Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | StopDisinfo910's commentslogin

I don't know something with a slick form factor, a great TV UX out of the box, that handles sleep well and can be waken up by a controller reliably fits a real niche I think.

I might pay for that actually. Fiddling with a PC is not fun. There is value in convenience.


Not really, no. The point of the "we" is too highlight the incredible collective effort which was required from all these massive endeavors. It goes all the way from the steel cool astronaut to the great machinists which had to build the parts.

I think it's one of the greatest benefits of ever working on a massive industrial project. You quickly realize how incredibly complex these things are and how utterly powerless a person alone is.


ok you have reduced my cringe.

I'm lost by what is notable here.

Valve always said the Steam Machine would be priced like a PC in its communication and is apparently delaying the launch while waiting for the components market to cool down so you would expect the MSRP might not be final.

The leaked prices if they turn out to be correct are perfectly aligned with expectations.

Also, what is this website? It seems like an AI generated submission on a news aggregator which contains a list of sources which would have objectively been better links to share. All the other submissions have no comment.


Very sad day for the EU during an already very sad period.

First, this vote by the commission is a mockery of the EU own rule. The commission is not competent for comprehensive deal mixing trade and cooperation and splitting the deal like they have done at behest of Germany is a disgrace and likely illegal. I hope and fully expect the ECJ to strike this down.

Second the content of the deal is completely outdated. No mirror close while the EU tightened their own rules so much is insane. The alleged safe guards are completely insuffisant. We are basically saying it's ok for a foreign sellers to do things we ban here. It's even more insane when you consider that it's Bayer actually selling the banned pesticides and they are amongst the companies benefiting the most from the deal.

Third the market we are supposedly opening to Europe have already moved on. European automakers already have factories in the Mercosur so exports won't move. The only things which will change is how expensive it is to ship parts so the deal is basically lining up the margins of auto companies with no local job increase. That leaves pharmaceutical and industrial machineries but even there Europe is quickly losing ground to China and India. The commission knows that and pivoted into pretending the deal is actually about securing source of raw materials like lithium from Argentina but ironically the main consumers of this lithium in Europe will be Chinese companies factories in Hungary. We are destroying the livelihood of our farmers, a fully local part of the economy, to help China.

Fourth the deal affects various countries in a massively unequal way with clear losers and counties which incorrectly think they win. I can't stop noticing that it's always the same country blocking common investments, blocking transfers, using the common currency and internal devaluation to prop up its exports at the expense of its neighbors, killing common procurement to try to favour its own industrial base, currently trying to destroy our space industry so moneys go to its startup. So much for the supposed solidarity I guess. There is very little union in the so called European Union.


That's simply wrong. The minimum limit for products ban in the EU but actually sold to Mercosur countries by Bayer is above zero. That's the heart of the French disagreement. The deal doesn't contain mirror close. We are allowing the Mercosur country to sell us products that would be banned in the EU.

Yes, fees are capped in the EU for exemple.

Considering the impact on prices, cashback is basically reverse redistribution. It makes the situation worse for the poorest customers to give money to the banks and their richest customers.


Yep if you use a card in the US the company just takes 2c from your left pocket and puts it in your right pocket in a form that's more difficult to use.

And if you don't use a card, the business takes 2c from your left pocket and keeps it.

It's a great trick though, people really buy into the whole points/cashback thing and don't realise they're being paid with their own money


It's usually more than 3 cents out of your left pocket and 1.5-2 into your right one, even if you do everything right and never incur interest charges or fees.

> It's a great trick though, people really buy into the whole points/cashback thing and don't realise they're being paid with their own money

Even better, they become poorly-paid lobbyists for the entire scheme, since it successfully makes them feel like they're getting "luxury" items/services for free by "gaming the banks", when they're really just participating in a loyalty scheme exactly as designed.

Sure, it's possible to eke out a net cash profit here and there, but all in all, it's just a great counterexample to homo economicus.


It’s not being paid with my own money. If I can get 2% cash back, then the situation is I either pay 98% of $x, or $x.

Nowadays though, many sellers are offering at least 3% or higher discounts for not using credit card. My mobile network provider, home ISP, daycare and kids activities, insurance, taxes, healthcare, tradespeople, and even Target offers a 5% discount if you do not use a credit card.

It’s basically only travel, restaurants, and non Target retail that earns credit card rewards. Although sign up bonuses make it worth paying the additional credit card fees sometimes.


> It’s not being paid with my own money. If I can get 2% cash back, then the situation is I either pay 98% of $x, or $x.

The counterfactual isn't getting or not getting 2% cash back, it's the merchant paying or not paying ~3% in fees, a part of which you get back from your issuing bank as a kickback to keep participating in and advocating for this scheme.

