Targeting cross platform anything drives the cost up immediately.
Just building websites that work on different devices if the site is non-trivial i.e. SVG, WebGL etc the cost up because each platform you have to duplicate the QA phase. This week I spent 4 days tracking down an iOS bug in a WebForm. The company had to pay me 4 days worth of work, half of that was reproducing the bug reliably.
People make out this stuff is easy. It isn't and I am sorry but Linux users on Steam is like 1 or 2% the last time I checked. It just isn't worth the effort for most developers.
The internet was originally (for good or bad) the wild west. You could be anyone you wanted on the internet and for a lot of people it was an escape from ordinary life that may have been suffocating.
On my Discord. I have a HomoSexual Nazi (I don't think he is a real Nazi I think he is larping because I believe works in a very PC environment), A socialist transexual woman, a half Mexican / Chinese American Immigrate who just got his first job in the USA after he got his Green Card and many other personalities. These people can be who they want and if they want to stop being that, they can just leave and it is gone forever and it is all harmless.
Flamewars, Trolling and some Drama (before the likes of actually harmful stuff like doxxing, swatting etc) were sometimes kinda fun.
And you don't see any issue with suppressing the discussion around this clearly sensitive issue? You taking one side is a sure way to alienate many on the opposing side. Let's have an unbiased discussion while maintaining civility.
It seems like you're trying to tell people what they can and cannot discuss more and more on HN.
> Can you clarify this? Anyone can sign up with an account and the whole thing is meritocratic.
It isn't a question of suppressing discussion, as you'll see if you look at the voluminous threads HN has had about that (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22132714). It's just a question of what's on topic in a given thread. If you allow a hotter topic with greater mass to enter into a smaller thread, the discussion will get sucked into its gravitational field. That approach leads to all threads being dominated by the same handful of hot topics over and over, so we try to avoid that here.
Re "taking one side": it always feels like mods take the other side. The people on the opposite side from you feel that we're taking your side; I guarantee it.
Your comment was perfectly natural. It's just that we know from experience what sort of thread that would likely lead to, as I explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22140452. Stack Overflow is much larger than the OP's fledgling community, and the recent controversies about it have burned pretty hot, so it could easily have become the dominant topic. That wouldn't be fair either to the fledgling community or to the HN community, which benefits more from having a new discussion than repeating an old one.
Also, I don't think it's really fair to the OP if we start putting her on the spot about Stack Overflow. She probably hasn't thought that much about it, since for most people the only way to get a project like this off the ground is by focusing on one thing for a long time.
This is quite frankly nonsense. You have released the software to the wider world it is your responsibility to make sure it is decent. Just because you have released it for free doesn't suddenly mean you can avoid criticism.
SQL injection is such a basic thing to check there is really no excuse.
This is a smear to demonise leave voters and dismiss any valid concerns they may have. The UK is generally not xenophobic.
> Anecdotally, from watching shows like Question Time on the BBC, I strongly believe that leave voters are thick and we needn't tip toe around this issue.
I've watched plenty of question time and tbh the people that appear the stupidest are usually the politicians. So it is completely subjective.
> Here are two studies showing the correlation between votes and education level.
This is outright fallacious. I know plenty of people that have a PhD that can barely function outside of academia. Having a higher education level really doesn't mean much once you leave academia and doesn't mean you are any more or less informed on a particular issue.
No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave. The people that voted leave just didn't think the economic argument is as important as you think it is. That doesn't make them stupid it simply means they have different priorities then you do.
"No it isn't. The money argument isn't a valid argument for the vast majority of people that voted to Leave."
The 350 million a week message was a vital part of the Vote Leave strategy - and given that it was Dominic Cummings in charge there would have been hard data to support its appeal.
What people keep on forgetting is that Leaving the EU was never about money. Micheal Caine said it best "I'd rather be a poor master than a rich slave".
The narrative I've seen from the people I know who supported it is basically split 50/50 between not wanting to take orders from Brussels (even if we were at the table, making those rules) and just straight-up xenophobia.
I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
An emotional reaction that's certainly already screwed up my own future plans, so take that as my bias for remain.
This is tiring to keep seeing this constant smear repeated. Sure immigration was mentioned but having control over immigration isn't the same as xenophobia. I've lived in a few different countries and the UK generally isn't xenophobic.
> I think the common thing about Brexit is that voting to leave is quite likely not based in any actual reason, but is a purely emotional reaction.
Well I would disagree. There are plenty of reasons why (not taking orders from Brussels is a really good reason, especially after Article 11 and 13 were drafted and forced through the Parliament).
I don't classify it as a smear - it's true: control on immigration is, on varying levels, direct xenophobia. Most border policy is straight up prejudice against people based solely on the fact they aren't a citizen here, to different amounts based on the location they're coming from and the nature of their business in the receiving country.
Labelling people who voted to restrict border controls prejudiced against those who come from abroad isn't some horrific smear insult, it's merely stating the facts: they don't like "immigrant type X" and have acted accordingly.
I was also explicitly referencing my experience with those who I know who are outwardly Leave. Not once has any specific policy come up within their reasoning - broad feelings have been far and away the driver.
Using the hyper-partisan guardian opinion piece as evidence of anything is laughable. It is quite clear that many here don't want to understand those that voted Leave. Instead they are quite happy to build a straw-man.
I'm not really trying to use it as evidence of anything. You picked a citation, I picked another one. Furthermore, as mentioned, I agree with you on the reason not being money.
Regarding your other point, I honestly think there's nothing profound to understand but feel free to prove me wrong with concrete examples and no hand-waving or out-of-context citations.
Demagogues with agendas have existed for a long time, they are nothing new. So has scapegoating.
No-one in their right mind will claim that the EU is perfect, but the result of simplistically asking people to make a black-and-white decision about something so incredibly complex, and with so many unknowns, that almost no-one is in a position of fully understanding had the consequence of throwing the baby out with the water. And all because of a razor-thin-basically-within-uncertainty margin in the results.
Obviously, as laughable as this may be, it is a valid choice - and we will all have to live with its consequences.
I - for one - can't wait to get Scotland back in the EU.
If nobody can truly understand the EU how can you hold anyone or anything accountable? You've just made half of the sovereignty argument for me.
As for Scotland joining the EU. Even if Scotland does become independent (it won't), the EU wouldn't let an independent Scotland in.
> In order to join the EU you've got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less or be obviously (which allows for some fudging) moving in that direction. And Scotland, now that oil has plummeted, simply is not there. It's difficult, given the intertwining of British and Scottish accounts to get it exactly right but reasonable estimates have the Scottish alone budget deficit at 8 to 10% of GDP.
Scotland cannot sustain itself at all on its own. The SNP run Scotland poorly (and it is in their interest to do so) so it would have to go under massive austerity the moment they go independent.
> If nobody can truly understand the EU how can you hold anyone or anything accountable? You've just made half of the sovereignty argument for me.
Hmm that's not really what I wrote: the decision was about leaving the EU, so the not understanding part referred to "leaving the EU", not to the EU itself. You are still at square one, argument-wise.
As for Scotland, everyone knows that countries that want to join has to comply with common rules. Other countries had to go through the same problems. If they want to comply, I am sure they will find a way. When that happens, they will be welcome back in the EU.
I agree, and I've said that elsewhere in the comments. Thing is, this is going to come back and bite many of the people who think they're voting for more freedom. Poverty doesn't make you free.
Incredibly true. People who have the fortune to believe that ‘personal choice’ reigns supreme can’t imagine what it’s like when you only have one choice.
The UK isn't going to turn into a 3rd world country anytime soon and the Economy at the moment is still growing faster than Germany and is projected to continue after the 31st.
These are just the figures so far. This doesn't take into account things that are yet to happen like losing access to the single market (proximity is a far better predictor of economic exchange than culture, so talk of trade deals with Australia and New Zealand need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt), withdrawal from EU trade deals which are going to take a long time to renegotiate piecemeal (and which we're unlikely to get on the same terms as a separate entity), etc. The UK government has recently made noises to the effect that they're not interested in regulatory alignment with the EU, which is harmful because they're our biggest trading partner. To be clear, the EU is going to suffer too, but nothing like as much as the UK.
True, but also if you ask those people what 'EU' laws they want to revert after Brexit, all you will hear back is 'Its matter of principles and not exact examples'.
> This report includes several different surveys and opinion polls asking Britons why they voted the way they did in the EU referendum. It identifies that the two main reasons people voted Leave were ‘immigration’ and ‘sovereignty’, whereas the main reason people voted Remain was ‘the economy’.
Why is the graphical installer important to you? Is it to check the GPU is supported? You can usually install a DE after the initial install of the OS easily, and FreeBSD and OpenBSD at least have very nice user friendly installers.
Yes I know. I can install it fine. Do I particularly want to use a text based installer than looks like something from the 80s? Nope. I have an Amiga 1200 on my desk and that has a better installer than most BSDs. This is essentially a dead OS that fits on 5 floppy disks has a proper graphical installer and BSD doesn't. Icaros (Amiga clone OS) has a better installer than most BSDs.
Like it or not Windows with its spyware is the only Desktop OS that isn't tied to expensive hardware or has the problems of Linux (which will get worse as things become more corporate) and has decent software and hardware support i.e. my Nvidia card is supported (No Radeon cards aren't an option mainly because they tend to be garbage IMO and every card I've owned that been a Radeon has had problems). Also Windows is pretty stable for the most part even with the forced updates and annoyances of having to turn all the garbage off.
> You can usually install a DE after the initial install of the OS easily, and FreeBSD and OpenBSD at least have very nice user friendly installers.
The partitioning for OpenBSD the last time I bothered looking at it was asking me to work out cylinders and all sorts of other crap. When I was at uni and had free time I didn't mind getting the calculator out and working it all out, now I just do A for auto partition and hope it is okay (which isn't good).
I have a ISO somewhere where I scripted everything up and then one of the released broke it and I just gave up and stuck CentOS on the machine and only use OpenBSD now in VMs for hosting.
Just building websites that work on different devices if the site is non-trivial i.e. SVG, WebGL etc the cost up because each platform you have to duplicate the QA phase. This week I spent 4 days tracking down an iOS bug in a WebForm. The company had to pay me 4 days worth of work, half of that was reproducing the bug reliably.
People make out this stuff is easy. It isn't and I am sorry but Linux users on Steam is like 1 or 2% the last time I checked. It just isn't worth the effort for most developers.