Based on the video, it looks like Vimeo's co-founder lives in the Mission district of SF. In my experience living hear for nearly a decade, the traffic norms around here are terrifying. I lived in the area years ago and the number of times cars would blow through stop signs in broad daylight around pedestrians stunned me.
I'd love to see more flow-control measures like speedbumps, etc. Walking around the area should be enjoyable - lots of trees & shops. The potential for erratic drivers causes me to avoid the place.
Other parts of the city are much safer (at least outside the main high-speed corridors). The Mission is full of stop signs and what you'd expect to be slow-speed traffic - reality is far different.
Oregon is 60% the size of California by land area but only 10% of the population.
Roads like 101 & 880 can't be worked on during the day because of massive congestion issues. But drive up & down 101 after 9 or 10pm (even on weekends), and you'll see crews hard at work.
Hats off to those crews working the night shift.
This is the kind of explanation that makes sense when the association happens to come to mind—in this case, something like: HN -> YC -> Sam -> Helios -> nuclear -> obvious conflict of interest -> QED. But such chains of associations rarely have anything to do with what happened to a story on HN. The explanation is almost certainly much simpler.
In the case of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39095738, it just set off the flamewar detector, a,k.a. the overheated discussion detector. We sometimes turn that penalty off, but in a case like this we wouldn't do that because "$Celebrity says $thing about $common-subject" is almost never a substantial story. It's essential to HN to clear such stories off the front page in order to make room for more interesting, less sensational things. If we didn't, the front page would consist of little else.
This is bizarre to me. Cloud storage kills the need for small drives. So for the individual with modest storage needs, the cloud is relatively inexpensive and thought free. But the moment you get over 2TB the cloud gets extremely expensive. So if you're a person who needs to store a lot, large drives make a lot of sense.
This to me, it's the opposite of observably true. You would think large drives would be most in demand for personal use.
Most people aren't able to self-host and maintain a more reliable infra for various reasons: lack of knowledge, lack of free time, they don't necessarily have 2 different houses, lazyness, etc.
are you only asking/observing yourself and your tech-savvy friends?
cloud storage doesn’t make local storage irrelevant. just less relevant. drives still fail, new machines are built, etc, etc. and when that happens to the average consumer, they don’t seek out the biggest drive available. just whatever is down the street.
and just down the street doesn’t want to stock dozens of massive drives, lest the average consumers balk at the prices.
Most of the people in my life rely on cloud storage for their digital lives - mostly Google Drive or iCloud. It’s the primary destination for photos and videos for many people, and services like Google docs both store files and remove the need for traditional local storage.
Most people never stored their TV on their personal devices in the first place. People shifted from rental to streaming / DVD & Blu-Ray to streaming.
Every year I have more pictures and more documents and more stuff in general to store. That or I have to fuss with pruning things, which is a PITA and I'm reluctant to do.
I grew up in "safe suburbs" and moved here 5 years ago. Saw a lot of sad changes with COVID... but in terms of safety, I'm 100% with you. On rare occasion, I'll cross a street if an individual is behaving particularly weirdly but I've never witnessed/experienced a "random act of violence". Broadly speaking, SF is safe from violent crime unless you're looking for trouble.
I'm sure parents with young children or elderly have a different experience but that's not different for any other larger US city.
With this said, the topic of the city turning a blind eye to property crime and "extreme", visible destitution is a whole different story.
Somewhat related but for years I've been surprised by how irrelevant the items Amazon recommends on my homepage. They have decades of my personal shopping data along with credit card, demographic, media interests, and lots more.
The irrelevant suggestions + cluttered homepage UI makes Amazon only useful when shopping for something specific.
Not necessarily.. but they have been known to fight against (ridicule) certain forms of stupidity in the past. Which I feel many here would agree Stanford's policy is a form of.
I'd love to see more flow-control measures like speedbumps, etc. Walking around the area should be enjoyable - lots of trees & shops. The potential for erratic drivers causes me to avoid the place.
Other parts of the city are much safer (at least outside the main high-speed corridors). The Mission is full of stop signs and what you'd expect to be slow-speed traffic - reality is far different.