jsnell

38 ms·

721.
by jsnell 2y ago
I have. As far as I can tell, there was no entity competing with Amazon here. The main other corporate entity involved was running a front-running scheme on real-estate transactions. Obviously you couldn't be in good faith talking of t
722.
by jsnell 2y ago
Who is the competitor you have in mind, and what business do you think they are in?
723.
by jsnell 2y ago
Thanks for the context! The thread carried all the hallmarks of crazy-person writing and obviously telling just one side of the story, but I really didn't want to chase down the details myself.
724.
by jsnell 2y ago
Controlling the only browser engine on the most important end user OS means Apple has a veto on what can be done with the web platform in practice. If they want to press a pillow on the face of the web and watch it desperately struggle for
725.
by jsnell 2y ago
Previous discussion (462 points, 139 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26714831
726.
by jsnell 2y ago
Blogspam for https://engineering.fb.com/2022/11/04/video-engineering/inst... (2022). The title is misleading enough that it suggests the author didn't really understand the article they were summari
727.
by jsnell 2y ago
Funnily enough, it's exactly the other way around. Google was prevented by completion regulators from turning down third party cookie support by default. (And users already have a choice, Chrome has a setting for whether 3p cookies are
728.
by jsnell 2y ago
You weren't actually posing a hypothetical though, but presenting this line item as a fact (and then imagining how that'd invalidate a bunch of criticism of Apple, which is the part that seemed to go into fanfic).
729.
by jsnell 2y ago
> The $20 billion is categorized as "advertising" on Apple's Balance Sheet No it isn't. First, that's not what a balance sheet is. A balance sheet is the list of assets and liabilities. How those assets were gain
730.
by jsnell 2y ago
I haven't seen any details on what arrangements the other search engines have, this only came up during the DDG testimony.
731.
by jsnell 2y ago
We actually know it. I told you how we know it, and you ignored it. If that wasn't enough for you, you could have asked for details rather than scold me about not providing tedious details on something that was public knowledge. Anyway
732.
by jsnell 2y ago
Dude, given you don't have any evidence to the contrary, the correct response here is "wow, I hadn't heard of that, please tell me more", rather than to assume that if you haven't heard of something, it must be fals
733.
by jsnell 2y ago
It's because the only way to get on that list at all is to pay Apple (as revealed in this very case).
734.
by jsnell 2y ago
This isn't "weakly related". It's you trying to hijack a topic to discuss your totally unrelated topic. The result is that a substantial proportion of the discussion is now about whether your tangent has any merit or not
735.
by jsnell 2y ago
Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41147381
736.
by jsnell 2y ago
So just to be clear, you do indeed not have any kind of evidence at all for the claim about FB profiting from news links?
737.
by jsnell 2y ago
First, you're the one making an affirmative statement about what FB should be doing. The burden of proof is on you. Second, I've posted the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence in direct reply to you multiple times. You've no
738.
by jsnell 2y ago
Yes, you keep asserting that with no evidence. Just saying it more often doesn't make it any more true.
739.
by jsnell 2y ago
There is a very obvious value we can assign to the outbound traffic from FB to the news sites (based on their typical advertising CPM), so we know the news sites are profiting. We can also infer that the effect is significant based on how m
740.
by jsnell 2y ago
That "FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create". Sorry, I thought this was obvious from context, since it is what you accused the GP of not considering.
741.
by jsnell 2y ago
Because the news organizations are giving it to FB, with the intent of FB using it in a way that gets users to click on the link, and all of this is disproportionately to the benefit of the news organizations.
742.
by jsnell 2y ago
Yes, it would not make sense for the GP to consider that statement, since it was just made up for political purposes. There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willin
743.
by jsnell 2y ago
Yeah. This study is almost entirely about vanity metrics. Like, who cares about the number of social media engagements for news companies? Nobody. They're not worth anything to anyone. Or how is the proportion of people who don't
744.
by jsnell 2y ago
If other companies had more profitable uses for the labor than Novo, then surely they'd pay more for the labor, and the workers would take those jobs instead?
745.
by jsnell 2y ago
Sorry! I was channeling frustrations of how multiple past discussions around this subject have gone, and shouldn't have. You were not involved in any of those, and definitely didn't deserve the snark.
746.
by jsnell 2y ago
Your track record is pretty relevant when evaluating this kind of stream of consciousness writing. You have a process, and that process is going to produce a consistent quality. And your track record us one of misrepresenting sources, makin
747.
by jsnell 2y ago
> However, I do have the ability to read publicly-available data, Maybe, but based on the egregious errors the author has made in previous articles, they probably don't have the ability to understand or reason about any of the data
748.
by jsnell 2y ago
It's saying they don't have the money to pay anyone. Not that they have money to pay for game development but not other things. The bad sales of this game are stated to be the reason they can't afford to pay anyone. If they d
749.
by jsnell 2y ago
From the quotes in the article, it sure sounds like he was expecting this re-release to save his company. > None, because we can't afford to pay anyone because the sales are bad.
750.
by jsnell 2y ago
Given a single Google account, you can create multiple YT brand accounts / channels. Each of them will have the Premium features enabled, each can have separate subscriptions, and you can switch between them with the account switcher w

More ›