I just wish Apple would add more streets. London is the closest place with Apple “street view” to me and there are literally a couple of cities (!!!) between me and London. So I don’t hold any hope that Apple will ever get round to coming to my small village if there are entire cities they’ve left out.
No, you can't. Google Earth VR is indeed awesome (I am biased because I was involved in its creation), however there is no seamless integration between Street View and satellite view, and no free camera motion or even stereo rendering support for Street View in Google Earth VR. Google Earth VR was essentially abandoned and hasn't been updated at all since 2018, as can be seen in its Steam listing. This is due to the sad failure of the Daydream team.
Finally there is a glimmer of hope now that Android XR is happening. There is a new version of Google Maps for Android XR that does finally have a 3D reconstruction feature for Street View, but only for building interiors. Hopefully it won't be abandoned this time!
> Dropbox: I think competitors can duplicate Dropbox’s nice front end
That’s exactly what happened.
> Bitcoin: “Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.”
This is still true even now
> DDG: “I can’t ever see anyone saying ‘just duckduckgo it.’ The name just sounds silly. It makes me think it’s a search engine for toddlers.”
And I still think the name holds them back. I say to my friends “I googled…” or “I searched…” because DDG sounds ridiculous.
> DDG: “How many people would go to Google and search for ‘new search engine’? DuckDuckGo is not even in the top 10 pages.”
This is completely legitimate feedback. Not a criticism.
> Uber: Two months after this thread, Uber received an actual cease-and-desist from San Francisco — seemingly validating every skeptic. Travis Kalanick’s response was to ignore it and expand to five more cities.
So they’ve literally said that the comments were correct here and still published it anyway.
> AirBnB: “All my experiences with it as a user have been too unreliable to expect that it can scale to truly massive usability. I just don’t see it swallowing up the whole hotel industry.”
Which is completely correct.
> Stripe: “I really don’t get or see how Stripe is different? Why would I use it instead of PayPal, 2CheckOut, e-junkie, etc?”
That’s a question, and a valid one at that.
I gave up reading after that because of the obnoxious hijacking’s of the scrolling on mobile.
Yeah, I find the "we showed those idiots!" attitude kinda dumb when a lot of these concerns are completely real and valid. Like all of the comments about Tailwind are just "hey this is not a great way to do things"; it becoming popular doesn't disprove that. And for Warp, "No one should use a for-profit terminal emulator, especially one created by a VC-backed startup, full stop." -- I still agree with this!
Also the claims they make about the success of some of these technologies are very dubious. TypeScript is definitely not used by 80% of JavaScript developers, not even close. I know your average WordPress or Drupal developer is not using a compiled language. Perhaps it is used by 80% of GitHub repositories, but there is a lot of code that is not posted to GitHub.
And P.S. the scroll hijacking is no less annoying on desktop.
> No one should use a for-profit terminal emulator, especially one created by a VC-backed startup, full stop.
I use Warp. I like it - notifications for failed processes, terminal pages so you can easily navigate between input+output pairs, and yes sometimes I'll use the AI rather than remember the syntax for every command.
But just make it commercial open source, let me pay 20 bucks a year for a build. I think the company deserve to profit from their work (I'm not sure why people think that profit is bad) but I'm not going to use it as my editor.
I would be willing to bet money they used AI to scrape and curate the comments. The justifications have that feeling of knowledge the sentiment is negative coupled with a lack of understanding about its accuracy.
Back before Google was huge, no-one used any of the other popular search engine names as a synonym for 'searched the world wide web'. We didn't say "I Yahoo!'d for recipes", or "I Excited the latest film releases". We can go back.
The point isn’t that we can’t use generic adverbs. It’s that DDG’s name makes it unrealistic to use their brand as an adverb, which loses them more exposure.
As I’ve said twice already now: DDG is a shitty name for those of us might want to use the company name as a verb.
My comment is no more profound than that.
I’m not making any comment about social norms. And nor am I saying it’s impossible to describe searching for content online without “verbing” the company name.
I’m just saying DDG is hard to use as a verb.
Edit: I did say “adverb” in my previous comment. Obviously I meant “verb”. My painkillers hadn’t kicked in yet so excuse the faux pas there.
In my experience, I've introduced DGG* to some colleagues and friends and later on, the feedback received was "I now use DGG". Not everything needs to be a jingle I suppose..
https://dgg.gg for those who prefer it better than ddg :)
> In my experience, I've introduced DGG* to some colleagues and friends and later on, the feedback received was "I now use DGG"
I use DDG too, but that’s not the point of the original comment.
> Not everything needs to be a jingle I suppose..
While true, what’s also true is that jingles exist precisely because they are effective messaging. And DDG is missing out on that. Hence the comments about verbing.
So I guess the lesson is that ideas can turn into successful, profitable businesses even if there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of those ideas?
