They are a luxury item, you are paying for the privilege of signaling you can afford $550 headphones. Generic black over-ear headphones could be $800, could be $80, useless for signaling. Doubly true in the context of a gift.
>They are a luxury item, you are paying for the privilege of signaling you can afford $550 headphones.
Plus they give juuuust enough features to cover for the true purpose and give you plausible deniability. Same as most luxury items. None truly give the value of the cost (Is a Ferrari 10x as fast as a GR86? Carry 10x as much stuff? Go 10x as far on the same gas load? Etc etc etc)
"Oh but there's nothing like the experience of driving a Ferrari!"
I don't think this is the right analysis, pretty much all products follow an ever steepening curve of price to get to the highest quality. The general sentiment on HN, of which I count myself among, is that you stop before the curve gets too steep. You can stop at Oreos you don't have to pay Stella Parks to make you hers. You get the highest quality thing that isn't commanding crazy premium prices.
But the market for that last 10% 1% 0.1% does exist. Like yes it's funny to make fun of middle aged guys who buy extremely expensive cars and who if actually tested couldn't tell the difference between a $60k sports car and a $160k sports car and there are plenty of businesses that prey on that lack of discerning taste to take advantage but it doesn't mean the difference isn't there at all.
Maybe for some people. For me, they work perfectly and integrate with all my other Apple stuff (MBP, iphone, TV, iPad), everything just works. My stress levels demand it.
Indeed, like MagSafe charging—they simplify. Simplicity has a premium.
That said, my first pair failed out of Apple Care and resulted in a full cost replacement. The APM sub is littered with stories of the BT module failing.
I’m sure it is ludicrous to some but I often measure value by utility and I go through entire workdays wearing this product.
Yep, there are some other tells but at least matches LLM style strongly. Worth remembering that dang is the top emdash user in HN history and might have been flagged as an AI just for that
I agree, I think this is AI, especially based on 1 and 2. It's hard to put your finger on, and I don't know if we can know for sure. It reminds me of the writing style you see on LinkedIn i.e. seemingly optimised for engagement.
If they're not already, I wonder if LLMs will get better at disguising this (avoiding the tells, inserting mistakes etc.)
I also wonder if there comes a point where we as a culture imitate this style.
TBH, I don't like AI-generated content much too, X and many other platforms were also flooded with those, which I tend to ignore. I guess I also fall into the rabbit hole myself with the aid of AI nowadays.
`Tests still passed. Build still passed. But now I have three files to maintain instead of one, and the "extensibility" will never be used.` sounds very LLM-like to me personally, but I wouldn't be willing to bet on it.
lol fair enough, I do tend to over-polish my wording a bit nowadays. Been dealing with this exact problem for the past few weeks. New account isn't a sin I suppose, I usually just browse around and decided to make this account few days ago.
Its not hard. Its capital intensive with a low profit margin. So it doesn't attract a lot of competition because you can make more money in other ways that have moats. There are at least a dozen other chat apps, some of which are decades old.
To have a successful chat business, you need the network effect of lots of users (big marketing spend), you need lots of capital for operations (big spend on disks and compute) and after all that you get only a few dollars per user. Its just not a great business on the balance sheet. Notice that quality software doesn't even get a mention in this niche.
You can offload the cost of operations to the end user if you’re B2B. Sell the software as licenses the old school way and offload the cost by allowing users to run their own instances either on prem or on cloud.
Ads are a ratchet that only tighten in one direction. Once the paychecks of 1000s of motivated, intelligent OpenAI employees depend on ad revenue increasing, the only option is to make them more invasive, more prevalent, more annoying, more data hungry etc.
You only have to look at Google Search to see how this plays out. Their ads were also clearly separated and distinguished from the organic content, until they weren't.
It ought to be illegal to buy ads against trademarks (+/- some reasonable edit distance).
Long ago, Google search used to be its own product. Now it's the URL bar for 91% of internet users. This is no longer fair.
Google gets to not only tax every brand, but turn every brand into a biding war.
International laws need to be written against this.
Searching for "Claude" brings up a ton of competition in the first spot, and Google gets to fleece Anthropic and OpenAI, yet get its own products featured for free.
Searching "{trademark} vs" (or similar) should be the only way to trigger ads against a trademark.
> It ought to be illegal to buy ads against trademarks (+/- some reasonable edit distance).
I get the intention here, but how do you limit the collateral damage? (Or do you not care about it / see reducing the ability to advertise as a positive?)
There are a lot of trademarks, and they have to be scoped to specific goods and services, but Google has no way of knowing if you're actually looking for something related to that trademark.
e.g. doing a quick trademark search, I see active, registered trademarks for "elevator", "tower", "collision", "cancer sucks", "steve's", "local", "best", "bus", "eco", "panel", "motherboard", "grass", etc. etc. I'm not familiar with any of those brands, but that's just a small sample of the fairly generic terms that would no longer be able to be advertised on.
Google has a way of knowing. They can ask for documentation on who their customers are and what markets they operate in, and do some due diligence. Just like they have ways of knowing whether the ads they run are for blatant scams.
I'm not saying Google doesn't know if a company is in a particular market, I'm saying that a) Google doesn't know what market I'm searching for something from and b) even if they know both from context, it puts them in some awkward positions.
e.g. Vice Media has a trademark on "motherboard" that covers the tech news blog website service.
Is it now impossible for Asus to place an ad for the official Asus motherboard blog on the search term "motherboard"?
Is it legal to advertise for "motherboard" for any good or service other than a tech news blog website?
Is it now illegal to advertise a website featuring in-depth motherboard reviews using the term "motherboard"?
If I search for "motherboard website", what is Google allowed to show me for ads, given they don't know if I'm looking for the Vice website, or motherboard reviews, or the Asus homepage?
If a plain search for "motherboard" results in Vice's website not being in the top results, is Vice allowed to advertise on their own trademark to put it above other results? (Either above organic results, or above paid results for motherboard manufacturers, depending on whether you're allowing the latter.)
> Is it legal to advertise for "motherboard" for any good or service other than a tech news blog website?
Roughly speaking (modulo dilution which doesn't seem like it'd apply here), that's my understanding of trademark law. So your questions are all basically trivially answered, and those things are fine. A human should be able to review such cases.
Yeah, and like, I commiserate with that view, I think it would make the internet/world a better place, but I don't think "no ads for trademarks" is helpful way to reach for that goal.
I don't agree. If I search for "leatherman" it seems totally reasonable to give competitors a chance. I generally think brand recognition is too powerful. If there is another high quality multitool on the market for a better price, why shouldn't I know about it?
Disclaimer: See my sibling comments for some my general thoughts on the problems with banning trademark ads.
But for your specific example - I get where you're coming from, but I'm skeptical that the ad market is even that functional.
Firstly, if I google "leatherman", every sponsored result for Leatherman brand multitools anyway. (And no amount of refreshes or re-searches gives me anything other than Leathermans.)
Secondarily, I'm not convinced that the set of advertisers (not counting Leatherman itself) that will advertise for "leatherman" are actually on average a better products for the consumer. (e.g. as opposed to lower-quality, higher-priced knockoffs.)
These are both fair points (generally, the consumer market is pretty dysfunctional and not behaving at all like economists would like it to), but the comment I was replying to ("It ought to be illegal to buy ads against trademarks") seems both too heavy-handed and unlikely to actually do any good.
I agree it's a bit perverse, but the problem predates Google. People do the real world equivalent all the time. When there are big conferences for specific companies, rivals buy up local ad space on billboards and subways.
That has caused some companies hosting conferences to pay for some of those ad spaces in advance.
Ads on billboards and subways actually bother me far more than search ads.
It's visual and cognitive pollution on public space that I've never consented to - I find it viscerally offensive.
We don't accept billboards on hiking trails, or in elementary classrooms, or in courtrooms (as far as I'm aware, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone turns up a real-life grotesque examples) - we shouldn't accept them in other public spaces either.
