randomdata

think about all the people growing your food etc

Did he really say that? Farmers are the original WFH-ers.

OP said

Exactly. Just as we also see the sun rise each morning.

That, however, does not imply one predicts that the sun will forever rise each morning. In fact, we know that at some point the sun will no longer rise in the morning. But we see the sun rise each morning, and we see a new cambrian idea or core technology every 5-10 years.

I'm not the one conflating anything here.

That's fair. Conflation implies intent. Whereas you are just confused.

It is amazing how impactful the tuning of an interest rate by a central bank, a single float, is.

But not all that amazing when you remember that said tuning always happens in reaction to what is already happening. If money were free again today, it is much more likely that people would funnel it into backing products and services riding the inflationary wave, not go back to tech startups. That's explicitly why the central banks increased rates in the first place, after all – to slow down that behaviour. It is just one of an infinite number of variables, not some magical variable that stands alone. Tech's day in the sun was over either way. People were already moving on.

Do you still find HTML5 to be as interesting as ever, or do you find that interest wanes with time? AI is many decades older than HTML5, so if your interest does wane then it stands to reason that there would be very little vestigial interest remaining.

What if we _don't_ have one every 5-10 years?

Then the observed trend will come to an end. Seems rather obvious, no?

But, you'll have people claim "that isn't efficient! the private sector can do better!"

They might, but, if you are going to let the private sector do better, doesn't that also come with the implication that that the government will step down? We could, for example, have hundreds of businesses selling Windows, Office, etc., fixing the Microsoft problem spoken of earlier, but we can't do that right now because the government doesn't allow it. Try starting a business selling Windows and see how long before the full force of the law is bearing down on you. That certainly isn't efficient.

Certainly if you need a network-attached database and aren't creating your own home brew network-attached database (the so-called API server), Postgres is a pretty good choice.

I'm not sure that's analogous to "best practices" like "do not repeat yourself (DRY)" or "don't use GOTO". These are little more than stylistic choices that claim to offer more maintainable code. Comparable "best practices" in other engineering fields would be along the lines of "do not chamfer/fillet until the end of modelling" (one I have heard before).

Analyzing a CAD model as you describe is more like running a compiler or type checker on code already written, which is the norm in software too, but is not within in the vein of the topic of discussion.

How other engineering industries deal with this phenomena?

They don't. CAD, the "programming languages" of most other engineering disciplines, is as much of a Wild West.

Go has objects, but objects alone does not imply orientation. For that, you need message passing.

If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.

Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…

Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)

Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.

A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.

But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.

Stacked like a sardine for $3,500/mo, yet still have to travel long distances to do anything. The curse of the wannabe rural city. But, as people want to (or at least want to pretend to) live in a rural area, change is unlikely.

We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.

Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.

It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.

One can choose to leave a group/platform/party without believing they are contributing to the negative direction the group has taken.

It is true that one can make up any arbitrary reason for leaving, sure. They could have also said they decided to leave because the moon crossed into their zodiac. But when you get down to it, that's never actually the reason.

Undoubtedly the real story is that there is no compelling economic reason to post on X. It is not a service for long-form news content. Nobody goes there to read that kind of content. It is like trying to post cat photos on HN. Soon you're going to realize that you are wasting your time. There are places for cat photos, as there are places for long-form new content, but HN and X, respectively, are not it.

If I go to a social club and find that new leadership and new members changed the focus from sports to anti-immigration, I might not want to be associated with them anymore.

With material impact, perhaps. But posting on X is a solitary activity. This is more like giving up on Solitaire because you thought the Queen of Hearts looked at you funny. Which, no matter how much you claim it to be, doesn't make much sense. More likely you were just bored of the game and made up an expiation to not have to admit that you were bored.

Are you thinking about some of the homestead influencer types here?

Not really. I was humorously comparing farm incomes to incomes of certain pornographic performers. Not quite up there with the 1920s (when the farmers all built mansions after harvest), or the 1970s (when a single crop paid for the entire farm), but it was probably the third best time in history to be a farmer. Of course, good times can't last forever.

We decided not to make our farm into a business pretty quick.

My farm was a business from the get-go. Some years are great, others not so much, but on balance it's a pretty good gig.

if you're unwilling to go into a crazy amount of debt

That's the beauty of coming from the high paying tech industry. You don't need to accumulate the debt, you can pay for it out of pocket. I agree that if you start giving bankers your profit, you won't have a good time. That is a trap a lot of farmers do fall into, and perhaps have no choice but to without a tech (or similar starting point) foundation. However, for the typical reader here...

to run what most would consider animal abuse and/or ecological destruction.

Be the change you want to see. There is always more work to do, but my farm has come a long way in improving upon those things from how things were done before I arrived.

According to the specification,

DNT: 0 = Yes, track me.

DNT: 1 = No, do not track me.

I'm not even sure with it set to 0 that you can assume that intent.

That's the problem. Someone not paying attention might inadvertently set DNT: 0, which is why the law is written the way it is. But at the same time we have techies who knowingly and carefully set such values and want the service to acknowledge it, contrary to the law. Hence the contention.

Does that change your response?

No. It was understood to be of their origin. But X being a toxic platform has no bearing on the content The Guardian might post, unless they think their content is also toxic. Recognizing that would justify no longer posting toxic content, sure, but otherwise there is no reason to stop posting.

I mean, aside from the obvious: That nobody is reading the content anyway, not fitting X's niche on the internet, so it is a waste of resources to post. I can understand why they are no longer going to do so. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever did.

My perspective is that this is more a wikipedia phenomenon.

That is where it originated, as far as I know, yes. But it actually serves a purpose there as collecting quotes around a subject is what that service is largely about, and quotes benefit from citations.

But if you are writing comments on HN made up of quotes from others, why...? Why not let the authors of those quotes speak for themselves? This is, as far as I can tell, not a wiki, it is a discussion forum. Do you disagree? Surely we're here to read what the first person has to say? If I want to have a discussion with a third-party, I'll go talk to them instead. No need for a pointless middleman.

Furthermore, a citation by its very nature requires a quote, but any time I have seen "citation needed" here a quote is nowhere to be found. The HN comment being replied to with that saying is literally the citation! So, not only is it in bad faith, it doesn't even make sense. Fine for a tired Reddit meme, I guess, but has no place on HN.

Can you link this expectation back to the discussion guidelines?

I don't know. I'm not about to read it. It has no relevance here. The expectations of a service like this come from the users, not some arbitrary guideline document.

Do you want this service to be anything else? Surely we don't need another Wikipedia? I, for one, come to HN because users here actually know things and are willing to talk about it. They don't have to rely on some other person to feed them information. That's the value proposition.

Wikis are fine for what they are, but Wikipedia is right there. Do we really need another one? I say no, but if you think otherwise?

My view is there are plenty of trolls, they are legion, and they can "win" through sock puppetry and sheer volume.

They only "win" if you react to them. That's what they are here for: Attention. Ignore it and they'll quit wasting their time.

I mean, think about it: If you kept posting and nobody ever replied or pressed one of the vote buttons, wouldn't you get bored of being here too? You may as well write in a private journal if you want to write for no audience. The value over and above a private journal is the audience.

One thing is for certain: You are not going to chase them away with "citation needed".

"X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."

That may be true, but irrelevant to the Guardian – unless they feel they are feeding it. That would deserve action, but otherwise...

"X has become a cesspool, our work no longer belongs there."

That doesn't really make any sense, but even if we accept the irrationality of it, they claim to still want others to share their content on X, so apparently their work does belong there. A curious contradiction.

The culture of hacker news is to present evidences based discussion. Unsupported claims are challenged, very frequently with "citation needed." This is something that sets hacker news commentary apart from Reddit or X.*

I have to disagree. "Citation needed" is stupid Reddit nonsense (that sometimes creeps into HN, but thankfully infrequently; it is not acceptable behaviour). On Hacker News, there is an expecting of being smart enough to carry on your own conversation using your own words without needing to outsource to an arbitrary third-party. If bringing in data helps with your comment, so be it, but if all you can offer is something like "citation needed", you contribute nothing and are participating in anti-social, bad-faith behaviour.

Logically, if a comment is so poorly prepared that you can't figure it out on its own standing, you either:

1. Work with the author in good faith to understand what they are trying to say. If you find value in reaching for external resources to accomplish that, then fine. Offering something like "XYZ says this, which contradicts what I think you are trying to say. Was that your intent?" would be reasonable, but "Go do my homework for me!" is uncalled for.

2. Accept it as a lost cause and ignore it. Those who cannot string a worthwhile post together will soon grow bored with being ignored and leave. Don't feed the trolls, as they say.

(Why did you remove the rest?)

However if your looking at the "for you" page, shits just kept on getting more extreme.

That's all I ever read. I only follow a small number of people who produce high quality content related to my industry, though. Perhaps that is what primes the "For You" page to say within the same realm and not go off the rails as you suggest?

I'm sure you are right that garbage in, garbage out applies. But why feed it garbage?

This is not an accurate characterization of The Guardian's reasoning.

