I've been meaning to ask for quite a while now: What exactly is "flag" supposed to indicate?
I assume it's something more specific than "dislike". I take it to mean something along the lines of, "I think this is (sneaky) spam", or "This does not fit on a technology news site, even tangentially.". Or, perhaps something broader like, "I can't describe what the problem is, but this submission/comment should be reviewed by a moderator."
It's just never been particularly clear what the intention of it is.
> The purpose of flagging is to indicate that a story does not belong on HN. Frivolous flagging—e.g. flagging a story that's clearly on-topic by the site guidelines just because one personally dislikes it—eventually gets an account's flagging privileges taken away. But there's a new 'hide' link for people to click if they'd just like not to see a story.
Can you explain what you mean by that? Are you saying "You can just drive instead" or do you mean there is a way to fly within the US without going through the TSA?
I'm making a joke-website, "Everyone Loses as a Service (ELaaS)" [1]
The premise is essentially:
1) Accept money from angry customers asking us to prompt-hole tokens from targetedCompany chatbots
2) Approach targetedCompanies to offer the "real" (secret) service. For a monthly subscription fee, we won't prompt-hole their LLM tooling.
3) The real, real service is to setup some google alerts for targetedCompany release notes & forum posts. Whenever threshold exceeds some predetermined threshold, initiate Turbo Mode: the higher the hatred-per-customer, the greater the discount the service will be for them. Spit out newsletters as needed, regardless of whether or not they subscribed.
Meanwhile, initiate "surge pricing" for targetedCompany on a per-hour, per-payment basis. The more customers that pay, the higher the "one-time fee" is to targetedCompany.
Staffing is almost entirely made up of interns, a few roles are filled by underpaid contractors with unattainable goals; keep them both working there with the promise of full time employment "after things calm down."
If all goes well, everyone pays us money to do absolutely nothing with minimal outflow of revenue.
> in reality it was because Visa and MC had taken over all the POS market
Do you happen to have any insight on this? I mean, how is it that one or two companies can manage to squeeze everyone else out so completely? If two big players control Point of Sales (POS), shouldn't someone be able to come in and make a business out of underselling the competition? I would think that smaller overhead means smaller margins are needed.
I've talked to small businesses about fees and charges for their POS and they are always thrilled when people pay with cash, because it means they get the full amount. (These conversations have come up because I've run small businesses in the past, and I remember how horrible it felt to "sell" something for $30, only to get like...$5 out of it between fees, taxes, and insurance costs. It seems like every business I've spoken to hates Visa and MasterCard with a passion, so I would think that small business would be thrilled to have a new player.
At a guess, I would think that part of(?) the reason may be due to (and rightfully so) whatever regulations are in place to force money transfer companies into meeting certain security ratings or whatever. Even so, surely there are people that are willing to fight for a piece of the action, right? It seems crazy to me that no one else sees that as an opportunity to do it better. I'd really like it if fees for small-to-medium businesses could be dropped entirely, and it was only the major players that offset the costs for everyone else.
Do you mean that they have lobbied virtually all countries though, or what? I don't understand how they can be so dominant on a kind of global scale. I suppose there may be some places where they are not (I.e. North Korea, and a few other outliers) but I would assume they do have a certain amount of broad, global reach. Have they really just managed to bribe/make "friends" with (almost) every country on the planet?
> If two big players control Point of Sales (POS), shouldn't someone be able to come in and make a business out of underselling the competition
When your business depends on a customer focused payment, your primary goal is reach, more possible customers, bigger market. If a competitor or offering lower fees, it's still fees, of which those userbase might cross over. I hate this framing of the problem as a "well it's the shops fault"
It's short sighted limiting. And ridiculously oversimplified. Steam being dictated what they can sell being a great example thanks to pressure from the visa and MC duopoly.
Thanks for the response. I'm not quite getting it though. Are you saying something like, "If there are fees, the amount of those fees between A, B, and C are relatively inconsequential"? Or something else? I would think that if I am shop owner, I want to get as much of the sale as I can. So, if Company A and Company B both want 7%, but Company C only wants 4%, I'm going to switch from A/B to C as soon as I can. I don't get why there isn't a Company C trying to snag more shops in that way.
I'm also not very well versed in what you mean about Steam; are there specific types of games that Visa and MasterCard have prevented them from selling recently? I've used that service for a number of years now, and usually the only titles I don't see on there are ones that have some kind of exclusivity deal either with a gaming console, or with Epic or whatever. I know that they had some controversy a while back over the game "Hatred".
I have also been a little grossed out at the amount of Hentai-like content they've started to allow on their platform, but once I turned on the "Hide adult-content" setting, and setup a few additional filters, it's been pretty painless for me. Is there other types of games that they want to sell, but have been prevented from selling?
Huh. That actually brings up a kind of modern parallel I hadn't thought of. A lot of action movies are done primarily, or in part, on greenscreen. The intent of using a greenscreen has nothing to do with what was captured, and more so to do with what is trying to be depicted; what ought be seen, not what is being seen by the actors and actresses.
It would be interesting to know if, in say, 100-200 years, there is some alternative technology that could de-render todays CGI perfectly, and then replace it with some alternative, perhaps insert some form of practical effect in a convincing way? Would being able to do so be better to do just because it can be done?
Like, suppose that one of the more recent big budget movies, Transformers or whatever, could entirely have all of the CGI stripped out of them instantly, and then be replaced with some form of "less fake" effects in a different way. Would it be good to do so, if that were possible? For me personally, I'm very much in favor of rubber suits and fake blood over sticks with ping pong ball overlayed with graphics. [1] In spite of my preference though, I don't know if however many hundreds of people who had worked the digital modeling for all of those scenes would appreciate essentially deleting all of the thousands of hours they had put into the movie.
Bringing that back to B&W films, I think that if someone was really excellent at doing the set design for B&W films, it makes me wonder how they might react if someone insisted on "fixing" the film by colorizing it, and showing their set pieces in a way that they never intended for those pieces to be seen by the audience. Like, if they weren't outright upset with even the idea of doing it at all, perhaps they might insist on some sort of creative control on how each of those set pieces were colorized and portrayed in the final product. Obviously, that would then extend out to all of the other things too, like wardrobe, makeup, etc. I could see the complexity ballooning out to be as complicated and involved as making the movie was to begin with! For example, maybe the guy that scouted the original location for the film wouldn't have chose the spots he had chosen if he knew that people would be able to see it on giant TVs that they could pause every single frame of, and perform all kinds of upscaling and digital zooms in and out on.
[1] I am firmly in favor of practical effects over digital for everything, except small technical errors like a boom mic or a coffee cup in a shot, because I think that the constraints a movie set faces will demand either: incredible innovative solutions by the crew, or, those constraints force directors to scale their vision back to something more contained and manageable. It helps to show where the scope creep for a movie is, and where it's simply unnecessary. For example, Jaws has a great backstory regarding the constant issues of the mechanical shark, it really forced Spielberg to rethink how and when the shark would be shown, and when it would be better to let the viewers mind fill in the blanks.
I think these are really interesting questions and I like a lot of what you’re saying. I don’t really agree with your near prohibition on CG, but I definitely get where it comes from and think that some productions definitely abuse it
> it sills maddens me there's no somewhat universal tab-entry in OSes like we have with enter
That's a good point!
Were it up to me, I'd probably say something like: Ctrl+`, or maybe ` followed by escape, or something like that. Maybe one of the function keys? Eh...most if not all of those have been hijacked to mean various inane and stupid things too. :/
Hmm...oh! How about: Caps Lock+Shift ? I'm using an ergonomic keyboard, but I think the button press would still work pretty easily. I assume most styles of keyboard would have both, so it wouldn't lock people out if they are writing in a different language, either.
I realize we can't really go backward in time, but I would prefer if the farmers that lived close to where I am sold to people who live local to me. That can happen to some degree (open yard stands), and I like to do that for some of the smaller farms, but it's really a kind of "nice to have" rather than a "The market stocks stuff that was grown a town or two over" type thing. I feel like something probably got lost when that kind of arrangement went away.
There's still one or two local businesses that manage to make it into the local market for me which is neat to see, but that's more so because they are for frozen pastries and stuff, and can prepare a metric ton in advance, and the market can mark it up for being a "local specialty" type thing. I like to buy them when I can afford it. It just sucks that essentially every other thing on a shelf probably wasn't even made in the same time zone or hemisphere.
The thing you imagine has never really been true. Rivers, seas and canals and later railroads and highways have always brought food to the city from as far as it could be transported before it spoiled.
Rome got its wheat from Egypt and its olive oil from around the Mediterranean.
Ancient egypt sent food up and down the nile to population centers in Cairo and Thebes.
Well, they matter some. They matter to registeredcorn.
More widely, they matter in that farmers markets and roadside stands and such do exist. Why do they exist? Because there are enough people that want to buy from such places.
I mean, it's never going to be the way that food is sold. But those preferences matter enough for niche markets to exist.
What did Command+G do in OSX? Online results are saying it "advances to the next search result after doing find". In other OS', that's just the enter key, if I am understanding the context correctly.
My insurance company and Synology would be my first targets. I'd gladly throw ~1k at each.
Of course, I suspect the true business model to be to do nothing. You sell the "service" to people customers, but your enterprise customers pay you a subscription fee to not execute the order. ELaaS: Everybody Loses as a Service
Tell the original customer that if the company pays to have this not done to them, they will get a portion of the proceeds. Many customers might even end up getting more back than they were originally stiffed for.
Scale it enough and it would be stupid for a customer NOT to do this
Haha. You could also add in some "fun" Uber-isms, too!
Suppose an enterprise customer released a new update that everyone absolutely hates, so angry customers are are more likely to wage war on their bots with the company's anti-bot token-draining mechanism: "Oh, whoops! Looks like you're in surge pricing territory. We can only refuse to do nothing for so long before we start to lose credibility with our people customers, so what would have been a subscription fee has now slipped into premium pricing territory!"
hatePerPerson can be calculated as the averaged comment-to-upvote (or upvote to downvote, if available) across Social Media platforms.
If you want to be exceptionally malicious, you can also offer dynamic discounting to the person customers at the same time, to drive up the surge pricing even higher!
I would call this unethical but, well, every aspect of it kind of is. Everything from the service existing, to the the people participating, to the secret backend service, to the enterprise customers paying for that secret backend service. Might as well drain as much dosh from everyone as you can, if everyone is tip toeing in that dark-grey area anyway. :)
You know what? If I have time, I might even make a mock site to sketch all of this out. I've been meaning to come across a fun little project. This could work! lol
Are you telling me that it's sexier to say, "In its current form, we cannot contain its power" rather than, "We're working out the last set of bugs before the start of Q3"?
I've been meaning to ask for quite a while now: What exactly is "flag" supposed to indicate?
I assume it's something more specific than "dislike". I take it to mean something along the lines of, "I think this is (sneaky) spam", or "This does not fit on a technology news site, even tangentially.". Or, perhaps something broader like, "I can't describe what the problem is, but this submission/comment should be reviewed by a moderator."
It's just never been particularly clear what the intention of it is.
reply