rauchp

interesting. does SD enable this by default?

React Native and (arguably) Flutter are going through a golden age right now. Major companies like Tesla, Coinbase, and Shopify have adopted them, and the developer experience has never been better. I'm not sure why it worked now, but didn't work for Xamarin / Ionic, though.

I haven't really played video games in a few years, but back when I did I was incredibly into Crusader Kings II and Victoria 2.

After reading your comment, I am counting down the hours until Friday afternoon so I can buy and binge on CKIII.

I just want you to know that you cost me any and all productivity this weekend. Cheers!

Really surprising move, considering that's the main thing Mixer had going for it. Facebook got the short end of the stick on this deal, considering they'll have to negotiate again with these Twitch streamers.

Now that these streamers have an idea how much engagement and money they'll be losing from switching platforms, they'll probably demand more from FB Gaming for an exclusivity contract. I haven't heard people talk about Mixer being a better platform or experience for streaming, so I'm not sure what FB gets out of this considering Mixer's talent was its most valuable asset.

Amazon has been raising money though bonds for a while now, though. They even recently raised $10 billion in bonds at a crazy low rate.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/amazon-raise...

"Single party rule in California has been an improvement."

I just moved to California so I don't have too much of a personal opinion yet but that sounds like a bold claim. From what I've seen, people over the age of 30 seem split on whether or not it's an improvement. You look at mismanaged cities like SF where there's insane homeless budgets but very little action and results and wonder if the monopoly on political power has made politicians here complacent.

Then there's the whole NIMBY thing. There's a whole lot of Democrats (arguably DINO's) that are very anti-building. They run under the Democrat banner so they'll probably keep getting re-elected. Obviously a solution here is people getting involved in local party politics to primary these candidates out, but that sounds like a miracle that'll happen as soon as we get nuclear fusion power plants.

The whole thing makes me wish 3rd party candidates were more viable in the US. This flip-flopping really sucks and creates a lot of chaos but political monopolies, from what I've seen, are able to hide mismanagement and bad policies really well. (Texas is probably a similar example from the other spectrum.)

Un-American? There's nothing more "American" than having the right to do whatever you want with your personal property. The free market answer here isn't forcing them to adhere to your tastes, it's to make or promote a competitor that can actually compete with YT.

Looks like Houseparty made the exact same tweet recently. Viral marketing or April Fools prank?

https://twitter.com/houseparty/status/1244827034406121472?s=...

Do you think SwiftUI is still too experimental to build out a production-ready app? I'm a RN dev leading the app development at our startup, but every time I check on SwiftUI I LOVE what I see. Sadly it looks like the final results are mostly tech demos rather than fully integrated apps.

Thinking maybe we have to wait for a behemoth's adoption (like AirBnB & React Native) to take the ecosystem to the next level.

That was an interesting read, thanks for linking to it. It's hard finding articles online discussing Node and performance, most people just dismiss it as an unviable option due to scale and speed concerns. 30x really is quite the jump though.

Each Node worker runs a gRPC server

Not going to lie, this kind of surprised me. When I think of a Node backend I think of ExpressJS. Not because I think Express is better, but because it's been pushed around in the past few years as the fastest, simplest way of running a backend.

Yet, if you're going to be running a gRPC server, why not use a more performant language with better multithreading support? I thought this article was about them optimizing a grandfathered-in solution (such as Express), but I can't tell why they built out a gRPC server in Node in the first place.

Ironically enough, it's on her LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/in/briannekimmel

I've heard that as well, but haven't heard Brave's side of it.

Not defending it in anyway. but strategically I feel like Brave should take the money, and just email the creator every 3 months saying you have X amount of money you can claim. Of course, if Brave is just profiting this money that's pretty shitty.

Many gene-mutation advocates were using this case to highlight how mass genetic mutation is coming sooner than we think. The aftermath seems to indicate that we have longer than most optimists believe before we can effectively modify human genes.

Now that this attempt was a failure, I imagine it'll affect future research considerably. This rogue attempt had to succeed in order to flip staunch opponents towards supporting human gene modification in some form. Now we just have a case people can point to as why this should never be done.

Looks like the FBI designated FaceApp as a threat because of its crazy data policy and its Russian origin. Even though I think it's a really shady app, that's a pretty low bar.

We also analyzed the solutions currently adopted by some activists, like the use of asterisks, “x,” and “u.”

If non-binary people in Italy are already using x's or u's for their pronouns, why not just use that?

According to their site, they make the necessary money for that safety net by splitting the profit from the interchange fee they get from big banks. That statement reminds me of Martin Shkreli telling the media he was profiting by overcharging insurance companies. There's no way loudly telling the world how you're screwing over the big players doesn't result in you getting squished at some point. Sure, now I understand their business model. But if they ever get traction these big banks will put an end to their medical bill subsidy real quick.

The new AirPods Pro come with lightning to USB-C. If the new phones aren't USB-C, they'll definitely have USB-C to lightning at least. Although realistically it'll be USB-C to USB-C (see iPad Pro)

In hindsight, we shouldn't be surprised that a company founded by Elon Musk is driven mainly by hype. I really respect the man, but it's a consistent pattern in most of his work.