Go on. There is no logical association with "right wing" conspiracies in their decision unless they believe they are contributing to it. But as they are not backing away from producing the content on the same concern, the association doesn't add up at all.

This is your claim - presented without evidence.

Of course. That's what a discussion forum is for. If you want someone else's claim naturally you'd go talk to them instead. But as you have chosen to interact with me, logically you are here to hear my claim as I give it.

Is there some additional pertinence to you pointing out the obvious here? Because if so, I am afraid I missed it.

News is difficult to convey when an algorithm suppresses it or is drowned out by loud voices.

Most importantly, the news is difficult to convey when the users aren't there for news from a news organization. Let's face it, X is not well suited to conveying long format news in the first place. While the character limit isn't what it once was, the entire format of the service remains not particularly amenable to that kind of content. It is really only good for individuals sharing small tidbits of information, like something they did at work.

There are much better services for news publishers. That is where the users are. That is where publisher effort is going to be best spent. Of course you are not going to waste your time posting news on X for that reason.

Interesting that they felt their content added to right wing conspiracies. Good on them for realizing and backing away, I guess, but won't they still feed other platforms? It does not appear that they are willing to halt production on that realization. Not to mention that this encourages others to still share their content on X, defeating the whole intent of no longer posting... The story doesn't add up.

On second thought, this is clearly an advertisement disguised as news trying to latch onto searches for Twitter/X. They are no doubt backing away, but only because nobody wants to read widely published news on X in the first place. X's niche is in providing a place for everyday people to get their own personal news out, like the aforementioned industry practitioners sharing what they are doing in industry.

There is a "Yes-Track" header – DNT: 0

Granted, you can't legally use it like that where EU laws apply, per the GDPR. Hence the complaints about the GDPR you see in other comments.

Implying that is how people use X? Continually creating new burner accounts, not giving "the algorithm" what it needs to provide what they really want to see? Seems unlikely.

I suspect those who complain it is a "right wing" echo chamber are using longstanding accounts and actually engaging with "right wing" content, which trains "the algorithm" of their preference to see more of the same. Anecdotally, those I know who complain of "right wing" echo chambers are also the first people to gorge on "right wing" media to see what "they" are up to.

The industry is not in a place where farmers can make any meaningful profit

To be fair, there was Onlyfans kind of money in it in 2022. It ebbs and flows. Always has, always will.

It just might not be a good tech backup plan as the ebbs and flows have been perfectly aligned with tech's ebbs and flows for at least the past 20 years that I've been watching both. When tech is good, so is ag. When tech is bad, so is ag.

On the other hand, if you are going to become a farmer (or anything, really) you definitely want to start during the bad times. If you try to start when the going is good you're just going to overpay to get in, and then quickly land in a down market.

And the problem with the GDPR. In a typical market situation the onus is on the buyer to first offer payment. The beggar on the street saying "Sir, can you spare some personal information?" is not how anyone likes to do business.

But that's where the GDPR has left things, thinking the problem is with the vendor, when in reality the problem is with the consumer spending beyond their means. Fair enough that the consumer needs protection from themselves, but, when it is a spending problem, why does that not come in the form of legal mandates over how one's wallet is used?

Of course, this would be improved in a much better way if, again, governments would actually tackle the real problem.

it has increasingly become a right wing echo chamber and place to promote conspiracy theories.

In what way? I still only see the very same industry-focused information that I first started using Twitter for. If anything, X has improved in pulling in information from more industry players than I was seeing before, so I consider it to be an even more compelling product now.

But perhaps that same algorithm improvement is what you ultimately mean? As in, that X has become better at finding the information you want to see, so if you have an interest in "right wing" or conspiracy content then it is a greater likelihood of it exposing you to that than the Twitter of yore did?

Are you trying to tell us that Infowars wasn't already outsourcing its content creation to Onion writers before the sale? Big, if true.

Again, as the law in question requires informed consent, "allow" and "ask" end up being the same thing. A new DNT law as you propose would contradict the other law of which we speak.

Blame the parasitic adtech industry wanting trade your personal data.

Blame them for what? We all understand that personal information is the currency that pays for these services. While we may not love that we have to pay (who does?), we accept it as a fair trade. Until governments get their ass in gear to make paying with more favourable currencies viable, that is going to remain, now just with extra clicks.

Not the EU for providing you with consumer protection.

I guess a bandaid is better than nothing, but we'd be better off if the EU would tackle the real issue. Going there would ruffle some real feathers, though, so good luck. But if there is blame to go around, it is on the EU for being too afraid to ruffle them.