference implementation and wrote a new implementation. In general they do not just merge his work; they have to rewrite it. RealThu
11.
by throw646577 2y ago
It’s also true of transfers (changes) on routine journeys in most of the world I would have thought. Because almost all services are regular. It is the arrival time at your destination you build time into, then you work backwards, right? IM
12.
by throw646577 2y ago
> if your train leaves at 0700 you can’t plan to get there at 06:59 Millions of train commuters in the UK optimise for just this sort of thing. Not one minute before, because the doors typically close 30s to a minute before departure, bu
13.
by throw646577 2y ago
This is indeed closest to Men's Shed, which is a fairly global phenomenon: https://menssheds.org.uk
14.
by throw646577 2y ago
> For this reason I think WFH is a massively more risky social experiment than most realize. It works for folks who were either already inclined to "go out and do things" or those who already had established social groups. We w
15.
by throw646577 2y ago
If you don't have "interests" that is in its way a separate question, and it is one that is worth addressing on its own. It is shockingly common, in the modern world, to have only a job and watching-TV-while-doomscrolling-exh
16.
by throw646577 2y ago
> The solutionism exhibited in discussions like this flies in the face of reality. The solution I identify in my comments does not fly in the face of reality, because it is how I went from being crushingly lonely and weird in my early 3
17.
by throw646577 2y ago
> But let's be honest, you normal people can smell when someone isn't part of their tribe, even with a good mask on. I am a long way from normal and it worked for me. People genuinely thought I was confident and outgoing simp
18.
by throw646577 2y ago
There are obviously some adults who have severe limitations on their ability to socialise and nobody is implying they are lazy. But a wider social scene I have been part of has people with evident learning difficulties, people with obviou
19.
by throw646577 2y ago
It's not a projection. I think it's a core truth you've discovered. You need to find a thing that is bigger than yourself to be a part of. And then show up and be willing to pitch in. Other adults who know that adult friendsh
20.
by throw646577 2y ago
It's not! You just need a shared interest or objective in as close to 'real life' as you can get it, and you need to dedicate time to it that you would otherwise give to TV and doom-scrolling. Gamers make real friends. Open s
21.
by throw646577 2y ago
Pure, refined “but humans also”.
22.
by throw646577 2y ago
> Taylor Swift had a rich daddy buy a record label for her. For everyone else, why bother? Taylor Swift (an insanely hard-working artist) started gigging when she was like 12 or 13, and her dad invested in (didn't buy) a startup rec
23.
by throw646577 2y ago
> I would bet that it would make zero difference in the amount of plays those tracks got. Well given that they are inserted into generated playlists and offered up as "similar" playlist suggestions instead of tracks by authenti
24.
by throw646577 2y ago
> I see you toned down the "defrauded" rhetoric to a much more ambiguous "yeah, it was against the spirit of the deal". I didn't, particularly. It's just another angle on it. I do think "defrauded"
25.
by throw646577 2y ago
> Does the contract say anywhere that Spotify would never provide their own generated music to users of their platform? > If the contract between artists and platform provides no such limitations, I fail to see how anyone is being def
26.
by throw646577 2y ago
1) It's clearly a problem to artists who have contracts with Spotify and are being defrauded at scale by a secret process to dilute the value of the platform they believe they are being distributed on. 2) > If generic slop Spo
27.
by throw646577 2y ago
But it's in the context of an alternative to a Spotify product, right? With millions of users. Exactly where the slop is generated, or by whom, is essentially irrelevant: at scale, slop is the only outcome from these tools. It always w
28.
by throw646577 2y ago
> This argument makes no sense to me. Musicians with small niche audience that rely on word of mourh and such are harmed in which way when Spotify adds slop to slop playlists? They are harmed because part of the intrinsic deal with Spoti
29.
by throw646577 2y ago
I'm not conflating anything. I am just answering the question of why slop can be the only outcome. On a Spotify-level scale, web-level scale, slop can be the only outcome.
30.
by throw646577 2y ago
Even if the AI produces a pearl, it is going to drown it in shit. Because it is an automated operation. No new AI content generation advance has so far escaped being used for the equivalent of SEO spamming, long-tail flooding the market to

More ›