librish

There's a difference between attacking an experience share and attacking an attack.

This level of generalization is naive.

This is the type of cynicism the post is talking about and it's just trivially untrue.

It's like saying that employees only want one thing: to get their paycheck.

There are huge variations within a country, but they are far smaller than variations between countries.

That's not true. To use the examples in the thread, a patient American kid will be much more patient than an impatient Japanese kid.

There are some funny comments in the code:

  function mousePressed() {
    // This is the worst if statement in the history of if statements
    if (!refining && !mde && !completed && !shared) {
      ...
    }
  }

While it might be better for your job security to keep your own field hiring locally, it could be better for your life if all other fields hire the best regardless of nationality.

Carry-on might get gate-checked if you're unlucky.

I'm surprised that this common enough that it's worthwhile for airlines to fight it. It requires both:

- Flight being meaningfully cheaper using hidden city

and

- Traveller is willing to deal with the restrictions (no carry-on, risk of route changing, no frequent flyer etc).

This seems weird. If not having personalized ads is such a fundamental piece of the EU web experience, why is it even allowed in the first place?

Payment options:

Paid only - allowed Paid OR Personalized Ads - not allowed Paid OR Personalized Ads OR Non-Personalized Ads - allowed

My guess would be that it has to do with the amounts involved. In a typical series A/B only the founders have enough equity (they have larger share, plus they've been at the company the longest so they've vested the most) to be worth the transaction cost of a secondary sale.

Whenever you see discussions about longevity online there are a lot of people who come off as either die-hard enthusiasts or self-proclaimed gurus. They'll sink a lot of time, money, and effort into the field.

Frequently though, whenever you see their profile picture, they are not fit. Why is that? Many of them clearly have the means, intelligence, and interest to know that a fit body is a great predictor of longevity and a good healthspan. Is it failure to execute on what they know they should do? Is there competing information steering them along a different path?

I think the intellectually honest counterpoint is more about relationships. As someone who has been a digital nomad, it's hard to form deeper relationships when people are always leaving.

It's also hard to have hobbies that rely on the same group of people meeting in person over a long period of time.

2.3% to support so little economic activity is just insane.

This is the type of tragedy of the commons issue where regulation is needed. For any one actor they can justify spending infinity energy as long as their ROI is positive.

There are enough justifications out there that it's easy to convince oneself that you're doing the world a favor ("I'm just librating finance and fighting the good fight against the central bankers").

Before the new fees I was only using these services when I had a 50% off coupon. After the new fees it just doesn't make sense outside of being sick or a last minute group event.

It's looking like a gig economy that provides guaranteed solid minimum wages is a lot smaller than what we've had so far. It might be a good thing, though it does feel weird to forcibly be telling people "no, you're not allowed to work like that" when the work is so low commitment.

Important to note -

"New business terms available for apps in the EU — to reflect the DMA’s requirements for alternative distribution and payment processing, Apple is also sharing new business terms for apps in the EU. Developers have a choice to remain on Apple’s existing terms or adopt new terms that reflect the new capabilities."

So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved.

Do you have any source for this? It does not match my experience at all.

It feels like you're trying to win on semantics here.

Right now you as a developer pay $X for access to their eco system, and on top of that you pay 15/30% of whatever payments they process for you.

You can say "well actually, that 30% isn't all for the payment processing" but I don't why it matters what Apple's intention behind the payment is.

Right now the only time they take a cut is when they do payment processing. Uber, for example, pays Apple nothing.

That is currently the only thing they're charging for. Like I said, let them unbundle if they want to. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually end up just taking a revenue hit to keep the ecosystem healthy, which would mean more money for developers.

Wouldn't Stripe be significantly cheaper?

I'm making the opposite of a philosophical argument, I'm making a practical one. Apple is not going to take away the App Store, or make it too difficult for developers to upload apps, since that would be a real threat to their iPhone business.

Developers need Apple, but Apple needs developers too. Currently their market domination makes it an extremely hard collective action problem for developers. Not being on the App Store means losing out on the majority of your revenue, which makes it tough for enough developers to band together against Apple.

Then force them to unbundle those fees if they want to collect them. It just doesn't make any sense that some developers have to pay up to 30% of their iOS revenue while others (including huge corporations like Uber, Starbucks, Target etc) pay nothing.

I'm surprised that so many developers are siding with Apple in this regard. If other stores and payment options were allowed I genuinely believe that:

- Apple's own fees would be reduced relatively quickly

- Technological savvy users will be able to discern which external sites are safe and get even lower prices when available

- Very few companies will be able to afford not being on the App Store (especially if Apple lowers their fees further)

- Apple will still make it hard _enough_ to use secondary stores that grandmas will not end up with iPads full of malware

It's insanely smart to reward business travelers personally based on how much their company spends. A lot of people working for big companies are completely price insensitive, and might in fact choose a worse and more expensive flight if it means they get to accrue more miles.

An interesting difference here is that part of the reason McDonalds is so popular is because it's cheap.

Writing pop fiction or making Marvel movies isn't cheaper than the "artful" variants (in fact for superhero movies it's much more expensive), and consuming isn't cheaper either, so there's more at play here.

Comparing Umberto Eco and Dan Brown is wild to me. They write completely different books, with completely different pacing, for completely different audiences.

This is a great path, but I think it's easy to overestimate how many people are able to take it happily.

It's making a lot of assumptions:

- You have a good relationship with your family

- You have good friends who also didn't move away

- You are genuinely happy with the work you get to do in a town with more limited career choices

- Your location (area and population density) plus salary can support your hobbies

My strong recommendation is to find an activity you genuinely enjoy. From personal experience if I go to a meet-up with the mindset that I'm only there to make friends I won't have any fun, I won't go back enough time that there's a chance that I'll actually form a connection.

The third one is different, and is allowed by Netflix.

I've seen that tweet before and I think it's a bit ridiculous to take a cheeky line from a marketing person to represent a perpetual promise by the company.

I feel like the moral outrage over this is a little overblown. Reading the terms it seems clear that Netflix is targeting people who are blatantly account sharing. It makes sense to worry that this will inconvenience people who have non-typical lifestyles though.

Similarly, saying this is a bad business move seems without any evidence seems rash. I don't think anyone at Netflix particularly _wants_ to implement this so my guess is that they have some pretty compelling evidence for why this makes sense.

Anecdotally, most people I know are sharing the majority of streaming accounts with multiple people.