Or maybe it is that HN tends to correctly point out flaws in ideas, but maybe doesn’t also point out the good points of ideas, which can give readers an incorrect impression that those projects can’t succeed?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but as for me, I would be very happy with myself if I had founded Dropbox, even if it isn’t a flawless business.
It’s also pretty common for VPNs to have exit nodes physically located in different counties to where they report those IPs (to GeoIP databases) as having originated from.
I’m not suggesting things are as bad as a full on insurrection. But it’s not a great leap of imagination to compare the two either.
> He declared martial law
Trump has sent federal troops into states that voted against him.
He’s also frequently talked about “the enemy from within” to describe American citizens.
And then there’s ICE…
> suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting
Trump has shut down the government twice already.
The press just like to blame Democrats despite the fact that it’s the Republicans who are refusing to negotiate.
> ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds,
To be fair, Trump hasn’t gone that far (yet). But he has fired lots of people from government roles that should have been non-partisan and filled them with his own loyal supporters. Even when those people are clearly not qualified to be doing their new found appointments.
He’s also freed lots of criminals because they either supported him, or paid him.
> issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication
Trump has been removing press from the White House and replacing them with publications that support him.
> ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut
Trump hasn’t done that either. But he has sent the FCC to shutdown shows he dislikes. And sued the others into compliance.
The overreach of executive powers is very concerning, but those are more long term attempts to influence the public and policy makers through shady tactics.
The insurrection everyone is referring to is definitely Jan 6th, which it is laughable to compare to an actual insurrection attempt. A few thousand unarmed people waving signs and wearing costumes break into government buildings and take selfies? What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
I think the thing that puts J6 in the "definitely an insurrection attempt" category is the fact that it happened while Congress was exercising its duty to formalize the electoral college vote. We don't have to reach for statistics about how many were armed or wearing costumes (a fact that seems immaterial in any case); the question is sufficiently answered by what they were attempting to stop.
It was explicitly an attempt to influence Pence or congress to not certify the election results, attempting to allow Trump to use his fake electors to change the results in his favor.
It was a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election. What are you not understanding about this?
In 2016 there was an organized, and partially successful, effort to get 37 electoral voters to change their electoral vote to somebody other than whom they were pledged to vote - Trump. It was intended to change the result of the election by forcing a "contingent election", in which the House of Representatives would determine the President, owing to the esoteric nuances of US electoral law.
Would you consider this an insurrection? In your terms it was "a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election."
Calling it partially successful when Clinton lost more electoral votes to faithless electors than Trump did and it had zero impact on the outcome of the election is interesting.
But no, because electors deciding how they cast their votes is a matter of state legislation, not federal, and it is a wildly different thing than the candidate himself trying to install fake electors.
The faithless electors were chosen as part of the political process, and the founders expressly stated that the electors having the freedom to cast their vote was part of the safeguard against mob rule by an uninformed electorate. Hamilton, for example, wrote extensively of this in the federalist papers. This is explicitly one of the reasons why we have the electoral college at all, instead of a popular vote. If anything, I wish they had had the foresight to codify it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so that states could not prevent it from happening. They wrote extensively of what they wanted the EC to be but did not do enough to make reality match their expectations in a durable manner.
Meanwhile Trump explicitly worked to install a group of illegally selected electors while riling up a mob to attempt to put a halt to the certification.
Trying to compare electors casting their vote based on how the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as working to a sitting president being involved in a coordinated effort to create and install fake electors, cause the certification of the election to fail by inciting a mob to storm the capitol, and oh, telling Georgia to "find me the votes" is absurd.
It doesn't matter the margin by which Clinton lost. The point of trying to turn the electors is that the US constitution requires a candidate receive a majority of electoral votes. If nobody does, then the House of Representatives gets to determine who becomes President. And they came far closer to overturning the election than some guys rioting around the Capitol did, since there was a viable path towards the goal.
Your perception of the electoral college is somewhat biased. The college itself serves a practical purpose - elections in the US are extremely decentralized by design. States can do pretty much whatever they want, only later constrained by various constitutional amendments. So when a state A gives you a number, that number does not necessarily mean the same thing as when state B does the same. The electoral college normalizes election results by requiring each state to convert their numbers into a common format. And instead of relying on the Federal government trying to deal with millions of votes, it's only 538.
Similarly, the scheme in support of Trump was not only not illegal, but even anticipated by the electoral count act which made it such that if the House/Senate disagreed with votes included or excluded by the Vice President, then they were free to overrule it by a simple majority vote. The VP's role was then later changed to a purely ceremonial one in a new law passed in 2022, largely to prevent this angle in the future.
And you're still trying to compare mechanisms that exist within the system and are codified with someone attempting to operate entirely outside of it. And no, they weren't far closer at achieving their goal - they didn't get anywhere near the number of required faithless electors and were never going to get anywhere near the required number of faithless electors. Meanwhile, attempting to delay or totally obstruct the certification allowed for several pathways that Trump and his team viewed as potentially viable. Hell, just convincing Raffensperger to do what Trump wanted him to do would have also gotten him most of the way there.
