There’s nothing threatening about Little Fluffy Clouds.

How do you feel about a huge ever growing pulsating brain that rules from the centre of the ultraverse?

Depends, what colour is it?

I, on the other hand, use the keyboard shortcuts to adjust the browser width to achieve the desired line width and line start, because even when the web page takes care to set these, it varies from site to site and rarely is what I want. (For sites I visit often, I use window manager automation to auto-adjust the browser window size.)

Maybe by most users, but not by most users who use it for many hours daily for professional tasks (i.e. not just as a kind of tabular list editor).

Unfortunately, the intersection between “modern” and “do this well” is pretty much the empty set.

I prefer “misprovement”, as in “misfeature”.

We've misunderestimated you.

Ironically, that would be an example of Verschlimmbesserung.

Not wrong!

FWIW, I don’t have aphantasia; I can visualize stuff in my head, but it’s nothing like actual vision, and neither is how I see in what I would call vivid dreams. My dreams and my wakeful “mind’s eye” are pretty similar, I would say. The point is, they are only faintly comparable to actual vision, but I would never characterize that difference as aphantasia, or say that I have trouble visualizing things.

It’s very difficult to tell how different what others report of their mind’s eye (or lack thereof) really is from my own experience, both on the alleged aphantasia side and on the “I see it as if it’s real” side. It’s conceivable to me that people’s interpretation of their capabilities is much more varied than the actual capabilities.

In any case, it should be pretty clear that it’s not black and white, but a spectrum.

That sounds like hypophantasia, i.e. not the absence of internal imagery, but a very vague one.

> It enrages me to think of how many people $106 million could have helped.

That money did go somewhere, so it probably did “help” quite a number of people less rich than Sergey Brin.

(That’s just a side comment, not an argument that any single person should own that much money.)

It seems roughly similar to the pricing level of personal computers in the early eighties (i.e. IBM PC and Apple Macintosh). I’d expect prices to come down significantly over the next few years. Not so much in the next year or two, but after that.

Just like for warships, the complexity and cost of building cutting edge hardware has grown exponentially up to a point where a significant chunk of the world's computing is dependent on 2 companies: ASML, TSMC. We shouldn't extrapolate linearly from examples from the 80s.

No, but I wouldn’t expect it to stagnate like with Intel in the 2010s either. Maybe the biggest caveat is that most people will be fine with using cloud providers, so the market for non-server hardware won’t be subject to as much competition.

That's in nominal dollars. However, inflation since then has been about a factor of ten to fifty and it hasn't trickled down at all.

I submit that “dupe” is a misleading misnomer if the submission does not link to the same content.

"I submit that "dupe" is a misleading misnomer if the submission does not link to the same content"

Imagine every time you make a submission the same commenter submits a reply with only a different thread URL, no title, no story URL, and the misnomer "[dupe]"

But the story URLs are different, not duplicates

It makes no sense

This site has constant repetition of URLs, topics and comments

It has 250+ pages of active stories at any one time. That's potentially 250+ different discussions

There is nothing in the design to prevent "duplication", nothing in the guidelines, and nothing in the proactive moderation

HN is described as a news aggregator. It should be expected in a news aggregator, users may submit stories by different authors published at different URLs offering different coverage of the same news topics. If the site operator wanted to prevent this for some reason, it could. HN does not

It seems the algorithm actually promotes such stories. Hence this sub-thread

Discussion on HN is generally highly repetitive, unoriginal and filed with meme-like, and sometimes toxic, comments. Many folks complain about it, others might like it. Every user is different. It's not for any one user to determine what any other user should or should not see; readers can make up their own minds

The majority of HN users do not participate in "discussion". They either read the stories and/or the replies. Some might only visit HN periodically. Perhaps they are not following HN discussions, they have no idea what has been discussed earlier and no time to find out or reason to care. The majority of HN stories have zero replies, i.e., no "discussion". It stands to reason that some users read the stories, i.e., the news, irrespective of "discussion". Upvotes on these stories are potential evidence; unless these users are just upvoting titles

Alleged "duplication" of discussion is irrelevant in these submissions because there is no discussion. Stories are not just "discussion topics". They are news, for readers who are interested in reading news

Finally, (real) duplicate URLs are commonly found in submissions that never get labeled "[dupe]". These are explicitly allowed on a discretionary basis. The "[dupe]" tag is inconsistently applied and cannot be relied on

Yeah, every time, because you know what you're doing.

Nothing to do with the urls, but the duplicate discussion topics. The site in fact does not have constant repetition of URLs, topics and comments (within similar timeframe). 250+ active discussions. All unique.

Stuff moves pretty fast around here and you can miss it. It's more about keeping things fresh and not repeating discussions over and over. And additionally stopping some of us from having to see the same story over and over.

Nothing in the design because that's what mods are for. Mods, and submitters looking out for the well-being of the site!

Your repeated submissions amounted to spamming the same topic while most coverage brings nothing new to the discussion that warrants a separate thread. Why split up the conversation only to have it all duplicated and impact the 'freshness' of the site with discussions already had hours to days earlier?

If you've been around enough it's weird that you're not clearer on this. Striving to keep the feed fresh and discussion together helps us all, you could do better to contribute that way.