> It is just a joke that Facebook could be valued at $6 billion. An absolute joke.
> FB has 30 million users, and that's not considering potential duplicates.
> The number of active users may be even smaller than that, and some people like I only log on once a week or so.
> If FB gets sold for $6 billion, that means the new owning company would need to make $500 million a year for 12 years(!) to break even.
> Frankly, the Internet will probably be drastically different a decade from now.
> FB doesn't even make $50 million a year, who in their right mind thinks that they will all of a sudden make a profit off Facebook by spending that much money?
> I swear some of these big companies just like throwing money at things. Yes, the dot-com bubble is here once again.
Original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34165
I mean this tells me that engineers (assuming on average there are more technical readers on hacker news) don't know anything about products and their values. Or it's just that people aren't capable of thinking long-term.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070716155904/http://news.ycombi... is a good rebuttal to the FB criticism though.
And more or less, it's worked out. You still live vastly better here with a million than many other parts of the world without a million.
Looked at the Apple website and before they opened iOS for native development (and monetarization through the App Store) they tried to push Web-Apps, but maybe this was just a experiment to validate if people will use it:
> Developers can create Web 2.0 applications that look and behave just like the applications built into iPhone, and provide seamless integration with iPhone applications and services including making a phone call, sending an email, and displaying a location in Google Maps. Third-party applications created using web standards can extend iPhone's capabilities without compromising its reliability or security.
It used to be far more reputable IIRC.
Ads take a lot of space on current BBC capture.
What phone was i using?
When did i last buy a roll of film?
First amazon order and what was it?
First online order?
When did i get rid of landline?
When did i stop using aol? When did i get gmail?
Roll of film? What's that again?
I think I still haven't ordered anything off Amazon, hadn't bought much online at all back then.
I've never had a landline in my own name (that we actually used, had a couple that came with an ADSL bundle when naked ADSL wasn't cheaper).
What's AOL? Got Gmail in '04 I think, late in the 'invite only' phase before they got evil.
>504 Gateway Time-out
>The server didn't respond in time.
Tells you how important HN launches are.
- Some websites have changed for the better, for e.g. youtube.com
- Some have changed but maintained the same feel, for e.g. amazon.com and news.ycombinator.com
- Some have changed little, but I wish they had not changed, because they used to be better, for e.g. reddit.com and nytimes.com
It does show how much nicer the front page was when it wasn't full of low effort pictures because image hosting sucked until imgur came along.
But I'm disappointing that the website doesn't use SSL at all.
Oh, how times have changed.
So are these our choices: a hivemind or a shitstorm of trolls, griefers, and 4chan kiddies? I don't have any answers here.
No redesigns in how long now?
The fonts on this site are hilariously small. Padding is tiny. All the feel of the 1990s, today!
Still good content, but come on -- do we not have a designer or artistic front-end who can help out?
Plus, bear in mind that HN doesn't separate its logic from layout in templates, unless it deviates wildly from the original Arc forum code, so redesigning the layout around, say, lists as opposed to tables may be more complicated than it would be on another site.
But on the plus side, since i've been here at least, the expired links bug has been fixed, shadowbanning is community-reversible, Show HN is a thing, users can hide and favorite threads, and there's thread folding. Those are all definite improvements to the user experience.
I agree with you that the text could be more readable - a site meant for intellectual and technical discussion should be encouraging long-form comments, not discouraging it (as it does by fading the text for non-link post) but it does seem that the staff have been improving what they can, when they can get around to it.
no autoplay videos
no scroll jack
no social sharing buttons
no tracking scum
no page moving when you are about to click on something because some more bullshit just loaded.
usable in lynx and links across ssh.
so tell me, what is bad about it?
You can have fast loading and everything else and not have out-dated / bad design.
All you're doing is listing bad things, but there's literally no attempt to make the site readable or clickable. Most fonts are size 9 at the moment; you can't defend this given phones and modern screens.
Apple, Youtube, and Amazon especially.
All sorts of feels.
One of the stories "PG: What's your current take on reddit's comment system? (reddit.com)": http://web.archive.org/web/20070714221535/http://news.ycombi...
Another story was about Justin.tv, nowadays know as Twitch: http://web.archive.org/web/20070708190608/http://news.ycombi...
Look at Apple.com, the introduction to the first iPhone. Notice the YouTube app on iOS 1-4 looked like a vintage CRT TV, I remember it.
IMDb received a new CSS stylesheet, and the invaluable comments system got unfortunately removed - otherwise little changes.
YouTube changed a lot. Ten years ago it looks still like the early days before Google.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14936809 and marked it off-topic.
Any discussion about company valuations is as political as a discussion about US elections. Pretending that "business" and "politics" and "technology" are separated by clearly discernible walls is itself toxic to discussions about any of them.
This is absolutely untrue. How many times (and how many ways) does dang have to clarify this? Here's the guideline in question:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
I'm prepared to argue that a comparison of the aging process of HN comments to tweets from a current US President about a former one is an interesting and novel set of phenomena. And even if it weren't, I think that it's well outside the kinds of stories that are identified by the guideline as off-topic.
For those unfamiliar:
> BUSH BAD BUSH BAD BUSH BAD
> TRUMP BAD TRUMP BAD TRUMP BAD