Anonymous9823

Agreed, you can do web development on nearly any modern laptop. There are more important things to focus on, besides horse power.

1. Solid state drive. One of the few upgrades you'll notice day to day.

2. Portability, and screen size. After a handful of laptops, I've settled with a Samsung Series 9, 13.3", 2.8lbs. I'm constantly on the road, so it works perfect. If I'm home, I just HDMI the display to my 24" monitor and keep working.

3. Display. The Samsung I'm running uses PLS, similar to IPS, so it doesn't matter if you view it head on, or any angle, the colors and lightness remain accurate. This is incredibly important for any type of design work, and on my prior TN laptops, I'd be bending my screen forwards and back, trying to dial in subtle differences in color.

I don't understand the FPS debate. Do you know what's better for racing games?

http://i.imgur.com/HYOmoQl.jpg - Racing Wheel and Pedals

Flying games?

http://i.imgur.com/ejf4hPf.jpg - Joysticks

Fighting games?

http://i.imgur.com/2lrevkG.jpg - Arcade Sticks

There's one device that works best for every single game genre, and mouse and keyboard is that device for FPS games. Why do people expect one device to match the functionality of all of the above inputs. They're vastly different experiences, it's simply not going to happen. Controllers work great for action games, platformers, and overall, they're the best well rounded device. They're not designed to compete with the above controllers, they're a general input device, so they're not going to be as efficient as something built for a specific task.

If you're a hardcore FPS gamer, bring your mouse and keyboard into the living room, or play at your desk. This is no different than someone buying a wheel if they're into racing simulators.

I think Valve is achieving an even more well rounded device. By the sounds of things, it'll improve the FPS and RTS experience on a controller. It'll most likely make sacrifices to achieve that goal. For example, fighting games might work better on a more traditional controller. However, the Steam library has a much higher number of FPS and RTS games, so that trade off makes sense.

First born.

Keep in mind you can always just plug in a 360 controller, so if you have one of each, you can switch between the Steam and 360 controller depending on the game and your preference.

I'm glad they went a different route, it opens up more options for gamers and developers.

I was traveling on the metro in Korea late one night. There were maybe 20 people in the train car, and literally every single one was staring down at their smart phone. I had to laugh, there wasn't a single exception and not a word spoken, as new people got on, sat down, and pulled out their phone. This went on for 10 or 20 minutes, then finally someone made a noise. It was a women pointing to her screen to share something with a friend next to her. Then they both went back to their separate phones and the mobile train continued forward.

This was the first time I noticed everyone on their phone, and I felt like I was in the twilight zone. There would be groups of three or four friends sitting in a line, not speaking a single word. Eerie.

The hardware manufacturers will love having a chance to compete with consoles in the living room. It opens up an entirely new revenue stream for them. They'll be marketing this new hardware, and helping to push it into homes. For example, DELL running a marketing campaign, 'Faster than a Playstation 4, more games than an Xbox One, and half the price. Check out the new 2016 Dell Steam Machines.'

Agreed, there really needs to be some type of official controller. I'm assuming whatever input device they come up with be bundled with Valve's own Steamboxes, and available for purchase separately. Also, I wonder if there are agreements for other hardware manufacturers to bundle that same device.

This way, all games have a standard controller to develop towards. Everyone loves the Xbox controller, not only because it's a solid device, but because it's the standard controller for PC gaming. Most games are developed with it in mind, so it's typically plug and play. For this reason, I'm going to assume Valve launches a controller that has a similar configuration to the 360 controller, so all the previous games designed for the 360 controller are ready to go. However, it'll probably have some misc tweaks, like buttons to perform certain tasks within the Steam software, and perhaps a touchpad, pull out mini-keyboard or improved motion controls.

I'm not going to worry about people going to Radio Shack or Best Buy and randomly shopping for controllers. I think Valve has this under control, and we'll have THE controller, and third party controllers, similar to any other gaming console.

It's an operating system, there are not going to be exclusive launch titles. Unless of course, you think Valve is going to release HL3 only for Linux users, but that idea is absurd.

Agreed. I never remember following any tutorials, nearly everything I learned was because I needed to solve a problem.

Come up with anything you can do for fun. For example...

Always trying to decide what movie to watch with your girlfriend? Write a quick program that takes in a pasted list of movies you have available, and spits out a random one to watch. Then you realize, I don't want to watch any old movie, I want to watch a comedy. What if you created a database that contained a list of your movies and their related genres. Then you just click a genre, like comedy, and it returns a random one from the list? Then you start getting repeats, and that's no fun. What if it saved the date of the last time it was randomly generated, or what if you could mark movies as watched, so they don't repeat until you get through the entire list?

Dumb things like the above can be fun for learning. You start with something simple and get a functioning program within the hour. Then you start building on it, improving it, adding new features, etc.

I mentioned prices because that's just icing on the cake. Leave them out if you want.

1. I get more space, currently 2 bedrooms, a living room, and full kitchen, compared to a hotel that would offer a single room with just a bed.

2. Better experience in regards to culture. I feel like I'm in a home, that's decorated with local tastes, and not the same abstract painting behind the bed, and long counter with flat screen TV in nearly every single hotel room.

3. Get to meet people. Half of my stays, I end up going out for coffee or drinks with the host.

Price isn't my main concern, and if prices were equal, I'd still go for AirBnb. The reasons above are why that's my opinion.

Now, advantages of a hotel, because let's be honest, there are going to be some.

1. More reliable. I haven't had an issue in any of my stays, but you're more likely to be waiting to meet a host, then waiting at the check-in of a hotel. I've read AirBnb reviews where the person arrived, and host relocated them to a different apartment because the one they selected wasn't ready. You don't have to worry about hotels randomly changing addresses last minute.

2. Hotel rooms are basically sterile, and you know they're going to be extremely clean, sheets will obviously be fresh, etc. AirBnb, you're relying on the host. Homes and apartments typically have little quirks. Maybe a door doesn't close all the way, maybe a light is burnt out over the stove, etc. At one place, I found a container of half eaten sour cream sitting in the bathroom when I arrived. Obviously whoever cleaned the apartment just overlooked it somehow, so I tossed it in the trash and went on with my life. I know some people would freak out over these little details, and for them, a hotel room is preferred. I accept them, because I imagine myself as a guest in someone's home.

I've used AirBnb around the world (entire apartment, not shared), so let's look at the advantages you mentioned...

1. You typically get more space than a hotel, and a kitchen. Currently I'm living in an entire 2 story house in a city center that I rented off AirBnb. It was a third of the cost of a cheap hotel room for a short term stay. Remember, you can negotiate prices on AirBnb, I've never paid full price, and typically get 20 - 70% off depending on the length of stay.

2. Personal touch. A lot of the places I've rented were in a family owned home, with separate apartments. On a number of occasions the host has taken time to pick me up and drop me off at the train station, for free. They've also taken time to go out for drinks, or just to walk around their city for an hour or two. When you're traveling to a new city, having a local family that's lived in that location for the past 20 years show you around, is a unique experience, and one you don't get with hotels. I've also had hosts leave me gifts, souvenirs, free wine in the fridge, plates of food on the counter, etc.

3. You feel like a local. Hotel rooms are extremely generic, and you feel disconnected from the city. Staying in an apartment or home, you get a better experience for the culture.

4. Free internet, not nearly as common in hotels.

Anyway, most of his concerns can be avoided by reading the reviews for the host. Also, send the host a few messages back and forth to see how reliable they are, and how quickly they respond. I've spent half the year living in all sorts of AirBnb apartments, and don't plan to consider hotels again anytime soon.

Going viral is simple. You send X people to your site, and they on average send at least X+1.

For example, you link to your site on HN, and receive 100 visitors day one. It's a great service, and those 100 people share it with enough people to receive another 150 visitors the next day. Your new visitor traffic per day goes...

1. 100

2. 150

3. 225

4. 338

5. 506

6. 759

7. 1,139

8. 1,708

9. 2,563

10. 3,844

...

20. 221,683

Within a few weeks you're receiving a quarter million new visitors a day.

Now, if HN sends 100 visitors day one, and those users generate 80 new visitors day two, you get...

1. 100

2. 80

3. 64

4. 51

5. 41

6. 33

...

20. 1

Now you end up with only one visitor after three weeks.

In one case you're at the top of the world with the next big hit, and the other you have absolutely no traffic.

You see situation number two happen all the time. You get a spike of traffic and it fades away over the following week. As you can see above though, the difference in a spike of traffic fading away, or going through the roof isn't that large. We're not talking about one site being awful and the other being the best thing since sliced bread. We're talking about 100 people referring 80 people and 100 people referring 150 people. Not a huge difference in interest, but the traffic results can be staggering.