> It ought to be illegal to buy ads against trademark
this was one of the biggest problems of AdWords from beginning on: You could do brand-bidding unlimited, even today you see it every day: Search for brand X and competitor Y will show up with same words
And now it's become an anti-signal. If I search for a hotel the top N results are for other hotels, and then results for travel agents, and buried somewhere in this sea of uselessness is the result I searched for. The managers at Google have become self interested promotion hunters, and the programmers weak sycophants. It wasn't like this in the early days when I was there, the best ideas won, but then the B player managers were hired and the rot started.
It isn't the managers it is the business. All those geniuses hired and over years and years no one came up with another business model but ads. I pay for ad-free YouTube and would happily pay for ad free search. As would many. Many people would like a google scale micropayments system that isn't ads. The failure to do this led directly to social media becoming customer devouring experiences rather than making good products people want.
Paradoxically, the people who pay for adfree experiences would be the most valuable targets for ads, so I suspect any pay for no ads arrangement will be temporary at best.
> All those geniuses hired and over years and years no one came up with another business model but ads
This isn't true, there were many other ideas. It's just that only KPI was how much money they can make, thus ads won. Companies don't have an axis of ethics or morality.
I think we are talking past each other. I'm saying there are proposed models which are not ads, but they don't maximize earnings. A silicon valley company will always choose earnings over anything else.
Never thought I would go to DuckDuckGo for searching, ever. I'd do Kagi but I don't like their use of Yandex so I'll keep an eye on whether they figure their stuff out politically. I'd pay for search but not if it's paying Russia, I've been very unhappy with what Russia does with money in recent decades.
That tracks with the 'we use everybody and curate optimal results' model they've got going on, but I wouldn't be changing the search habits of decades if I didn't mean to actively reject what Google search has turned into. So, not a good way to justify a paying-them model.
> The managers at Google have become self interested promotion hunters, and the programmers weak sycophants. It wasn't like this in the early days when I was there, the best ideas won, but then the B player managers were hired and the rot started.
I bet they run some metrics, and while hyper-intelligent persons like you are annoyed, there is a chance that avg joes representing 95% of revenue are fine with that.
When it comes to anything tech related, the HN crowd are trend setters.
And.... the world is crying out for a google alternative. If it ever appears, the tech savvy people will be the first to move, followed by everyone else.
> If I search for a hotel the top N results are for other hotels, and then results for travel agents, and buried somewhere in this sea of uselessness is the result I searched for.
The other day I had a DMV appointment scheduled on my Google Calendar with the office address saved in the location field. I opened the event and clicked on the address to navigate there.
I didn't realize initially but the first few Google Maps results were ads! When clicking on an exact address link!! I almost ended up at some apartment complex 2 miles away. Absolutely bewildering.
As someone who has worked in an ad domain, 100% agree. Ads are like a dangling carrot. There's always a way to get ad gains by blending them with organic content. What starts off as cleanly separated incrementally evolves into being indistinguishable from the original product offering.
This could conceivably work maybe up until the point where monied interests are directing public sentiment via alignment tuning or whatever it's called.
I think invasive might be close to the right word, but in a different context. Not invasive to the content, but invasive to your psyche. AI + personalization goes past dystopian into terrifiying.
Oligarcy itself is a similar ratchet overall (The Iron Law of Oligarchy), and many of its moving parts similarly optimize. The problem is like Soylent Green; it's made of people.
I know Anthropic made these ads about not having ads but Apple also made ads about thinking different, yet once they became successful they ended up thinking the same as every other business.
Are you (and the other’s going all Pikachu face here) really that naive? Have you looked around lately? News is a race to the bottom for clicks and ad revenue, photo sharing sites are turning people into extremists because it results in more ad revenue than just showing your friend’s holiday photos, and search engines prefer giving malware laden installers over the legit version of open source software.
So yeah, the assumption unless shown otherwise is that things will get worse, and the user is just there to be sold whatever shit is paying most.
