Sometimes I wonder if whoever writes these comments understands the words their using.
> No it doesn't, and you just proved it
What exactly did they prove? You didn't substantiate or explain this at all. Leverage would be relevant if they were negotiating a deal. They weren't. The company laid down fibre because of what they saw as a potential competitor (municipal fibre). The municipality didn't use the threat of fibre to come to terms with the monopolistic company. That would've been leverage. But they didn't, so it wasn't leverage. The municipality created the appearance of competition and the monopoly behaved accordingly as if there were a potential competitor.
> ...one day, one of the municipal counselors just called up a friend who worked for a fiber laying company and asked them for a favor: put out a press release saying that they were “investigating” laying an undersea fiber to power a municipal fiber network on the little island.
They called in a favor that put pressure on the company from public expectations.
Yes. What do you think happens in a competitive marketplace? Sony heard about Nintendo partnering up with Philips for the SNES CD expansion, so Sony made their own console. That's literally competition.
The details of how the "public pressure" came to be don't matter, because the monopoly didn't know about that. All they knew was there was a potential competitor, so they behaved according to that information. That's how it works.
It's clearly competition. The incumbent company saw a potential competitor and acted upon it. That's literally what happens when there's competition. It doesn't matter that the competitor didn't actually exist if the incumbent behaved as if it did exist.
I'm never sure what the point of comments like this is. "It seems incorrect". But it isn't. You just don't want to admit that competition is good and necessary.
Sometimes I wonder how deeply some people actually read these articles. What's the point of the comments if all we're doing is re-explaining what's already explained in such a precise and succint manner? It's a fantastic article. It's so well-written and clear. And yet we're stuck going in a circle repeating what's in the article to people who either didn't read it, or didn't read it with the care it deserves.
4GB of RAM? What? I guess if your minimum is "able to start Windows and eventually reach the desktop", sure? I wouldn't even use Windows 11 with 8GB even though it would theoretically be okay.
> 4GB of RAM? What? I guess if your minimum is "able to start Windows and eventually reach the desktop", sure? I wouldn't even use Windows 11 with 8GB even though it would theoretically be okay.
Not okay as soon as you throw on the first security tool, lol.
I work in an enterprise environment with Win 11 where 16 GB is capped out instantly as soon as you open the first browser tab thanks to the background security scans and patch updates. This is even with compressed memory paging being turned on.
> The ideal is more like a culture of businesses making repairabke products and consumers refusing to buy unrepairable slop
Past few decades have demonstrated that this ideal doesn't work. That's why we have laws. I've never understood why the HN crowd is so averse to forcing companies to account for the common good. It's proven to work.
You can imitate what I say, sure, but that doesn't make it true. MAGA complaining about the fascist left is not equal to the left justifiably and correctly pointing out the fascism of the right in the US today.
> HN crowd is so averse to forcing companies to account for the common good
HN is a quite economically libertarian place and it is full of "ashamed billionaires" and founders who yearn for creating companies that will fuck their customers over. There are many engineers who also think the same and think themselves as business-aware.
Rule of law and strong consumer protection is fundamentally against to contemporary startup mindset that prioritizes monopolization over everything else and rent seeking behavior.
I agree, it's the night-time that makes places, particularly urban ones unnerving and/or creepy. I once worked as a courier, which sometimes involved delivering things to stores or weird ass storage buildings in the middle of the night. I hated those night-time deliveries. Even worse when I had to go through rooms with mannequins, made my skin crawl.
Did you end up going into game dev or just generally software development? I'm always jealous of the people who grew up making maps or game mods, I wish I'd been more motivated when I was younger to do stuff like that.
Software dev. Game dev never really appealed to me. I kind of have an artsy streak inside of me and map making always felt like additive sculpture which is probably why it appealed.
Those prices are wild. I forgot how much laptops cost at the time. On the other hand, I was just a kid, so maybe I was just never really that aware of it.
Laptops used to be a premium product, even on the lower-ish end. I don't think that properly changed in the mass-market until the eee pc, but I might be misremembering.
And Apple famously struggled for a long time to compete with PCs on price, beyond what their positioning as a premium brand would justify, compounding the problem. And their hardware wasn't exactly setting the world on fire on performance metrics, either.
I'd long thought it'd gone underappreciated how much slow but steady progress Apple has made in the past couple of decades at improving the value of their computers, but everyone has been talking about that since the Neo dropped. Well deserved and overdue, in my opinion.
I assume that if Microsoft hadn't abandoned WinForms for the next thing, it would support dynamic sizing and DPI properly. It's mindboggling how much time and effort they've wasted coming up with new GUI frameworks instead of just improving on what they have.
It does, but many still think it is like using VB 6 and don't learn the additional APIs that provide that support, e.g. FlowLayoutPanel and TableLayoutPanel.
> No it doesn't, and you just proved it
What exactly did they prove? You didn't substantiate or explain this at all. Leverage would be relevant if they were negotiating a deal. They weren't. The company laid down fibre because of what they saw as a potential competitor (municipal fibre). The municipality didn't use the threat of fibre to come to terms with the monopolistic company. That would've been leverage. But they didn't, so it wasn't leverage. The municipality created the appearance of competition and the monopoly behaved accordingly as if there were a potential competitor.
reply