Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | tene80i's commentslogin

It looks retro! Seems spot on if that’s what you’re going for. Looks like a hand rolled forum from the 90s. No UI problems if that’s the vibe!

Awesome. As long as it matches the retro look for what it was back then, it's off to a good start. Thanks!

RSS is a useful interface, but: "Do most people just want direct alerts?" Yes, of course. RSS is beloved but niche. Depends who your target audience is. I personally would want an email, because that's how I get alerts about other things. RSS to me is for long form reading, not notifications I must notice. The answer to any product question like this totally depends on your audience and their normal routines.

It's niche because some companies decided so.

you used to have native RSS support in browsers, and latest articles automatically in your bookmarks bar.


That's good reasoning, but the parent's point still stands?

If you design for email alerts you invite reply loops, permanent delivery failures, and all the headaches of scaling SMTP. RSS, while nerdy, offloads almost every operational hassle to the client and works fine for polling when instant delivery isn't mandatory.

Some users want to pipe these updates into scriptable things like Slack, bots, or custom dashboards, where RSS is much easier to handle than email. If you offer both, people will use whichever fits their workflow, and that isn't always predictable.


I added my employer's website RSS feed to the all-staff Slack channel. I find it useful, I don't know about others but no one has grumbled.

https://slack.com/intl/en-gb/help/articles/218688467-Add-RSS...


NYT, BBC, Reuters.

France24 is a good one too

That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward:

If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.


The difference is if you are actively filming, or the camera is set up to film by itself. Security cameras are in the latter category and therefore can only be used on your own property (you can allow someone else to do it on your own property, such as a security firm).

That depends on who has set up the security camera and what area it covers.

How so? You mean businesses vs private individuals filming the street? Or police, for example?

Depends on a country, but yes, police generally has more privileges in that regard. The laws here are also different for casual public filming vs. permanent camera or otherwise targeted filming (without consent) in public space. It also matters what you do with the material. I actually don't know if businesses are anything special compared to individuals in that regard. They can, of course, have security cameras filming their private properties (like individuals can) as long as they are open about it. And again, they can't use or spread the material however they want.

Pubs have been in decline for years, because people don't go / drink as much, and because of our starting position: this is a country where there are pubs everywhere. But Brewdog is a chain of pubs and a brewery – this is much larger than the standard story of "village supporting three pubs can now only support two".

As for the "torn" reporting, there's no contradiction – companies can go bust ethically or unethically. You don't have to screw your retail investors / fans. You just can. And they have.


The answer can often be found on the business end. Stack Overflow is in a huge decline. It needs to change or it will just die.


Books are staggeringly affordable (aside from hardback), and if even they seem too expensive, libraries exist and offer ebooks. I would honestly be embarrassed to announce this – it reveals something very unflattering.


Staggeringly affordable? Last time I checked ebooks were roughly the same price as physical books. That's ridiculous. If they were like 20% of the price I'd buy them.

I don't care man. It doesn't matter to the world whether I spend money on books or not. It only matters to me. Or I guess it's more correct to say it matters much more to me than to the rest of the world.

So yeah, I'm not worried about it. I don't tip either, by the way, unless I see a very good reason to. Given the choice, I prefer to keep my money rather than give it away. Couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks about it.


Sure, ebooks could be cheaper, but they’re still cheap as hell. $5-10 for what, ten hours of entertainment? A fraction of what you pay to dine out. I mean, you can be as cheap as you like, but this thread exists because you’re promoting your cheapness tactics for others to emulate, which, at scale, actively harms the very things you are enjoying. You can be cheap! It’s just parasitical, which is why I suggested it was a shameful thing to announce.


I looked up the price for Project Hail Mary which I read recently, it's like $20 and the physical book is the same price. Think about that. Imagine all the work involved in producing and transporting the physical book, compared to just infinitely copying a single epub file that's probably generated automatically from a word document or whatever they use to write books. The fact that those are the same price is outrageous. It's completely unreasonable.

I wouldn't say I'm cheap, I'd say I'm frugal. I'll happily spend money on things, just not when I don't need to. And especially not when it's completely unreasonable like ebook prices. I can get it for free so I'll take that deal. You can say it's parasitical, I guess I don't disagree with that. Personally I think there's a lot bigger fish to fry in that department like insanely rich people who hardly pay any taxes, but sure I'm slightly parasitical in some minor and insignificant(to everyone except me) ways.

I also don't really think it matters that much. Most authors don't make enough money to live off it. The ones who do, make a fortune. I generally read books written by those lucky few who make a fortune, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about not paying money to Andy Weir, who's worth about $55 million according to a quick Google search. He'll be fine. And all the middle men like Amazon and publishers etc can pound sand as far as I'm concerned.


Yeah, I mean millionaire authors are one thing, but saying "Most authors don't make enough money to live on, so I'm not going to pay them for their work" is a bit absurd.


That's not what I said. I said I don't read their work. Maybe I do some times, but it's not often and I seriously doubt the $2 or whatever they end up getting after everyone else has their cut makes any difference to them.


Maybe you should care a little bit what the people spitting in your food think about it.


Oh yeah because I definitely want to be giving money to entitled shits who'll spit in my food. That makes all the sense. Tipping happens after anyway.

And for the record I'm not American, we don't have the insane tipping culture you guys do. I know you're American because only an American would say what you just did.


I'm not American, but I assumed you were American because you were defiantly declaring that you don't tip, whereas in Europe (for example) it would not be worthy of comment :P

Guess we both assumed.

Also, you're right that the tip comes after, so not tipping is safe... until you go to the same restaurant twice (in America).


Both examples on your images - Call of the Wild, and Pride and Prejudice - have audiobooks available. Maybe better to showcase books that really don’t have audiobooks, if that’s the intended use case.


I love sites like this. Nice work! Where do you get the data from?


The Daily Mail, not the UK. It trades in hate.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: