mmxiii

Can also map caps lock as ctrl. Ctrl+[ is esc in vim.

I get that people have a handful of reasons why they would prefer that the headphone jack sticks around.

But do you think that in 10 years, and if not that, in 100 years, that the headphone jack will still be the primary interface?

And if the answer is no, that will not be the case, and we are ready to move on today, what's wrong for a company to move on? There will always be tradeoffs in the short term, but the vector of this movement is clearly down the path of no headphone jack.

Your original outburst began with negativity and calling names. I pointed that out, and it turned into a conversation of whether comments that have consensus are good advice. And certainly, even comments that have consensus can violate the HN guidelines.

People are free to choose how to use their own time.

It's not a great use of time to argue with strangers about nothings on a message board, but people do what they do.

Seems like there's a few things going on here. It is possible to make a moral statement on minimal information, as you did. It's not very a helpful or useful statement, but there isn't much helpful or useful input either. With more information, what the most moral thing to do, especially regarding the business, would change.

The question is really what constitutes good advice. I suppose it turns out good advice also varies to what is being sought, and why. Maybe someone wants a better answer, maybe reassurance, maybe validation. With more data, we can provide a more objective assessment of the consequences of different actions. Of course, unfortunately, we are not provided any of that here. You can certainly offer your subjective preference to take the moral/consensus action as advice. This advice, as we discussed, is not necessarily effective, and perhaps already known. If what is being sought is objective advice, in that dimension, with only minimal information, the best thing to offer is relevant experience.

Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.

You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.

Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.

No, you certainly can't speak for me. I have no empathy or relevant experience regarding betrayal, I simply wanted to point out how your response was more irrational than rational.

You are right the majority consensus is betraying your buddy is bad. But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice? You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon. Maybe this advice isn't producing meaningful results? The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.

That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.

The problem is that this is your subjective interpretation of what YOU think the consensus is. This is what you think other people think is wrong. Why should someone on this board believe that your conclusions about the consensus are accurate, reliable, or valid? No one is interested in sorting that out. In contrast, the best information to offer here is experience, AKA a data point. Fundamentally your input here is suboptimal.

It's also really clear that what the consensus may be here would vary a ton by the actual situation: 1. Was the original relationship happy? Would the consensus be against this if it were an abusive relationship? 2. Was it just a casual girlfriend, or were they engaged? 3. Was the OP intentionally trying to seduce the girl, or did it just happen that they recognized it was a better pairing?

The reality is the consensus WILL differ based on the situation. There are a ton of shades here, but you fixated on the idea of "betrayal", as if all things with this pattern were uniformly bad. That's clearly not true, and there is simply not enough data for you to overfit and then moralize.

It's fine to use intuition, but it's extremely important to be able to reflect and recognize on its shortcomings, which is that you may be inadvertently layering your own subjectivity on what you think is objective. In this case your outburst is not valid.

Is forcing yourself on another person immoral? Yes. Is intentionally manipulating someone's relationship for personal gain immoral? Yes. Are two people recognizing they would be happier together, and leaving a previous relationship immoral? That doesn't seem wrong.

You are the one coloring this scenario as "stealing". There is no information here about who these people are, what their relationships are like. You are projecting onto this situation and constructing this strawman, and in turn moralizing about the strawman. That isn't reality.

There are a few things getting conflated here.

1. What the OP should do.

2. What the majority consensus is

3. How you subjectively feel about the majority consensus.

4. How the OP subjectively feels about the majority consensus.

In this case, there was not sufficient information given to really understand what the majority consensus is. Additionally, just because something is the consensus, doesn't mean it is necessarily the best course of action individually. Facing condemnation is a consequence, not physical law. The initial response took no time to give an appropriate course of action, and drew on your subjective heated feelings attached to your interpretation of the consensus.

This is a nonsensical comment. With the information we are given, there's hardly any basis to conclude anything about:

1. Who is betraying who

2. Who should take ownership of the startup in case of a breakup

The OP is asking for any relevant experience and advice, not for someone to irrationally moralize.

Good point, people were speculating that the innards would be swappable, but actually it looks like the model is that you keep the band, but swap the watchpiece.

So when V2 comes out in 2 years, you keep your $400 band, and just pay $500 for the watchpiece.

We should look at the bigger picture though, past our subjective preferences.

Lyft/Uber should be exciting from a business perspective to the HN community because it represents a business model that has been uniquely enabled by changes in the landscape. Ten years ago, this business wouldn't work, but the rise of the smartphone, and then GPS implicitly enabled this entire new segment. People, for better or worse, no longer need to be trained taxi drivers to drive people around the city because of smartphone GPS.

The more interesting conversation is about how this trend could have been anticipated.

>in realizing that there may actually be value in some of the BSing

I don't know if this is the conclusion to take away. The OP of this topic is an example of where meaning and relevance does exist for design decisions, and can lead to a very thoughtful conclusion.

The Pepsi one, in contrast, is just applying as many functions/transforms on a problem, and hoping some of the results look OK.

The mistake here is that you are conflating your subjective preference with reality. You are implicitly evaluating something against your own context, but to understand why twitter,etc are successful, you need to ask questions about what OTHER people value, and why they do it.