mattboardman

A startup made for the purpose of acquisition was never a competitor

You cannot get acquired unless you represent a percentage of market share, have IP which will lead to greater market share, and/or have employees who can expand market share for a product.

A big whale company that gobbles up some of the fifty startups that only have like 2% of the market total is not a competitive market at all.

A big whale company performing that many M&As to little startups is essentially fueling future competitors. If I was an investor I would see that market as valuable for the unicorn breakthrough possibility or at least an eventual acquisition exit event.

Arguing good or bad on a single data point is reductive. I'm raising awareness that there is a counter argument for assuming excessive M&As is "bad."

Devil's advocate: more acquisitions creates more incentive to launch a start-up. More startups create more competition.

My biggest complaint with gRPC is proto3 making all nested type fields optional while making primitives always present with default values. gRPC is contract based so it makes no sense to me that you can't require a field. This is especially painful from an ergonomics viewpoint. You have to null check every field with a non primitive type.

Google Chrome proposed hardware attestation. I actually thought it was a pretty good idea but there were some privacy risks so it ended up DOA.

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

I just built a rig with new, top of the line, hardware and installed fedora on it without an issue. What components are you talking about specifically?

Usually your main function can't be used by any other part of your program. You should move all component implementations to modules so they can be re-used elsewhere.

I don't think Apple will back down in order to appease developers. Their strategy is pretty clear: make their platform so popular people pay to play by Apple's rules. Apple could charge 50% or 70% on their app store and developers would still line up. The bigger issue in the relationship is when they started building competing apps with the developers. Why would anyone want to help Apple build a platform that they will then use to undercut you? This is also after they already took a huge cut of your revenue.

There's more in-depth information on that subject here:

https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi23/presentation/grubic

Why not interview someone willing to go on the record that will speculate the IPO value? There are plenty of articles where they interview professional investors with knowledge about such matters who go on the record.

people familiar with the matter said

Why is this line used everywhere in the news? What is the consequence of getting someone on the record for speculating the value of an IPO? It's the most frustrating and lazy part of journalism.

It looks like one core issue was designing the system around pre-determined bounds (monthly, yearly, etc). This happens in lots of systems and isn't specific to billing. A job scheduling system will have the same problem (we built it to track seconds and now they want us to track calendar dates!).

I think the promise of threads is exactly what many people want. Hopefully the product improves to meet the expectations. Some things I'd like to see:

1. Native notes like feature for long form posts I can embed and share. I cannot stand the tweets threads of (n/27) about a topic.

2. Topic based feeds. Whether it's hashtags or some other type of categorization process. I think I read on HN the other day a twitter engineer had come up with something like that but it never got buy in from the decision makers. This would also help filter out things I don't want to see more broadly than manually muting users.

3. Enabling the option to only see verified accounts.

4. Private threads. Threads where you can tag an audience where only they can see the posts and replies. This would be a form of DM that isn't just another chat app.

I don’t mean to discount individual experiences of crime, only to say I really enjoyed our stay and it seems still to be a vivacious place.

Your entire comment is littered with assertions that say you felt safe/fine, but at the same time you note your behavior was fairly cautious.

1. You didn't go out at night.

2. You stayed away from the TL

3. Something you witnessed gave you pause.

Then you also have to consider that you weren't really living there. You worked most of the week and toured the rest of your time.

I don’t mean to discount individual experiences of crime, only to say I really enjoyed our stay and it seems still to be a vivacious place.

You put the idea that negative experiences are individual and not systemic. As if being a victim of a crime is an "individual experience" and not a pervasive element of the area.

If comments were on for those posts... there’s a reason why they’re not allowing comments. That is a very un-Reddit thing to do.

If it's unreddit why is it a feature of reddit? (A feature, that in my opinion, is heavily abused by mods and admins).

What if it were so easy to blend in through the APIs bc enough real users are on third party apps that use the APIs?

I think they've done everything to steer the conversation away from the topic of bots, spam, and grey market ads. If reddit is selling ad space but you can get it cheaper via vote bots, why would anyone buy ad space through reddit?

I believe the API changes are not about third party apps or LLMs (at least directly). I think it's all about bots and spam. They only want to do business with real enterprises through their API. This raises the value of purchasing real ads through their platform vs buying upvotes and other subversive ads on grey markets. Once the API access is restricted I think there will be a huge dropoff in spam and bot accounts. You'll have to scrape endpoints and fight the built in anti spam detection on the app/website in order to game the system versus using the free highly available API that has fewer built in protections.

I would agree with you, but Mr. Beast is very methodical and has the algorithm beat at this point.

Mark lays it out pretty simply in the letter. People don't want surprise layoffs. They'd rather know ahead of time what leadership's planning. It's a tough pill to swallow but this is what a lot of people asked for.

Do you think Tim Cook made a strategic error here, owing partially to his lack of understanding of the involvement of these processes?

Appeal to authority is just speculation at the end of the day. It's just as possible a brilliant CEO with tons of supply chain experience made a mistake or was forced into a bad decision.

The fact that there are early obstacles and hurdles does not mean we should simply throw up our hands and say "whelp, looks like China is the only option, we have no choice but to stick there!".

Is anyone saying that?

Because they have 50% rejection rates for iPhone casings at one particular manufacturing facility in India does not really imply anything other than teething issues with scaling up.

It does imply at the least that the processes Apple has used in other regions doesn't translate quickly. There are definitely additional questions raised. Is this a labor quality control issue? Procurement? Worse vendors? Or as you speculate, this is all part of the start-up process.

If they are resource constrained then this just seems like a form of triaging where non-automated calls are prioritized. I don't see the problem with this approach if they are seeing a lot of false positives from automated sources.

I think it's more than fair to blame the media, which has had centuries to build up their reputation and credibility. They were incapable of preserving public trust during a national crisis. They have all the advantages over individuals or fringe organizations. We aren't talking about a few thousand people that got indoctrinated into a cult, we are talking about millions of people, some highly educated, who turned away from the mainstream media altogether.

Whether you blame Fox news, CNN, Trump, the deep state, the CDC, doesn't matter when addressing the failures of the state and the media. They lost trust with the public. This is measurable in polls and has created a divide in the American people. The result is that individuals and fringe institutions gained ground with millions of Americans; misinforming them and creating controversies that should not have happened.

If the mainstream media and the state didn't lose trust then why would people turn to less credible sources? Because everyone is dumb/crazy? If that is the conclusion people are coming to it seems rather harsh and elitist in my opinion.

why is empathy necessary?

I don't really have an objective answer for you. I do find personal value in empathy, I get less mad when I can understand why someone did something I disagree with. It doesn't change what they did nor does it excuse it.

What is the mutually agreed desired result of acting in those ways

Harmony.

Relishing in other people's actions that were driven out of fear during a crisis when our institutions (media and state) failed to keep public trust for millions. Empathy, even for those who make foolish decisions is difficult but necessary, you should try to understand rather than judge.

I guess they have failed in marketing the differentiation then (if there is one). I was just clarifying the product in question, never promised an ad free product.

This reply appears to be both a strawman (I never said anything about my preferences) and an ad hominem attack (Diminishing my comment bc of who I am).

Brave has never tried to be ad free. Instead the goal is to encourage less intrusive and more benign ads.

I don't understand how anecdotal experience is considered noteworthy. It always comes across as subversive advertising. Even if everyone on this site had pixel/iphone/whatever issues it wouldn't mean anything significant compared to the millions of devices sold.