Doesn't this type of thing prove that we can just... start manufacturing things domestically if we really wanted to? Which would presumably be when it actually makes sense to do so? But it mostly doesn't right now, so we mostly don't.
There are certainly benefits to being able to make something down the block and quickly iterate. But that's a different thing from industrial scale production. And if we really wanted that benefit wouldn't we just... do it?
he’s saying that the productivity of devs is increasing so much, especially during the prototyping phase, that gathering feedback is becoming the bottleneck, hence there is more PM labor needed. he didn’t say anything about reducing the quantity of dev labor needed.
PNG should be used for some types of graphics, like whenever you have big areas of solid color (like logos) or any time you need translucency / transparency. Although, nowadays you can and should use SVG in most of those cases.
No... the reason housing prices are high and rising is that not enough housing is getting build in the places people want to live. The main reason for that is that the people who already live in those places can block construction of new housing. That, and zoning.
This is part of it yes. But after sufficient housing stock is built for the available working population, prices generally reach an equilibrium around median worker pay in the area. And if the median worker pay is now inflated by tech salaries and you are are still a line cook, you’ve been screwed. The construction market will not respond by making housing until it is cheap and unsold enough to be affordable on your line cook salary. The construction companies would sooner take jobs in more lucrative markets. If you are a line cook where most everyone in the area is paid about as much as you on the other hand, you can probably afford a local mortgage.
Housing prices in so many places are high because Californians, used to spending crazy high prices for property in tech spheres (or able to sell their property for crazy high prices because of the tech spheres) moved to other locations and caused property values in those areas to go up. Why is Hacker News trying to rewrite this?
"Californians, used to spending crazy high prices for property"
Please dig into why that statement is true and re-read your parent statement. Your analysis can't just abruptly stop there. It all goes back to housing supply.
It all goes back to tech. Tech jobs grow in the area and pay significantly higher than previous jobs. Those jobs increase people moving to the area by dramatic, non-traditional numbers outpacing how the area previously approached housing, and give the people much more buying power than the current residents, pushing those people (including me) out. The housing supply problem goes back to... tech. No community is prepared for a gold rush to happen, nor has housing plans in place to accommodate it. Nor do they normally want to accommodate it. So it turns into a big of a mess.
Please dig into why my analysis is correct. I lived through it. I had to leave friends and family. It negatively impacted mine and almost every friends life negatively (as in had to more away and start a new life).
"No community is prepared for a gold rush to happen, nor has housing plans in place to accommodate it."
laughs in Tokyo/Singapore. Sorry, I want to feel bad for incumbents in the area, but they've worked hard to create this situation, especially the landlords. People gaining wage power is a GOOD thing and arguing against it is an insane political choice even if you are in the majority.
The rest is just basic agglomeration theory [1]. You are arguing against gravity making things going down. People will always come together since Vienna, since Baghdad, and the productivity gains are supposed to be good for the country again, if it wasn't for landlord incumbents. The solution seems obvious: remove incumbent controls.
There are only one people who are truly indigenous to the Bay Area (and I'm guessing they aren't on HN right now). Everyone else came as part of a proverbial gold rush, going back to 1849, so complaining about the only gold rush that came after you is not a morally substantive position. Your complaint should be against rent-seeking capital and their political power, not immigrants (national nor international, rich nor poor).
P.S: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for displacement. You can have gentrification and growth without displacement, what you have to accept (nay embrace) is rapid change. If you don't, displacement is inevitable.
You're gloating about the hardship which editors, journalists, writers, our informational institutions are facing because... sites stopped having a Links page in 1998? What the fuck, man.
It's simply that blue states haven't been making a case that democrats know how to run things. I would seriously recommend reading Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
Sure, but in comparison, they're running laps around red states. Which have significantly higher levels of poverty and are overall just less developed. I mean, if you look at just about any metric from income to education, the disparities cannot be ignored.
And, it should be very clear why. When you, say, de-prioritize or are even actively hostile to public education then of course your education is going to suffer. Which, in turn, makes your economy suffer, because most people who are working are now uneducated and therefore poor. So you get a lot of brain drain.
There's some notable exceptions, like Texas. But, it's definitely a trend that red states just have worse outcomes across the board. It seems to me people in those states just don't care much, which... whatever. If they're fine with it then I guess it's fine.
Also in Japan, when you need something? You just raise your hand and say "sumimasen". Instead of waiting forever or needing the wait service to constantly check in on you.
help me understand why adorable mini ice cream cones or the convenience of delicious frozen food is bad for human civilization. and why is a 15 dollar tin of fishwife worse for “the environment” than a 99 cent tin of brunswick?
by the way, it would be most sustainable to not produce at all? that’s certainly a surprise.
i don’t spend a ton of time in spaces where would i get marketed to by this instagram garbo, so maybe i don’t understand the sensation of being spoken down to by it. but it strikes me as the equivalent of watching saturday morning cartoons and then being huffed that all the ads are for silly action figures and play doh.
Indeed, the distinction used to be useful. But now, it's not useful because honest-to-God roguelikes are just not getting made outside hobby projects. Meanwhile, roguelites have become a core pillar of modern gaming, artistically and commercially. I think calling roguelites roguelikes is perfectly fine. It's simply what the genre became.
I prefer that they be hobby projects or solo-developer crowdfunded efforts. Generally, I find that the traditional (waterfall) lifecycle of commercial games is not conducive to a good Roguelike. This is because the game is quickly shifted into maintenance-mode after release and stops receiving major updates soon after.
Roguelikes really benefit from long-term development and continual balancing, new content, and quality of life updates in response to feedback from players. These are games meant to be played and mastered over the course of several years. Traditional commercial game releases are much better suited to one-and-done style single play-throughs.
The other major commercial model, the subscription- or microtransaction-supported long-term game development, such as you'd see with popular multiplayer games like Fortnite or League of Legends, would seem to be a viable alternative for Roguelike development. I don't think it would work out in practice, however, since most gamers don't seem to be interested in playing a game to mastery unless it involves a high level of competitive play.
