Just doesn't understand the scale of money.

Maybe a million dollar company needs to be compliant. A billion dollar company can start to ward off any loopholes with lawsuits instead of compliance.

A trillion dollar company will simply change the law and fight governments over the law to begin with, rather than worrying about compliance.

This is probably more of a GAI achievement, but we definitely need confidence levels when it comes to making queries with factual responses.

But yes, look at the US c.2025-6. As long as the leader sounds assertive, some people will eat the blatant lies that can be disproven even by the same AI tools they laud.

That all makes sense. But the more I know, the more I realize that a lot of software engineering isn't about crazy algorithms and black magic. I'd argue a good 80% of it is the ability to pick up the broken glass, something even many students can pull off. 15% of that comes down to avoiding landmines in a large field as you pick up said glass.

But that care isn't even evident here. People submitting prs that don't even compile, bug reports for issues that may not even exist. The minimum I'd expect is to check the work of whatever you vibe coded. We can't even get that. It's some. Odd form of clout chasing as if repos are a factor of success, not what you contribute to them.

4. The details are pretty straightforward. Continual passive income is more reliable than the boom bust cycles that is buying cars. The latter requires you finding more and more customers. The former is extracting more money from an assumedly commuted customer.

In theory, subscriptions are cheaper for users as well when done right and it works better with how people are compensated. But as usual, greed consumes all and if everything is a bill, that's more ways to eat at your long term wealth.

In other words: you will own nothing and like it.

>That would have no impact on decimalizing sub-day units:

part of it is natural. We roughly divide day and night into 2 parts, so we already need to have considerations for halves.

It seems like base 12 was chosen simply due to religion. the zodiac defined the hours at night for ancient egypt, and the Goddesses of Seasons for Greece later on.

Minutes and seconds came because we let astronomers define them based on hours and movements of the sun along a dial. The time it'd take for a dial to traverse a literal arcminute and arcsecond (which is still a thing today). Though these times are very different from today's minutes and seconds. So we have math to thank for the base 60 measurements.

> part of it is natural. We roughly divide day and night into 2 parts, so we already need to have considerations for halves.

I forget which country did it but their historical time system counts hours as two halves from sunrise and then from sunset... That sounds a lot better than noon and midnight, to me. We could totally do

  sunrise = 0.00
  sunset = 9.99 -> 10.00
  sunrise = 19.99 -> 0.00

(For some standardized values of "sunrise" and "sunset" that don't slide around over the span of a year.)

>Fahrenheit has more precision without using decimals

Meanwhile, I'm fine at 98.6 degrees, but everyone freaks out over 100 degrees. it's a more precise unit, right?

feet/inches make more sense to be attached to. they are based on your body parts (roughly), and we spend a lot of time looking at humans. inches divide our fingers, feet are... well, feet. And yards are steps. We intuitively know what all those feel like through everyday life compared to the scientific way we derive a centimeter. inches and feet being base 12 is more a coincidence than anything else (or maybe not. Maybe there's some golden ratio shenanigans at play).

>Pinning 100 at the boiling point of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure is every bit as arbitrary as Fs original 100F pin to the internal body temperature of a horse.

I mean, every unit is arbiturary. But we need to pick something.

I don't have any love for either, but F is the easiest to pick fun at when none of the standard temperatures make any sense. 32 for freezing water, 212 for boiing, 98.6 for human temperature? The 0 and 100 scale were based on the freezing point of some particular saltwater mixture and 90 degrees for human body temperature (which was corrected and then the scale updated to get to the modern temperature).

> none of the standard temperatures make any sense. 32 for freezing water, 212 for boiling, 98.6 for human temperature?

None of those attributes matter much. F is great for talking about the weather in the US, where 0 to 100 is approximately the experienced range through the year. You don't need to know the exact boiling or freezing points of water to know how cold or hot you'll be each day.

100 was the internal body temperature of a horse. The thought for both the brine and horse was that both were more stable temperatures than something like a human and pure water.

As you can imagine, it was harder to obtain pure water and back then they noticed water freezing at various temperatures.

And often at places cheaper than US talent, so that above average pay in the EU comes out to below average pay overall.

The part about "they get more expensive" makes me actively not want this, despite otherwise being someone obsessed with optimization. I'm not here to optimize billionaires' pockets at the expense of the people I actually make the product for.

I don’t understand the basis for your hostility here to charging more money and making a profit, especially given that Hacker News is founded and run by a venture capital firm whose goal is repeatedly that in hundreds of attempts at once. At minimum, Vimeo should have been raising prices by inflation% per year, and I’m pretty sure they weren’t doing that. Better the platform continue and thrive doing what works than founder uselessly on the zero-price pivot shoals like most startups these days. And there’s a sense of cosmic irony that both Vimeo and Dropout are now run by a very small team rather than a large one. Perhaps Vimeo will learn the lesson of Dropout and switch to the boring but effective 100% paying-customers-only model that other successful businesses use. I’m rooting for them.

This is why "running lean" for a B2C business is never something to take as a good sign from the consumer standpoint. Let alone the client. Those savings are not being passed to you, quite the contrary. they will in fact have their care and eat it by trying to throw more costs at you despite the supposed lower overhead.