ChainsawSurgery

Eh, this is a little bit of a tangent because there's no reason to block users ever I feel (and in this particular case blocking IE 10+ is stupid), but honestly? It's rarely worth the time to go through and make sure your site works on older browsers. Or that it degrades gracefully.

Yeah, if my site uses canvas, I should probably have a fallback for IE8. But in practice, and I know I'm not alone here: Unless I see that IE8 makes up a significant part of my site's traffic, fuck it.

There are already enough vendor issues between the latest versions of the big 4 (Chrome/FF/Safari/IE), spending more time going through old versions of those 4 will drive you bonkers.

It's rarely worth it and spending any amount of time catering to those users is almost assuredly not a good use of your time.

I think it's just the inevitability of any site that starts gaining mass appeal. It's the heat death of the universe: you can try and stop it, but entropy will increase no matter what. Sure, zealous moderators can be a catalyst for it, but it was going to happen spontaneously anyway.

People who contribute to sites like reddit enjoy feeling like part of a community. It's hard to feel like you're part of a community when that community starts becoming millions of people. Really hard.

Sure, things like subreddits help - but only slightly. Subreddits that are worthwhile tend to become default subreddits after awhile, and then you're back to square one. Without extremely heavy-handed moderation (and really, you're just stemming the tide at that point), it's hard to feel like you're not lost at sea among people appealing to the lowest common denominator.

And sure, it'll probably happen to HN too. Maybe not, maybe HN is niche enough to keep staying niche.

But unless you have a vested interest in a site like reddit, you might as well accept it and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

Not to sound like a complete dick, but... duh? Is this a controversial opinion really from a finance perspective? I was under the impression that almost all arguments surrounding rent control are:

1) Moral/legal arguments

2) Whether rent control is the small problem and lack of housing development due to zoning laws or NIMBYism or conspiracy or whatever is the much bigger problem - i.e. rent control is one small facet of the housing issues in SF.

Obviously also applicable to SF and Manhattan/Brooklyn.

It's interesting to compare this to other cities: a cursory glance at LA craigslist shows some apartments in nice areas that would easily cost twice as much in SF/Manhattan. Same with Chicago.

Is it really just population density? A cursory google search says that SF's population density is about 17,000 people per sq. mi, which is about the same as West Hollywood. Yet looking at apartments in West Hollywood, I see apartments much nicer than I would in SF for the price. Maybe I'm grossly oversimplifying though.

But then is the answer really just 'sprawl'? Are Chicago and LA only 'reasonably priced' because they're so expansive? Is that how our cities have to move lest they suffer some sort of housing implosion?

As it is, I don't understand how anyone earning minimum wage lives in SF/Manhattan - or why they'd even want to commute in to Manhattan to work for Chipotle if they don't.

Man. If there was ever a guy I feel awful for, it's moot.

Maybe awful isn't the right word, but sympathetic for.

Short of doing something incredibly brilliant in the future (which I wouldn't put beyond him), his life will be summed up as "the creator of 4chan" for quite some time to come.

He's a fairly well-known guy with a decent amount of celebrity to him, but it sounds like 4chan was overall a net negative for him monetarily. Further, 4chan is summed up as an incredibly hateful place to many people, basically "the worst part of the internet." His name is synonymous with that for likely the rest of his days.

Sure, it's earned him some credibility in the tech community and he can likely leverage that into something great if he really wants to - though it sounds like he wants to take a break from that for awhile.

I live in NYC and I've seen moot a couple of times in the past couple years. Both times he was doing something mundane like waiting for the train, and every time he was surrounded by what were clearly a group of anons asking him questions. Every time he seemed a little uncomfortable, like he was too polite to admit that he had grown out of 4chan and its community.

I imagine his personal life is a semi-constant reminder that he'll never be able to escape from 4chan, even by resigning. Lots of people will continue to associate him with the severe outbursts of hatred that stemmed from 4chan occasionally. Lots of anons will continue to encircle him while he's waiting for the 1 train.

I don't know, maybe I read too much into it. Or maybe I didn't and that's why he wants to go do something far removed from the internet.

> well-developed, deep setting.

> And in the end you don't save the world or some such nonsense. You simply conclude your own story, and life goes on.

I guess I don't see those two as being at odds - I think it's entirely possible to have a well-developed and deep setting while still having a traditional "save the world" game.

For example, I don't think it's controversial to say that the Elder Scrolls series has a very deep and thoroughly developed setting, but in Skyrim you're the chosen one who stops a world-ending evil. In Dark Souls you're literally known as the "Chosen Undead", and people have spent months exploring the setting and lore of that game.

I'd even say that Mass Effect has a decently thorough lore and history if you want to look for it (the history of the Genophage or the Geth for example).

Rather, I think modern games do a great job of taking the "save the world" trope and inverting it slightly: you saved the world, but at what cost?

In Mass Effect you save the entire galaxy from robots, at the cost of forever losing the ability for FTL travel (and stranding a lot of people where they are in the galaxy). In Skyrim you can save the continent from the evil imperial invaders, but it's heavily implied that a third party wants exactly that in order to split the empire apart and invade while it's weak. Dark Souls pretty much bashes you over the head with the fact that saving the world is essentially fighting a losing battle.

Nothing silly about it. It's a very stark reminder that death doesn't just take the old, or the chronically infirm, or the careless. Sometimes it's very swift, subtle, and brutal.

We could easily be diagnosed with something tomorrow and be dead within two years, and probably nothing can save us.

While it's true that you could easily be killed tomorrow in a car accident, I think many of us really believe that we have more agency when it comes to accidental death. That we're the savvy pedestrian, the defensive driver who won't be a statistic. We're smart and quick enough to make the right decision when it comes to car accidents.

But things like aggressive lung cancer? You're probably a goner, and no amount of intelligence or quick reaction can save you. And we know that.

It's a very disempowering feeling.

I thought it was pretty clear that the implied irrational part of it is the opportunity cost of choosing your hometown, not the actual attachment itself.

If I'm a brilliant mathematician or a world-class athlete and I choose Kansas over Cambridge/Boston, then yeah, plenty of people are going to think that my attachment to Kansas is making me act irrationally. I don't think they lack a "modicum of intelligence" because of that thought.

There are obviously exceptions where your choice of location doesn't matter, but if you're a high performer then it frequently does (with the obvious notable exceptions e.g. Prince).

[EDIT: I originally just had a quip about not being a sports fan, but I thought you deserved a real reply.]

I'd say that's heavily biased by the fact that Chappelle spent lots of time growing up in Ohio (and specifically Yellow Springs).

Lots of people have seemingly irrationally strong attachments to their hometowns - not quite the same as randomly stumbling upon OKC and deciding it's what you've wanted all along, you know?

And Chappelle's probably not the greatest example, since he very famously got fed up with his celebrity status and wanted to retreat from the world a little. Surprised you didn't go to Lebron instead.

> Lawyers and doctors are asked trivial questions just a handful of times in their careers during their bar examinations and boards.

Of course, this obviously means there are examinations and governing boards that certify laywers and doctors as fit to practice. I doubt most people in the industry would prefer that we start moving towards that.

Or maybe not. I dunno. Those of us who went through traditional CS programs would certainly benefit from such a system greatly. But the lack of formal entry barriers is part of what makes the industry fantastic, and perhaps the very fluid and sometimes irritating interview process is just part of keeping those entry barriers away from tech.

> Can you help me to understand victim blaming? Is it victim blaming to say someone was exercising poor risk management?

Er, yeah, it is. The victim always knows they exercised "poor risk management", to some degree. You don't need to reinforce that point. It's not what the takeaway lesson should ever be. It detracts attention (and implicitly averts blame) from the perpetrator.

We don't aspire to live in a world where "risk management" becomes the takeaway lesson from events perpetrated by conscious actors (i.e. you should always exercise risk management when it comes to things like hurricanes).

Because then you start saying things like:

"She shouldn't have been walking alone at night."

"She shouldn't have been wearing that dress."

"If he didn't want to get raped he shouldn't have gone to prison."

> I've made life long friends with some of my clients. That, more than anything else on this list, has made consulting special to me.

Hah, I had the exact opposite experience freelancing straight out of college, and this was why I stopped and sought full-time employment.

Most of the people I was interacting with (clients, etc) were significantly older than me, and it was brutally isolating after awhile. Even barring the age barrier, there was always a definitive client/vendor line that seemed to prevent any meaningful relationship from developing.

I even tried a coworking space, but it was never quite the same for me since people were there to work mostly, and it's not like you were ever going to work together aside from some rare cases.

I did it for about a year and then resolved never to do it as a full-time thing ever again. The freedom attracted me, but (for me at least) the isolation was overwhelming.

Disclaimer: blah blah blah, my own experience and not yours necessarily, etc.

Hey! I'm a New Yorker who has definitely lived in apartments this small. I currently live in a studio that's 325 sq ft.

I also live pretty minimally, so it's actually not that bad. I have room for a bed, a small desk, a small dining table, some chairs, and a TV.

I might be able to fit a small couch in here, but it would be pretty tight at that point.

It's not as bad as you'd think. The biggest drawback is that you basically start using your bed as a couch, which can make things difficult if you're someone who needs really strict sleep hygiene.

If you're someone who collects a lot of stuff, it's definitely not for you. I can move my entire apartment (minus furniture) in 3-4 medium boxes, so it's perfect for me.

It also goes without saying that you don't entertain much at a place like that. You either go out somewhere, or have maybe a couple people over, but any more than 4 people (including yourself) starts to be totally unmanageable.

Aha:

> I'd assume the majority of it does go to pay out goods and services in the future, probably nearer to the end of life

Most of those expenses involve healthcare, which is probably not a sector of the economy that needs to see more money right now. You typically want to encourage diverse spending to avoid concentrating money in just one segment of the economy (the ol "dont put all your eggs in one basket" rule).

> that money doesn't just go into the ground with them when they die.

No, it doesn't need to - much of it can go onto next of kin, though, which encourages generational wealth that you typically dont want to encourage too much (which to our benefit, we do somewhat through things like estate taxes).

Additionally, and I have absolutely no reasoning behind this one at all, but spending in such a way lends itself to be extremely susceptible to age demographics: if you have a glut of older people (like we do now with baby boomers) then your economy might do fantastic if everyone spends money at the end of their life.

Conversely, when a low-population generation reaches old age, you're sorta doomed to suffer at that point.

I suppose I'm more curious about the 'racist' part of it. 'Xenophobic', perhaps, but 'racism' doesn't really seem to be at the root of their statement.

I also worry that sometimes the 'r' word gets thrown around too much and starts to lose meaning after awhile (and 'racist' starts to become an all-encompassing term that doesn't actually mean anything), which is why I'm asking.