Of course this would require regulatory action. Absent that, the status quo represents the stable equilibrium.


Well if you can get $100 worth of X on credit card for $98, but you can buy the same thing with cash for $97, aren't you actually paying 150% of the "cash back" with your own money? ¯\\_(ಠ_ಠ)_/¯

> but you can buy the same thing with cash for $97

Merchants rarely offer cash discounts in the US.


Except nearly every restaurant I frequent. Example menu below with cash and credit prices, credit prices being 4% more. I see this commonly.

https://misslucyskitchen.com/menu


Even as somebody really disliking the current interchange fees in the US, 4% is a money grab on the merchant's side that I find hard to empathize with.

Even if the merchant pays the sticker price for card acceptance, it's usually just below 3%, unless international cards are involved. Add to that the fact that cash transactions in restaurants are often accounted for in "more tax efficient ways", and it feels even more icky.


My point is if credit cards didn't exist, the $1 thing would cost 98c, so in that sense it's your money.

Admittedly that is overstating it a bit because not everyone uses a rewards card. In reality the 2% cashback is 1% your own money being given back to you and 1% money from people paying in cash being transferred to you (normally regressively as someone else pointed out).

If you get a discount for paying cash, then it really is just your own money


It's exceedingly rare to offer a cash discount in the US, I honestly don't think I've ever seen one in person.

I think the regulations allowing/prohibiting this vary heavily between states. For example, here are NY's rules: https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/04/2024-04-10...

NY’s laws are about the display of prices, but as of 2010, it is federal law that a merchant can always offer a lower cash or debit card price.

They are all over the place, especially small businesses. A cash only (paper money) price is typically less than debit card or other electronic “cash” discounts because tax evasion is assumed.

Next time you have an independent contractor do some work, after they give a price, ask them if they will accept 90% or even less if you pay cash.

My barber has a sign with a cash price, a Zelle/Venmo price, and a credit card price.


Like I said, I don't think I've ever seen them. For instance, you can't go into a Walmart or Best Buy and ask for a cash discount. Maybe a small business offers them, but I live in a small town (pop < 4k) and our grocery store and hardware store don't offer a cash discount. Neither do our gas stations offer a discount for paying for gas with cash, as the other reply mentions.

I'm not disputing they exist, just that it's exceedingly rare and not the norm.

> My barber has a sign with a cash price, a Zelle/Venmo price, and a credit card price.

I'm half joking and half serious, is he intentionally trying to confuse customers? Why do Zelle/Venmo have their own prices, and what price do I pay if I just want to pay with the debit card on my phone?


From someone who lives in bay area (so not <4k), this is exceedingly common. Of course Walmart does not have a small business owner on-site who can oversee such adjustments, but think mom and pop / single owner stores. They do it all the time.

Think contractors. They also do it all the time. When I did a remodel a couple of years back, he asked for cash. It was a small amount so I did not think much until my accountant told me I will need receipts if I wanted them added to my house's capital /cost. I asked the contractor and he stalled me for weeks while also saying I will need to pay more for receipts, until one day I forgot chasing (and am thinking of it now) and just let it go I guess.


>I'm half joking and half serious, is he intentionally trying to confuse customers?

He is sharing some of the savings from tax evasion with the customer.

I do not know if he can accept electronic payments from a debit card on the phone. I presume Zelle/Venmo is simpler than figuring out a system to separate debit cards and credit cards.

>just that it's exceedingly rare

Discounts for non credit card payment methods (such as ACH/debit card/Zelle/Venmo/paper cash) seem more and more common to me. Bigger businesses likely won't engage in tax evasion allowing for bigger discounts for paper cash, but fewer and fewer of my expenses are worth paying with a credit card.


I've seen it quite often for gasoline. Two sets of prices, one for credit, the other for debit/cash.

I've also seen it more common as a credit card surcharge (at the bottom of a menu) than a cash discount.


I'm seeing it more often. They don't say cash discount, they say they're charging a fee for using a credit card.

What annoys me is debit card fees are supposed to be capped in the U.S. But for unclear reasons many payment processors don't honor this, even large processors like PayPal and Square. Merchants tell me the debit card fee is same as a credit card.

My local government charges a 2.9% fee for use of credit or debit card as well.


A casual look at where people live the oldest, what they eat, and what's recommended tell you all you need to know about food recommendations then and now.

It's a field where actual long term controlled experiments are impossible, confounding variables are everywhere, and multiple lobbies have vested interests in the outcomes.

I take everything with a grain of salt apart from studies of harm when sources are credible and numerous and even then, I'm not fully confident.

The only current advice I follow is avoiding industrially processed food. That sounds like a sound one as this kind of food is basically terra incognita. It's just applying the precaution principle.


A casual look at where people live the oldest will tell you about statistical outliers and bad government recordkeeping.

