AWS typically considers the "GA" milestone as the "public launch" date, which is silly because the criteria for what is good enough for GA has changed over the years.
They're not mutually exclusive because they're a triangle.
Cost, Convenience, Quality: Pick 2
This isn't that deep either - convenience and quality are 2 things that cost the restaurant money (either via higher rent, or more expensive ingredients).
You can't do all 3 because you'll never make a profit.
You can't do only 1 or you'll never get any customers.
Technically nothing what you said disputes the claim.
You're jumping to the assumption that surely YouTube's costs have to be lower than $36B, and that is not at all assured. They handle an absolutely gargantuan amount of network data transfer, not to mention processing compute. I'm ignoring the storage but even that at their scale is probably at least 1B.
>YouTube has been making a few billion dollars a year in profit for a while now.
Are you insider, or have access to leaks I'm not aware of? YouTube profits are not public information (they are not broken down in the public fillings) so how can you say that confidently?
The Witness isn't revolutionary, but it is crafted with the care of someone who cares about the small details of 3D worlds. Besides being easily one of the deepest/broadest puzzle games of the decade, it is GORGEOUS, and filled to the brim with visual scenes that take your breath away.
To me it's something more akin to the iPod. "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." was absolutely a correct way to dismiss it as nothing revolutionary. And yet it's perfect well-rounded craftsmanship WAS revolutionary.
From what it seems, Blow is doing exactly the same thing with his next game too. And there's something admirable about that.
I say this as someone who disagrees with 80% of what he says, but VEHEMENTLY agree with the remaining 20.
I'm not dismissing the craftsmanship that went into
making The Witness. All I'm saying is that it's cringe to be so critical of other developers when in essence he spends an extraordinary amount of time on his projects, and hasn't shipped anything cutting edge or anything other developers can even use.
Is it just me or is that response actually...nice and good spirited? I haven't read these annals of computing history for more than a decade now and I expected a bit more vitriol from Linus "Fuck You Nvidia" Torvalds. I mean, okay both sides fire zingers but with far less density than average HN.
Goodness, the internet really was a nicer place back then. Nowadays, you quote forum etiquette on someone and you get called an idiot for it. I'm touching grass today and I'm gonna be grateful for it.
Linus was just an unremarkable undergraduate at the time and Andrew Tanenbaum was (and still is) a renowned researcher and author of widely used textbooks on computer architecture and networking. If Linus had been sassy, things would have ended very, very badly for him.
Plenty. What looks like generic dots to us laymen are actually different types of stars. With more resolution, astronomers can more accurately categorize the different stars in the galaxy. The ratios of different stars tell us things about the universe.
With better high resolution images recently we've also been able to see confirmation of Gravitational Lensing [0] which reveal superstructures in space-time that affect the images we see. (i.e. with lower resolution we might've assumed we're seeing multiple distinct stars, with better resolution we understand that it's the same)
For example, we just discovered the first "Einstein Zig Zag". [1]
Ultimately, understanding the gravitational structure of space-time is the key to understanding dark matter which is arguably the biggest mystery of the universe today (besides dark energy).
so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right?
> as a way to attack second amendment rights
Apple sells to customers across the entire globe. Most of us don't have a second amendment.
Also, even if Apple was notoriously anti-second amendment and even wanted to somehow lobby the US to pass a new amendment reversing it....how does replacing a gun emoji with a squirt gun help make their case or in any way weaken the 2nd amendment?
I don't think it says anything about not infringing on rights to a gun emoji?
> and manipulate its customers’ thoughts and culture.
When I listen to music with my 5 year old, I put on the non-explicit versions of pop songs since he's kind of a parrot right now repeating things he hear. This is a version of the art for use cases like mine. Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity?
> so just to be clear, and in your own words, they changed it from a "gun" to a "gun", right?
That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol.
> That is like saying that replacing the car emoji with a train car is changing it from a ‘car’ to a ‘car.’ A squirt gun is not at all the same thing as a pistol
In the context of human conversation via emojis (which is a very specialized subset of communication), can you give me an example of a scenario where the semantic meaning of a sentence is going to change significantly by the gun emoji being a squirt gun instead of a pistol?
I mean this in good faith, I can't think of a reasonable scenario outside of something like:
> > Am I "manipulating my son's thoughts and culture" by choosing when I intentionally expose him to profanity?
> Yes, and it’s good because you are your son’s father.
If you were right, I would dispute that me being a child's father gives me exclusive rights to manipulate their thoughts and culture so it's a good thing. They are an independent human being. I could use my power and influence to enstill obedience to a cult (aka, religion), or teach them racism. It might take them decades to deprogram themselves, if they ever do so at all.
But I don't think you're right. Keeping profanity out of my son's brain until he grows out of the "repeat everything he hears especially if it gets a reaction" phase is no different than not giving him a gun before he can grow up to be a responsible gun owner.
And conversely, just because I am failing to keep profanity out of his mouth (obviously - most kids at some point figure out potty language and how fun ti is to repeat) doesn't automatically mean he's going to grow up a profane sailor.
Likewise, I don't know if my 5-year-old will grow up to be a responsible gun owner, a conscientious objector to weapons, or a mass shooter.
But I do know that his fate will not be decided by whether he sees a water pistol or a bullet pistol in the gun emoji on the internet.
> Apple is not anyone’s father, and does not have that right over its customers.
And customers aren't citizens. Apple may have a pretty large market share, but it is in no ways a monopoly. It is trivial to avoid Apple products in your life.
If the concern is that they used their power to influence the rest of the tech industry and the Unicode consortium, I mean the list of things like that is infinite. All modern web standards are shaped by tech companies, large and small. The issue isn't that someone CAN influence a consortium, the issue is that you disagree with the decision.
And I can understand if this was a threat to free expression or culture, but the list of emojis is already curated and influenced by the artists.
I'm still curious of an answer to this BTW:
> how does replacing a gun emoji with a squirt gun help make their case or in any way weaken the 2nd amendment? I don't think it says anything about not infringing on rights to a gun emoji?
"People on twitter will really be like "you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebomb a Walmart" [0]
Well, Luigi firebombed a Walmart.
Is that a valid strategy for enacting societal change? Perhaps not. But this republic accepts and engages in war. And as Clusewitz says, ""War is the continuation of policy with other means." [1]
Perhaps Luigi is also pursuing policy change through other means. I have to say that watching American politicians and law enforcement agencies treat the man who at worst committed one murder (alleged; innocent until proven guilty) with the wrath and civil rights abuses previously only reserved for terrorists associated with 9/11 makes me believe that his actions genuinely shocked the system.
>the wrath and civil rights abuses previously only reserved for terrorists associated with 9/11 makes me believe that his actions genuinely shocked the system.
When people responded positively or indifferently to the killing of Thompson, the ruling class took notice. That's REAL power, a new sensation to most Americans. I can hope only good things can come of this realization.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's valid, it's clearly very effective. No major social change for the better has EVER happened in history without such actions.
It seems to go like this:
1. One group calmly demands some sensible thing. They might do some protests.
2. The powers that be say no, because they like the status quo. They might arrest some people for peaceful protesting.
3. A different group does some violence.
4. The powers that be acquiesce to the first group because the alternative is continued violence. The second group has no basis to continue the violence once the first group is acquiesced to.
5. History paints the first group as the ones who caused change and the second group as bad people who shouldn't have done what they did.
It's got to be one of those psychological sales tricks. Door in the face technique?
Anyway, this is the ONLY way that regular people have EVER caused things to change for the better, so take that into consideration. (Whatever counter-example you're thinking of is probably not actually a counter-example)
> Perhaps Luigi is also pursuing policy change through other means.
Luigi, a person with zero history of political activism, with no record of organizing for anything, decides his only open political alternative is to kill the CEO of an insurance company, not registering new voters or organizing his workplace for better health coverage or driving old folks to the polls.
I don't know? That sounds less like rational political activism than a mentally disturbed lone gunman to me.
It sounds like someone who has analyzed the situation and decided that this is the only thing that works, and that it's better if someone without a record does it.
AWS typically considers the "GA" milestone as the "public launch" date, which is silly because the criteria for what is good enough for GA has changed over the years.
reply