oriki

You say that like it's a bad thing in this context. Cars are (immensely) far from perfect, but hey, parts interoperability is non-zero and for plenty of cars (even newer ones) you can still reasonably get them fixed.

It'd be awesome if I could head on down to a phone parts store and pick up a couple of components so my phone can live perpetually in repair, but we're not quite that far along yet.

I'm not even going to bother with the first two paragraphs here - you're mostly just going on about how you don't like the people on HN and don't think they're real hackers and then you're deploying a massive and wide ad hominem against HN's readers. Luckily, I don't really identify with them all that much either -- in fact, I actually have a lot of recurring issues with HN's readership, but I'm saving that for another time.

The simple truth here is this: I don't have a four year degree. I don't even write code for a living. I work in IT, in a role that you would probably best describe as just 'IT guy.' I don't make more than $60,000 a year in the role I'm currently in. I care about money to the extent that I need money to live, to feed my car gas, to feed myself food, and to feed my computer at home electricity.

You're getting the cold shoulder here because you don't seem to have the nuance to understand how people actually interact with and care about their work. I feel like we live in a nightmarish hellscape where a significant portion of work is driven by nothing but desire for profit, but this doesn't suddenly make me think that everyone involved in making things is only there because they get paid. On the other hand, you appear to think any person who sells anything is going through this whole process purely for money.

The replies to you have been perfectly amicable, and encourage discussion. YOU have been shutting that discussion down because people don't agree with you.

Because if the thing I'm doing is, for instance, making artisan screwdrivers, I don't spend my whole day making money. I spend my whole day making screwdrivers. If I love making screwdrivers, then I love making screwdrivers.

Now that I have all these real nice screwdrivers lying around, I can sell them to other people who might want a really nice screwdriver. Not only did I get to do the thing I enjoyed doing: making screwdrivers, but I also made some money off of it. Some of that money can be used to cover cost of materials on the screwdriver I made, the rest of it can be used to enrich my personal life, or maybe grant me access to stronger tools to do the thing I enjoy doing.

Making something and selling something are two different tasks. I can love making things and still sell those things for a profit, and my love for making things can have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I get money out of it. Where do you get the presumption that you can't possibly do something good that you like and still make money off of it?

> people make things for money, not love or art.

...you're on Hacker News. A significant portion of this website is just people talking about Open Source Software, something that consistently produces case studies about people making things for love or for art or for passion instead of just for money.

Plenty of people make things for value that isn't purely financial.

> Otherwise they wouldn't copyright it.

This isn't how copyright works, at least in the US. Generalizing broadly, you own the copyright of whatever you create unless you've otherwise signed that away. It's automatic. You don't fill out a form to have copyright over a work.

As someone who wanted to file taxes in Oregon this year without using anybody else's software, I was completely appalled by how inaccessible a system that literally every working American will have to interact with at some point is. They even got rid of the "Free Fillable Forms" option, so if you wanted to file and do your own taxes for yourself, you have to do the paper forms.

It's 2022, and I can't submit my government mandated math homework electronically as a private citizen. That should piss an incredible number of people off, but nobody ever seems to think about it.

It's also worth mentioning that the name of the resource here was confusing - the author mentions that this happened because he mixed up how GitHub names profile READMEs for organizations vs users.

Yeah, but on the other hand, "don't make mistakes" isn't a meaningful or useful lesson.

The same thing that the cloud company would do. If there are other people there who share that guy's responsibilities, have them do it. If there aren't, you should have an on-call.

Cloud just outsources that problem to another business. Sure, they have better reasons to actually cover those positions and make sure they have on-calls and backup and a disaster plan, but just because you pay extra money for it doesn't actually make it work better if the company underlying it sucks.

This, honestly. It _feels_ more like the only people that care about SV censorship policies are the people affected by them: SV types that live almost entirely on the platforms they're scared of being censored from. Well, that and people who make their entire careers pushing other peoples' boundaries and, as a result, generate a big negative following.

This is with the presumption that the filtering here is device-level and not user-level. The fact that they were able to wipe and reset the device AT ALL probably means that the device isn't fully enrolled into device management (only the account is) and that the blocking and monitoring is just for that one specific account/profile. That is to say, none of the blocking is breaking the privilege rules on the system.

This isn't to give them extra credit. GoGuardian is still spyware and you should be, at the very least, wary of it if you have a kid with that software running around. But this behavior is consistent with the design of ChromeOS and isn't shocking or special if you've been paying attention to what ChromeOS has been built for over the last couple years.

I think you are misreading the comment at the root of this whole thread. They aren't saying "if you go up a tax bracket, ALL of your income goes down because you pay more taxes!" but instead saying "you might make more money but despite that, you will not be able to buy more things." I don't think tax brackets have anything to do with this besides being tied to how much you make.

In the US in particular, it doesn't matter if the underaged subject exists or not, but I think you'll find the law much more loosely enforced in cases where the subject of the pictures doesn't exist.

I feel like we have different definitions as to what clickbait is - when I see a clickbait video, I can simply identify it by it's title and thumbnail, I've never needed to look at the like:dislike ratio to confirm that it's clickbait. What kind of videos do you find as clickbait?

This. I find that the vast majority of cases where I'd pay any attention to the dislike bar are just cases where people are getting dogpiled for whatever reason (whether they deserve it or not, or if anyone deserves to be treated like that on the internet, is another matter entirely) but I've heard reasonable arguments from people talking about tutorials and other informative videos that the like:dislike ratio is a convenient sniff test for if the video is worth watching.