And yes, obviously part of the point of the EC is dealing with a smaller number of votes instead of every vote. None of that is a counterargument to what I said. Again, the founding fathers literally wrote about how faithless electors were a feature and not a bug in their eyes. There's a reason they had the 'Hamilton Electors' moniker.
What would you say is somebody operating entirely outside the system? When the system specifically included text for dealing with a controversy on how the VP counts the votes, it's rather literally within the system. And that was their big Hail Mary. Trump probably envisioned the Capitol being surrounded by thousands of protesters just chanting or whatnot to encourage Pence to do it.
He certainly would have foreseen at least some shenanigans, but that was probably unavoidable. And the protestors and rioters could have been trivially dispersed at any moment by the Capitol Police which not only has a force of thousands, but even has heavy equipment and gear enabling them to respond to even extreme things like an aerial attack on the Capitol. Instead they deployed a tiny fraction of their force with minimal equipment, and just watched things unfold, all while Twitter actively censored Trump saying things like:
- "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!"
- "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
As for the Electoral College, I am saying that you're taking a fringe view that was indeed genuinely held, but then inappropriately broadly applying it. Hamilton absolutely had a streak of authoritarian elitism in him. And so speaking of the Founding Fathers as a whole, on an issue like this, is not reasonable. Hamilton was highly divisive, and managed to push away just everybody - even those also more in favor of a Federalist system.
So if someone emailed Pence and said they would stab him if he certified the election would that be an insurrection? They are attempting to influence him to change the result of the election.
Surely the level of organization and possibility of success need to be taken into consideration? Otherwise every moron with a social media account or a sign could be guilty of insurrection.
Congresspeople either intimidated or emboldened into rejecting some or all of the state electors to annul the actual electoral result and declare Trump the 46th president. We know this was the outcome Donald Trump's wanted because he said so several times.
I assume the individuals that brought zip ties had more specific plans for the elected officials they didn't approve of.
It wasn't a well-planned insurrection but neither was Yong Suk Yeol's
Wearing costumes establishes costumes and illustrates the joviality of at least a portion of the attendees of the event. It would be odd to say that it is immaterial that you went to a concert or a restaurant or any place really, and lots of people were dressed as Vikings, or as SWAT, etc.
Multiple protestors had weapons and the militias had weapons parked just across the border. There also would have been no reason to pardon anyone if no crimes were being committed. But you already know this
Killing legislators or physically threatening them into overturning the results. But siccing the mob was just a last-ditch move.
The main plan was sending fake electors with fraudulent certifications and counting on Pence to derail the formal vote count and accept the false slate through a fog of procedural confusion. The fact that Pence refused to go along with the plan and Trump resorted to physically threatening him and Congress doesn't change the fact that their plan was an illegal and fraudulent interference with the verification of the election based on knowingly false claims.
According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a plan by Trump to overturn the election.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
The Civil War wasn't really a coup because the South wasn't trying to take over Washington D.C. or run the Federal government. A coup is usually a quick, behind the scenes power grab by a small group of people trying to unseat a leader. What happened in the 1860s was the exact opposite: it was a massive, public breakup where entire states voted to leave.
I’ve been bashing my head against the wall with AI this week because they’ve utterly failed to even get close to solving my novel problems.
And that’s when it dawned on me just how much of AI hype has been around boring, seen-many-times-before, technologies.
This, for me, has been the biggest real problem with AI. It’s become so easy to churn out run-of-the-mill software that I just cannot filter any signal from all the noise of generic side-projects that clearly won’t be around in 6 months time.
Our attention is finite. Yet everyone seems to think their dull project is uniquely more interesting than the next persons dull project. Even though those authors spent next to zero effort themselves in creating it.
After thinking about it a bit more, I think the specific details of that (i.e. inventing an extended colour mode) are not ideal.
One alternative: Assign semantics to colour indexes above 256.
Both of those have the disadvantage that they separate foreground and background colour, but a user really wants a combined semantic presentation. For instance, a user might want a warning message to be black text on a yellow background, and not have to rely on the program remembering to set both foreground and background to ‘warning’ colour.
So another possibility is just to invent new SGR numbers, e.g.
Control Purpose
------------ -------
CSI 2 0 0 m normal (undoes any CSI 1 x x m)
CSI 2 0 1 m emphasise
CSI 2 0 2 m de-emphasise
CSI 2 0 3 m error
CSI 2 0 4 m warning
CSI 2 0 5 m caution
CSI 2 0 6 m notice
⋮
Then the user can configure those as they please with any combination of foreground, background, weight, slant, etc.
I'm now thinking about writing up pros and cons of alternatives.
Wages simply go to the industries that make the most money. There’s nothing more insightful than that.
reply