Is there any reason for it to go down because of the block halving? I've heard it might be already priced in, so would the lack of a pump be enough to cause a massive drop? Looking at the performance this year, I haven't seen any real patterns, except maybe the time Tether started printing again.

On a ski trip I took in 2017, I was in line to buy a lift ticket one cold December morning. I remember overhearing the winter bros (the ones that usually talk about gnar and their steezy tricks) talking about installing Coinbase and buying Bitcoin.

I wouldn't underestimate the amount of retail investors that speculated on Bitcoin during that time. It was on major news networks in America, but also on national networks outside the U.S. My uncles and aunts were calling me asking how to buy Bitcoin outside the USA. The FOMO was real back then. Did Tether play a part in the grand pump? I'm sure it did, but I imagine it was more of a catalyst, and not the primary driver as the original study suggested.

If both companies are approaching bankruptcy trying to outlast the other, wouldn't the lesser evil be a world with a ride-share monopoly rather than a world without (large scale) ridesharing?

With the amount of people that use these rideshare companies as their primary job or to make their daily commute, it seems hard to imagine going back to the pre-Uber/Lyft days. Not that the government or any regulatory body would see it this way. I just think consumers are better off with a monopoly here. Plus, whatever rideshare service that survives will still have to compete with local taxi companies.

their bookings are so large that 10 percent change would net them billions more.

Kind of a hot take, but this is why I'm long Uber. They're processing an insane amount of orders, and getting a huge amount of people using their app. If Lyft dies, or if a merger occurs, then we have a large ride share company that is still a lot more than 10% better than taxis. Most customers will still be taking Ubers, regardless of that 10% price hike.

Of course, this is just for the ride share business. I don't see how food delivery will be profitable long-term. Maybe it'll be just a loss leader for them?

To be fair, it is a nice site.

Those numbers definitely make it sound like it's not the ideal solution for the client. But from Apple's perspective, does anyone know how much more their servers are being taxed per-view? (Not sure if they have caching solutions to alleviate the load. That is a lot of packets to send, though.)

I thought so. Reading this article I could have sworn there are of the subway to Queens from Manhattan being above-ground. Not sure why the article wouldn't mention that? The article is about New York, not Manhattan, so I'm not sure what they meant by a "forgotten" elevated subway.

That's an interesting point. Who knows what could actually be going behind closed doors in China? A lot of what we hear from China comes from second hand sources. If the Chinese are doing big things, their government seems pretty tight lipped on revealing breakthroughs and their progress (unlike the USSR.)

I wouldn't think USSR was that great at creative thinking, either (on a bigger scale).

True, especially in the later years of the USSR. But they did launch a satellite into space before anyone else. At some point they were creative thinkers, at least.

Right, but Lyft has the same product. Given enough time, we might see other ride-share companies succeed with the same (yet inferior) tech servicing specific cities.

Austin has a non-profit rideshare business that matches riders and drivers.

http://www.rideaustin.com

How do they become anything other than a glorified taxi company?

Just curious, what's wrong with that? A global taxi dispatching service that's always available, always (debatably) efficiently routing drivers to passengers sounds like a game-winning plan. Regular taxi dispatching services weren't doing these things well, on top of just sucking since they had no real competition for so long.

My life? Not at all. I don't really use the product except for managing event invites. But I don't run a business that generates most of their leads through Facebook. Nor do I organize any volunteering or community events that would benefit from reaching a large amount of people.

This is a strange hill to die on, because I really don't agree with most of the company's actions. Yet every time I'm outside of the U.S, I see how important Facebook is to a lot of communities. I could be wrong, but I've just seen large social graphs like Facebook's create value. Hence my surprise to the author insinuating it's made the world a worse place.

Ironically enough the people that benefit the most from the product aren't the primary source of income, as I'm sure first world users are valued higher per ad dollar.

I agree, Newsfeed is divisive and toxic. I feel like Facebook was too slow in de-emphasizing it from the core product. But Facebook has become a lot more than that for so many people. I've seen a lot of people that have been able to make a better living thanks to Facebook's network effects.

This isn't thanks to the efforts of Facebook, but a byproduct of their huge social graph. I don't like Facebook as a company but I recognize the value in this, especially for people in less developed countries.

"his claim that the post-Facebook world 'is better,' as he put it in his note in November, is arguable, at best"

A horrible statement in an otherwise decent article. There's a lot of work to be done in keeping these platforms safe, I agree. The article does a really good job of highlighting the uncontrollable growth these communities experienced and the founders' inability to control it.

But to state that an interconnected world is "at best" arguably better? The author comes off as a luddite who disregards the largest human network in history, just because of their anger towards Zuckerberg or Facebook as a corporation. Things need to change, but let's not downplay what we're dealing with here. There has been so much commercial, personal, and community growth thanks to Facebook's network effects. This isn't about the wealth of a single individual anymore.