HN user

megla_

23 karma
Posts0
Comments15
View on HN
No posts found.

I'm sure hundreds of women won't go into STEM, now that this one new language has a picture of a ballerina with batteries giving a massage to some dude with a laptop.

Maybe they should illustrate her putting batteries in a vibrator, so she can go fuck herself, just like you should.

Well, Lisp was made 60+ years ago, and C 50 years ago, so?

Well, they're still seeing widespread use, that's why they're on Tiobe, while others faded into obscurity. Those languages are historically significant, but nowadays they're basically useless apart from scientific use and maintaning old software.

Maybe you should understand that the majority of programmers are younger than Python and don't study the same material they did 30 years ago, because a whole lot of history happened in that time. Also I'm not sure how not knowing about Simula makes me unqualified for anything.

I've noticed, not just in this reply, but in all of your comments; your condescending tone and indirect addressing make you seem like an unpleasant person.

Using these qualities makes one seem like some stuck-up pseudointellectual boomer.

I genuinely haven't heard of 13 of those and I'd say I'm quite interested in learning about languages. The few that I know, were just briefly mentioned by a professor, so I don't know anything apart from the name.

What qualifies as prominent to you? How old are you? On Tiobe Index only Pascal and Go are in the first 50, while half of them aren't even listed in the first 100. Sure they're important and had an impact on new languages, but most of them were made ~50 years ago.

So many new languages were developed since then, which are far more useful and prominent than these legacy ones. If almost none of the modern ones have implemented it so far, is it really that useful/needed?

I really don't understand the morality of an average HN user.

There was a post a few days ago about Spotifree (which mutes your ads), and everyone took it as a personal offense, every possible negative word was said about the person who made it, and the people that use it are lowlives who don't deserve anything in life if they won't cough up $10.

But now when it's Amazon losing thousands of dollars per product, it's okay because stealing from someone rich is acceptable and they should just eat their losses and move on. Do you understand that if you scale Amazon down to Spotifies size, their losses are way heftier?

I've also learned that stealing is justified if it's a machine error. So by that logic, if the receipt machine malfunctions in a store and prints out some large number, you would pay it?

But you're talking about one-time purchases, which is common for apps, but not so much for games. But even in apps you have monthly subscriptions that still somewhat skew the way you perceive the price. What's the max IAP profit for Netflix or Spotify? (Subscriptions bought through the app still net a cut to the store provider.)

Virtual currencies are a scam on its own, but even games without them can be exploitative. The monetization of games has become so frequent, that's it's basically accepted as something ordinary. I've noticed that some developers don't even bother creating a currency anymore, you just get the Playstore € prompt for the item you want to buy.

Most free games are built on the premise that it's never-ending or always expanding. Either you can upgrade to infinity or keep playing, because they keep adding new content. I don't think I've ever stumbled upon a game where you have limited things to buy.

The only solution I see, which is just plain unrealistic, is to put IAP apps into a seperate category. I've started doing this, by not downloading apps that have the "Includes IAP" and I'm pretty satisfied. I don't think any game/app should be qualified as FREE, if half of it is locked behind a paywall.

Everyone in the comments is acting like you're comitting a war crime, but the majority sees no problem with adblockers, which are pretty similiar, especially autoclicking ones.

The only one directly losing resources is the ad company, until they get tired of it and stop advertising on Spotify. But Spotify is affordable, so the amount of people that jump through hoops and use these methods is insignificant.

My guess is that you still benefit them more than people who share accounts.

Haven't used Spotify in years, but back then the ads were much louder than music. I'm not sure if that's still correct, but I've read about this issue multiple times.

You could argue that you should just get a subscription, but intrusive ads defeat the whole idea of a free version. Might as well remove it, if you're going to make it tedious to use.

Putting anti-NSA stickers on your laptop is the same as tweeting Rape is bad, which I've seen quite a lot recently.

What's the point? Everyone already agrees with you. You're just patting yourself on the back for thinking correctly, like the 99% of others.