I mean your argument is basically saying "in the future Linux will have ads, there's a race to the bottom with operating systems, just look at windows". Tough to justify this train of thought with open weight models
That stands today. In the future the SOTA might move to where models of today are no longer competitive and there no open-weight alternatives available anymore. Let’s hope it’s not the case.
This is simply not (always) true. Spotify injects ads for Podcasts even for paying users. YouTube has tons of videos with adds built-in by content creators.
Yep, and a lot of the streaming services listed also inject ads for their own shows into the "ad-free" tier's content (before it begins). Plus ads on the home-page.
I dunno, I think it's clearly different if Spotify is using their platform to inject the ads vs the creators creating the content with ads included.
Like if Netflix let showrunners inject ads into their shows and provided a technical platform for that, and the Stranger Things creators added ads to every episode... nobody would be like "it's not Netflix showing ads, it's the Stranger Things creators".
Don't underestimate just how much money you can make off funneling visitors to ads at scale. It's basically Google's entire business model.
If OpenAI plays their cards right, they can definitely end up in a similar position. Yeah a lot of programmers would probably pony up for Claude, but every lazy high schooler in the world would gladly hear about Raid: Shadow Legends to have ChatGPT do their homework for them.
Don't get me wrong it's definitely sucks, but man is it ever a profitable way to suck.
This assumes that ads at google's or facebook's level would get them anywhere close to profitability. OpenAI's costs of doing business are only accelerating, all while burn rate continues to get worse. I have no doubt that selling ads will bring in a lot of revenue, but it'll be dwarfed by the numbers OpenAI needs to stop hemorrhaging cash every quarter. The great irony is that the more success OpenAI has in gaining users, the more money they lose at an ever-increasing rate. Lose on every sale, and make up for it in volume!
I'm "excited" for the era of different locally run LLMs get to have ads baked into them... People start selling ad-space to inject into their training/tuning data. Could be quite lucrative.
Netflix does not replace television channels, except when it actually partners with TV broadcasters. Netflix only replaces how you consume series and films. Many TV programs --news, short series, specials, local/regional programs, etc-- aren't available at all on Netflix, or when they are they only become available months/years later due to licensing.
That's not fair! Sometimes the ideas come from Snow Crash, which gave us the Metaverse because Zuckerberg wanted to cut a guy in half with a katana from a motorcycle.
It appears that enshittification has joined exponential and literally as words that used to mean specific things but are now just generic intensifiers.
You can get the separation benefits of microservices in a compiled language with modules that only communicate over well-defined interfaces, constraining each team within their own module without having to introduce a network call between each operation.
Python dev is cheaper and faster though. People arent gonna kill velocity by making their backend in c++ so the devs can have seperation of concerns, something that can, and should, be self enforced with discipline
Java or C# is a nice middle ground. But even in python you can enforce said separation - one module can only import from itself, libraries or any other module’s “services” object, and must export its functions in its own “services” object.
Microservices is bad for teams without discipline to implement "separation of concerns". They hope that physical network boundaries will force the discipline they couldn't maintain in a single codebase.
While microservices force physical separation, they don't stop "Spaghetti Architecture." Instead of messy code, you end up with "Distributed Spaghetti," where the dependencies are hidden in network calls and shared databases.
Microservices require more discipline in areas like:
Observability: Tracking a single request across 10 services.
Consistency: Dealing with distributed transactions and eventual consistency.
DevOps: Managing N deployment pipelines instead of one.
For most teams Modular monolith is often the better "first step." It enforces strict boundaries within a single deployment unit using language-level visibility (like private packages or modules). It gives you the "Separation of Concerns" without the "Distributed Spaghetti" network tax.
> Observability: Tracking a single request across 10 services
I'm not sure if this is a discipline issue in the way that domain driven design, say, is a discipline issue. If you instrument requests with a global ID and point at tool at it then you're basically done from the individual team perspective.
Sure you can say e.g "this property wasnt set in this request while being processed by this service managed by this team", but why it wasn't set will inevitably need multiple teams, each doing in-depth analysis how such as state could've been caused because they always inevitably become distributed monoliths - the former is being provided by the instrumentation, but the latter isn't (and even the former is not perfect, as not all frameworks/languages have equal support)
Unfortunately that message was way way behind the bombast of "microservices everywhere now" that preceded it for years, to the detriment of many small orgs.
I've seen engineering orgs of 10-50 launch headlong into microservices to poor results. No exaggeration to say many places ended up with more repos & services than developers to manage them.
The worst I ever saw was an engineer misunderstood microservices, and made a service per endpoint.
He started complaining to management that 50 CI/CD setups was his limit he could support.
He was absolutely amazed when I showed him he could combine endpoints into a larger logical service. 50 services became three, and it’s still three a few years later now.
I once worked with a startup that had 3 total engineers, and their architecture diagram called for 8 micro services. We tore that architecture diagram up pronto
Out of interest how do you get the authority to make those decisions and have the existing developers continue working productively after this?
To me it seems like microservices (or cloud, or whatever) is often overused for career/buzzword reasons. The engineers pushing for it aren't asking for your advice, they want to build an engineering playground - denying them the opportunity is unlikely to suddenly make them productive at driving the business forward with a simple stack when their original idea was to play with shiny tech instead.
The only way I see out of this is to have management buy-in to get the microservices and their developers out the door, replaced by more competent people.
This behavior is self-inflicted by a decade of low pay and lack of significant raises to reward seniority.
The most effective way to increase income for a developer is to join a place, rack up as many buzzwords as possible and leave after 2-3 years, using those buzzwords to secure a higher-paying role somewhere else. Rinse and repeat until you get a management position where you can use politics to increase your income instead.
If you want guys that use boring tech to drive the business forward you have to pay them upfront the money they’d otherwise make playing the above game. It still makes sense (an engineering playground is anything but cheap) but good luck getting an employer to pay anything above “market rate”.
The time up to and including Covid saw massive developer salary increases. They've dropped (and lots have been laid off) post-Covid, but the last ten years cannot be described as stagnation.
The salaries may be high in absolute terms, but they’re still low in relative terms - compared to what jumping ship would give you when you have a resume full of buzzwords.
do they all manage to have 4 different ways to do something like "notify user about x", all In use because they could never be bothered to complete the "upgrade"?
That's often the case yes. In a monolith a developer disgruntled about the situation can clean up the mess in a weekend, test it and push it through. No chance of that happening in microservices - you'd run out of weekend just opening PRs in the dozens of repos and dealing with all the nitpicking and turf wars.
I've had the unfortunate experence to run into a situation where two dev's who hated eachother ended up building two systems with one passing the customer's API calls' http content directly to the front end... It was supposed to be back end and front end.
Exactly the problem yes.
Once you have more services than developers, you are probably running into infrequent releases and orphaned projects.
So whenever an inevitable common utility improvement is made, the effort of pushing out 100 repo releases for services no one has touch since Jim left 3 years ago is terrifying.
When there is a breaking change is going to be made and you HAVE to do the 100 releases, it's terrifying. Everyone says it never happens, but work on a project/team for 5 years and it does eventually, even once is enough to swear me off this "architecture".
The bigness of your data has always depended on the what you are doing with it.
Consider the following table of medical surgeries: date,physician_name, surgery_name,success.
"What are the top 10 most common surgeries?" - easy in bash
"Who are the top physicians (% success) in the last year for those surgeries?" - still easy in bash
"Which surgeries are most affected by physician experience?" - very hard in bash, requires calculating for every surgery how many times that physician had performed that surgery on that day, then compare low and high experience outcomes.
A researcher might see a smooth continuum of increasingly complex questions, but there are huge jumps in computational complexity. At 50gb dataset might be 'bigger' than a 2tb one if you are asking tough questions.
It's easier for a business to say "we use Spark for data processing", than "we build bespoke processing engines on a case by case basis".
50GB and 2TB are both sizes that SQLite supports and could handle. You could probably solve all of the problems you mentioned with simple tools on a single server, in the language of your choice.
