Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | nathancahill's comments login

The note at the bottom about web pages is interesting. I always wish browsers followed that behavior so the "Work Offline" button would actually work when I got on a plane. I'd be happy to sacrifice 10GB+ of my SSD for the browser to permanently cache (at least for the life of the Cache-Control header).

I wonder how performant a proxy like Squid would be to run locally with a disk cache.

Yes, they allow setting holds. Can't say if they are worth the money though. I've climbed on a demo and didn't particularly enjoy it. It's better suited for people working on endurance (you can climb vertically for hours) instead of technical ability.

I've climbed on well set routes and poorly set routes. At higher grades, good setting makes all the difference between an enjoyable, hard challenge and something I never want to try again.

I like the recent trend at most gyms to let members rate routes on a 5-star scale. You start to recognize good setters and climb their routes first. I wouldn't call it "setter worship", but good setting is something I can appreciate.

I really like the rating idea, any idea if people just rate the setters they like really well? I go to a smallish gym and all the regulars know all the setters so this probably wouldn't work for us.

I live in Boulder, so there's no such thing as a small climbing gym here. As far as I can tell, people rate the routes. IMHO, the ratings end up being really accurate, one gym (Movement) even uses three significant digits.

I hope they didn't anchor any debt.

Sounds like it might have been a fluke - like a windlass day on the rode to success.

Seems to be the case, moor often than knot.

Olive startups as much as the next guy, but it's Brutus out there.

I'm curious about the shuttering timelines that failed startups use. Three weeks is awfully fast to go from operational to shutdown for a service that customers rely on. I see two options, either could be reasons that a startup would fail:

1. Customers don't rely on the service.

2. There are no customers.

Otherwise, why not leave the servers on for another month?

EDIT: 3. The service isn't automated enough to be run without human intervention, even for a month. Which would also likely create failure when it scales.

If your priority is returning the remaining investors' money to the investors, why would you keep the lights on?

I'm wondering specifically about keeping the servers on. Server costs are much less than the cost of "keeping the lights on".

I agree, even shutting down compute/cost-intensive features (i.e. the actual functionality) and leaving the login screen open might prevent a few people from losing work.

Then again, if the code is mirrored on github/bitbucket/whatever, then the risk of data loss is minimal and the product is actually all functionality.

It depends on the product. CI is very compute intensive (and may be bandwidth intensive, depending on setup).

I keep hearing "fail fast" as part of the start-up rah-rah. They just took it to heart.

More generally, to access and edit app settings.

Well, this politician is getting free money from me, which is a step beyond free labor. I signed up to volunteer for his web dev team a couple months ago, but never heard anything back. I guess they (correctly) decided to hire people for that, since it's not an option on his website anymore.

Cool idea! Your CSS/layout needs some love though, it's broken in FF (works better in Chrome).

Shoot! I'll take a look right now! Thanks for letting us know.

it's wonky in IE11 as well. For example: http://imgur.com/8HP761w

Noted. We're going to do substantial cross-browser testing.

Both Eli and I are both honestly not that great with CSS, so it may take us a second or two.

No worries - I appreciate you're probably slammed with many other things to do. I just wanted you to be aware of it.

> interoperate

That's what we're calling online profiling now?

>> interoperate

>That's what we're calling online profiling now?

My Google Now cards on Android say "yes it is". They are driven by email, calendar entries and phone sensors all tied to my profile and it's bloody magical. YMMV.

Yeah, it's really shocking to see how US carriers compare to the rest of the world (choose US in the Countries dropdown under the chart). I knew our wired internet speeds were lagging behind, but didn't realize LTE was that far behind as well.

AT&T and Verizon pretty much dominate and own the industry. Why improve when you can collude? Its not like anyone can actually compete, they own the spectrum.

Sprint and T-Mobile have significantly worse networks and access to spectrum.

Does not help that AT&T and Verizon are also huge stakeholders in the wired telecom oligopoly. They are overflowing in cash to crush competition.

With Google jumping into the wired internet business with Google Fiber, I'm surprised they haven't bought a controlling interest in T-Mobile yet (as Deutsche Telekom is always trying to unload T-Mobile on someone).

I don't understand why they would want to. Cell phone carriers aren't high profit business and has a ton of employees. Verizon has 180k employees and has net income of I see around 5billion profit on around 100 billion in income last year. Verizon FiOS pretty much got last Verizon CEO fired.

Google margins are way higher and Verizon employees more call center reps then all of Google in total.

From my understanding Google fiber is basically cheap dark fiber they got with some great regulatory concessions.

My view of it is Google spends enough just to prompt others to take actions (see their involvement in specturm bidding). Though my post might come off as judgemental, I'm not judging Google - that's merely good business for them to do. Wireless companies themselves are hardly examples of efficiency.

The same reason they acquired a mobile operating system: to prevent the loss of access to an ad delivery channel (mobile, in this case).

I don't see how them having controlling stake in TMobile helps them on that goal. I don't see either how wireless carriers have a real way to limit Googls mobile ad. I think Android alone accomplishes that goal, and until and unless phone carriers role out their own os alternatives that people don't hate, they'll be forced to offer Android.

Their involvement with spectrum bidding got them open access rights for only a few million.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here though..


Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact