JosephLark

It's been interesting watching SO try to monetize.

I wonder: How would people feel if they went the Wikipedia way? It's obviously a very beneficial site, but not as widely applicable as Wikipedia. I personally prefer the Wikipedia model of being ad-free and having no additional product and doing a fundraising drive every so often. PBS as well.

That said, I certainly think given the audience of SO that there are several opportunities for them, so it'll be interesting to see what works.

Of course things get framed to manipulate opinion.

Now, I actually don't mean this with any snark, but how is what you're doing any different? This tax credit applies to plenty of vehicles sold for much less than $100,000.

> Requesting money to Wikipedia viewers is done so often it gets as annoying as an advertisement-packed Wikipedia would potentially be.

I wonder, do many people here agree about this? I don't keep track, but feel like I only see the fundraising messages 2-3 times a year. This is way more preferable to me than seeing (probably multiple) ads on every page all the time.

> It’s still not totally clear what Magic Leap is doing, but it sure has raised a ton of money (more than $1.9 billion) in order to do whatever it is that it’s doing. To date, we’ve been able to gather that the company may be launching a device called “Magic Leap One.” And last month, Bloomberg suggested Magic Leap may be gearing up to ship that device to a “small group of users” in the next six months or so.

That might be the most I've heard about what they're doing and when it might be available. I've read some "leaks" in the past, but nothing that has stuck with me. Anyone got any info?

> “Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it,” said Salt Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, “but generally you have to eat so much of it to get any benefit that it’s kind of daunting, or something else in the product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it’s probably going to be sugar.”

Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa powder to get a "heart healthy" dose of flavanols. With dark chocolate, which has less sugar as the cocoa percentage goes up, they don't distinguish the type but you need 750 calories. That's quite a bit.

70% cocoa dark chocolate is somewhat (not entirely) palatable to most people, but getting up to 85% becomes a distinguished taste even for dark chocolate lovers.

Jives with my first thoughts after reading the submitted headline: that even if they could show cocoa was good for you, there is no way that translates into the standard Mars chocolate bars. I can totally see how it benefits Mars though - I've seen people give way more twisted justifications for eating junk food than "cocoa is good for you" as an excuse when eating a chocolate bar.

I'm not too sure how I feel about this. I'm trying to battle my knee-jerk negativity about this, but I'm not sure I can come up with good reasons to. At best, I think my hopes are that IGN will be hands off and Humble will continue on as is.

I'm almost always disappointed when interesting companies that appear sustainable get gobble up by larger entities, especially in the media and technological space.

That said, every time I make a humble bundle purchase I come to a decision point about how much of a "tip" I am going to give to the humble themselves. Over time I have increased this amount as I recognized the value of the service they were providing.

Now that they are owned by IGN, I honestly don't think it will be increasing any further, and instead would be much more likely to decrease. I'll wait and see, at least.

Take from that what you will, but I suppose the money amount I will actually put up in such cases is a stronger signal about my feelings than many other things I could put into words.

I'm of one mind to go and grab all my purchases for backup while I easily can. Total speculation, but I could see this happening: purchases are put behind some sort of IGN Gaming software like Steam. It seems like this acquisition would be a really solid foot-in-the-door for such a thing.

Just had an interesting experience with that. I moved the frame so that it showed the timer countdown and screens as well as John. After it hit 0, they put up "Please go to Q&A". After a minute or so they started flashing it from the white text on black background to a bright white screen to get his attention. After a couple rounds of that, John goes "Please stop flashing the go to Q&A, I'll get to it" and they stopped the flashing. Certainly something I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

Also interesting seeing now what is close to John's view of the queue for the Q&A.

> I wonder why other big players aren't just stepping up and making their own SSDs

There are only a handful of fabs making the required NAND chips. Spinning up a new fab takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention some serious technological and manufacturing know how. So it's really not easy for someone to just up and enter the NAND market.

I don't exactly doubt that price fixing is happening, but my understanding of current high SSD and even RAM prices at the moment is that there is a serious demand that outstrips the current fabs abilities. Mobile devices are eating up a lot of the NAND output.

I did get that as well. I'm confused why this is the default. I imagine it's just the learning curve of this feature, I totally understand why they have the need to spin off certain expected-default behavior to further extensions.

So I just told you to always open a site in a specific container, and then you're going to ask me when I next load that site starting from another container whether to open in the container I've asked the site to always be opened in. Why would my choice be anything except 'Open in <Preference> Container' and 'Remember my decision for this site'. Isn't that what I already asked you to do?

Why am I setting the same preference twice? It seems like the opt-out is there by default when I don't want it, and not there when I do.