Don't forget pension fraud and identity theft.

I think avoiding industrially processed food is wise, but it eliminates 99% of restaurant food and 90% of prepared food in almost any setting, only exception being about half the stuff at a salad bar.

Almost everything that isn't a single ingredient whole plant or animal food contains industrially processed oil or sweetener/starch.

Still worth doing imho but I understand why it's not easy for most people.


It doesn't have to be a religion. I don't care when I eat out. The point is not to be absolutely consistant. It's just the guideline I use regarding what I eat.

I don't really eat prepared food. I mostly buy whole food to be used as ingredients. Cooking simple meals is not particularly hard. I think most people overestimate the complexity and time requirement involved.


> The only current advice I follow is avoiding industrially processed food.

It is also surprisingly hard in practice. There are so many foods that on the label are supposed to be whole foods or low processed but then when you read the ingredients do you realize you've been bamboozeld.


For me avoiding processed foods is not that hard, I only eat whole foods like vegetables and fruits (where I live there are no labels on these whole foods). I know that this is not doable for most of you, but it can be done if you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet

This is a complete myth. Human populations are not homogenous, gene pools that relied on agriculture for the last 10k years are completely different than hunter gatherer populations. You have been lied to

Which myth? I have genuine trouble understanding what you disagree with.

Industrially processed food is a very recent invention. I'm not talking about modern fad like the Nova classification here. I don't care about bread as long as it's made with water, yeast and flour. I just don't want my food to contain any recent additives.

My take is basically that if it was fine a thousand years ago, it's probably ok-ish minus everything we know now to be poisonous. The blind spot is obviously plant selection and modern varieties being different but well, that's ok, nothing is perfect.


The diversity in individual micro-biome ecosystems now walks into the room

I don't understand what Google is doing.

On the one hand, you have the CEO apparently all in on Gemini and subscriptions which should push for some kind of Office 365 "we don't care where you use it as long as you subscribe" and strong gestures towards their hardware partners.

On the other hand, you have Osterloh who won the tug of war and is now trying to turn the hardware division and Android into some kind of Apple vertically integrated machine like if he was still at Motorola while their SoC is lagging behind one to two generations and they don't seem to have the volume to sustain this kind of investment. Plus, they have regulatory pressure on the competition side from both the USA and the EU.

Google strategy is still as unreadable as ever. It's frankly a miracle this company is still standing. They are living testimony to the power of having a monopoly on a large market.

Interestingly I now view the Motorola acquisition as a massive mistake, not because of the assets, but because the culture it brought in is actively damaging to the overall company. It's so weird trying to emulate Apple exactly when the regulatory environment is focused on tearing down this model.


Honestly, Apple is getting gifts and gifts from all sides (though with the huge blunder that has been *OS 26), Google doesn't know how to make ecosystems and has never known to do so. Android is great as a single device, but the whole integration, even with their own devices is horrible (Near Share, setting their 'Find My' ecosystem as opt-in instead of opt-out...).

It's another example of EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), as they finally succeeded with Chrome. And there is likely quite a lot of political interference.

And no, it has nothing to do with the lack of vertical integration. Microsoft, despite all the millions of issues with the platform, has succeeded in making an ecosystem on the enterprise side despite having very little to say in the PC hardware.


Why not? You send the picture and ask to blur the monitor in plain text. It gives you back the picture with a blurred monitor.

That seems like a very easy way to do the job. What's the issue specifically?


Not really, no.

The main difference is that you don't know how many code points you have in the prefix as they use variable encoding so it can be up to four but as little as one. I imagine the choice of four bytes for the prefix was actually done specifically for this reason. That's the maximum length of a UTF-8 code point.

The length is not the number of characters anymore but just the size of the string.

Apart from that, it should work exactly the same.


We chose 4B because that was the maximum number of bytes that would be unused otherwise (4B for the length, 8B for the pointer leaves 4B), the UTF8 encoding doesn't really matter.

Also, for UTF8 specifically, cutting code points in half is fine as long as all strings are valid UTF8. The UTF8 encoding is prefix free, i.e., no valid code point is a prefix of another valid code point, so for prefix matching we can usually just compare bytes.

It only gets more complicated if you add collations or want to match case-insensitively. But at that point you need to take into account all edge cases of the Unicode spec anyway.


> We chose 4B because that was the maximum number of bytes that would be unused otherwise

I'm sure you did but there is something funny reading this phrase while at the same time considering you have robbed two bits from your pointer to represent class - admittedly the only thing I find questionable in your design.

If that's the case it's a happy accident because having a full code point here is quite nice.


That's a good point. We just use pointer tagging in many different places (e.g. for pointer swizzling in our buffer pages), so including a few bits of information in a pointer just seemed obvious.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: