Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | d12bb's commentslogin

> Spotify, Facebook, Uber, and Reddit

And I hate every one of those apps (well, back when I used Facebook, years ago, I did), because they’re just bad iOS citizens. I, as most iOS users do, don’t care what apps look on Android. For Android users, it’s the same with iOS. Making shitty cross platform apps is all about branding and saving some money for developers, nothing about the users.


It’s cool that you are a non-conformist badass but their wild popularity proves that a native app experience doesn’t matter.

What does “bad iOS citizen” even mean?

It’s not even about saving money for developers, it’s about the fact that your users expect a consistent experience.

Imagine if you watched an NFL game on NBC and the on-screen graphics were different if you were watching on a Samsung TV versus an LG TV. That’s the issue with native app UI elements (and it would quite literally be an issue with content apps on smart TV app platforms which are way more fragmented than iOS versus Android).


Your conclusion is false, as you’re mixing stuff that shouldn’t be mixed here:

1. Spotify, Uber etc are popular because of their product, not the pure quality of their apps. People use Uber because they want to cheaply get somewhere, and Spotify cause that’s there all their shared playlists are.

2. People buy whatever tv is on sale when their old one breaks, but the vast majority will stay with their phone platform, so couldn’t care less what their apps look on the other platforms out there.

So, native experience does matter, but obviously only as one of multiple deciding factors.

> What does “bad iOS citizen” even mean?

Doesn’t look like native apps, doesn’t feel like native apps (come on, most multi platform frameworks don’t even get the scrolling right, one of the most basic forms of interaction), doesn’t use all of the platforms features to their fullest, as applicable for the type of app.


What I meant to say in my original message is that if you are using system default-ish iOS UI styling, Liquid Glass is not optional decoration. If you have your entirely own UI and design system, sure you don't need it. But many of these Flutter apps or other such toolkits are using it to approximate system default UI except either without the Liquid Glass parts or with uncanny and incomplete approximations of it.


It’s nice developer experience indeed. But for me as a user, I hate it. Looks nothing like an iOS app, often even worse than fckng webviews…


All those approximations at Liquid Glass are infuriating to use and make every app that does feel cheap and gross


macOS is fine on all officially supported machines. Windows 11 is fine on high-end machines, and sucks on everything else. I have to use Windows 11 for work unfortunately, an almost bare install with just the two programs we use added, no background stuff or other extra resource hogs, and it just. sucks. shit!


You forget you’re a minority. Most users use one platform, or at most one work one private (probably with different software). So most software should be optimized for the platform, not consistency across them.


Especially as self-hosting means loosing the community aspect of GitHub. Every potential contributor already has an account. Every new team member already knows how to use it.


You’re assuming people are self-hosting open source projects on their gut servers. That’s often not the case. Even if it were, GitHub irked a lot of people using their code to train Copilot.

I self-host gitea. It took maybe 5 minutes to set up on TrueNAS and even that was only because I wanted to set up different datasets so I could snapshot independently. I love it. I have privacy. Integrating into a backup strategy is quite easy —- it goes along with the rest of my off-site NAS backup without me needing to retain local clones on my desktop. And my CI runners are substantially faster than what I get through GitHub Actions.

The complexity and maintenance burden of self-hosting is way overblown. The benefits are often understated and the deficiencies of whatever hosted service left unaddressed.


Microsoft/GitHub has no model training. How do you think Copilot works? Also if you provide open source, people and companies are gonna use it.


When I publish open source code, I don't mind if people or companies use it, or maybe even learn from it. What I don't like is feeding it into a giant plagiarism machine that is perpetuating the centralization of power on the internet.


to me plagiarism is a 100% copy of intellectual property or maybe a high percentage, like 80%+

LLMs don't store the code, only the probability chains of tokens (words). AFAIK this is not plagiarism.

I remember the later 2000s, when a German company called "Rocket Internet" was copycatting companies like AirBnB, Zappos and others. Many consider this lame and some kind of moral freeloading, it's not prohibited.


> Microsoft/GitHub has no model training. How do you think Copilot works?

I'm sure if you used that big, smug brain of yours you'd piece together exactly what I meant. Here's a search query to get the juices flowing:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Whether you agree with why someone may be opting to self-host a git server is immaterial to why they've done so. Likewise, I'm not going to rehash the debate over fair use vs software licenses. Pretending like you don't understand why someone that published code under a copyleft license is displeased with it being locked in a proprietary model being used to build proprietary software is willful ignorance. But, again, it makes no difference whether you're right or they're right; no one is obligated to continue pushing open source code to GitHub or any other service.


I mean git was exactly designed to be decentralized


> The firm started out with a couple of desktops and an NFS server, and 10 years later ended up with tens of thousands of high-end GPUs, hundreds of thousands of CPUs, and hundreds of petabytes of storage.

So much resources for producing nothing of real value. What a waste.

Great project though, appreciate open sourcing it.


If price action trading is horoscopes for adults, they're a modern a day oracle.


In theory what they are doing of value, is that at any time you can go to an exchange and say "I want to buy x" or "I want to sell y" and someone will buy it from you our sell it from you... at a price that's likely to be the accurate price.

At the extreme if nobody was providing this service, investors (e.g. pension funds), wouldn't be confident that they can buy/sell their assets as needed in size and at the right price... and because of that, in aggregate stocks would be worth less, and companies wouldn't be able to raise as much capital.

The theoretical model is: - You want to have efficient primary markets that allow companies to raise a lot of assets at the best possible prices - To enable efficient primary markets, investors want efficient secondary markets (so they don't need to buy and hold forever, but feel they can sell) - To enable efficient secondary markets, you need many folks that are in the business of XTX ... it just so happens that XTX is quite good at it, and so they do a lot of this work.


> In theory

> At the extreme

> The theoretical model

These qualifiers would seem to belie the whole argument. Surely the volume of HFT arbitrage is some large multiple of what would be necessary to provide commercial liquidity with an acceptable spread?


Does the HFT volume actually matter? Is it a real problem that the HFT volume exceeds the theoretical minimum amount of volume needed to maintain liquid markets?


Your comment contradicts itself. They produced this project at least.


higher competition increases market efficiency - this is the real value


German here. My searches are probably like 50:50 German:English. I don’t notice any difference in quality with Kagi’s results between the two languages, and both are well ahead of Google.


When I tried Qwant a few weeks ago, its search results were even worse than Google. So, Kagi it still is.


> Meaning if they don't got the result they want, they will discard the study and you will never hear about it. Drug studies can be fudged this way.

You picked exactly that one field of science where this can't happen. At least in the EU (and US, according to Wikipedia), clinical trials have to be registered before conducting the actual research, so they can't be discarded if not successful.


This is sort of true, sort of not. The primary investigator who registers a clinical trial is obligated to report the results back to the registry. But if they get a negative result, they are still going to have a hard time finding a decent scientific journal that's willing to publish it. And an unpublished result isn't going to have nearly the visibility that a published result does.


I have a similar one for Homebrew, with the ability to preview package info and install multiple targets:

    # ~/.config/fish/functions/fbi.fish
    function fbi -a query -d 'Install Brew package via FZF'
        set -f PREVIEW 'HOMEBREW_COLOR=1 brew info {}'
        set -f PKGS (brew formulae) (brew casks |sed 's|^|homebrew/cask/|')
    
        set -f INSTALL_PKGS (echo $PKGS \
            |sed 's/ /\n/g' \
            |fzf --multi --preview=$PREVIEW --query=$query --nth=-1 --with-nth=-2.. --delimiter=/)
    
        if test ! -z "$INSTALL_PKGS"
            brew install $INSTALL_PKGS
        else
            echo "Nothing to install…"
        end
    end


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

Search: