Interesting, given that just 2 days ago it was announced [0] that Intel was going to start to use AMD for some of their integrated graphics. Now they're going to complete against them in the discrete graphics space.
Also, Koduri recently left AMD after what many felt was a disappointing discrete graphics release in Vega.
It's been interesting watching SO try to monetize.
I wonder: How would people feel if they went the Wikipedia way? It's obviously a very beneficial site, but not as widely applicable as Wikipedia. I personally prefer the Wikipedia model of being ad-free and having no additional product and doing a fundraising drive every so often. PBS as well.
That said, I certainly think given the audience of SO that there are several opportunities for them, so it'll be interesting to see what works.
I remember seeing an article here these past few weeks talking about the business model of Wikipedia and how it's supposedly inherently flawed. Wikipedia doesn't bring in a lot of cash, but it rather sets a sad tone for itself how unfortunate that may seem.
Personally I'd be more interested in seeing StackOverflow branch out. What have they done these past few years? It seems like StackOverflow has remained stagnant, yet they have so much potential.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Wikipedia doesn't bring in much. Their annual plan from last year [1] says that they expected to raise over $60M during the year. Unless anything's changed recently, they also try to keep over a year's worth of operating expenses in reserve, which means they're likely also sitting on almost $100M.
The complaints I see are usually related more to thinking that they really shouldn't need to spend so much (the FY17-18 plan for expenses is $76.8M [2]), and that their fundraising drives always make it seem like they're on the brink of death when they actually have a huge amount of money in the bank.
Wikipedia's primary purpose is not to bring in cash, it's a non-profit, so the money is going towards mission-related activities and supporting the site. Generally, the current level is enough to support the site (check also [1] which is meant to ensure at least basic level of support more or less forever). If donations dry up (which they don't seem to be) the activities may be reduced, but "bringing in a lot of cash" by itself is not really the purpose, the cash is the means to get things done. It's a bit different for for-profit establishments when usually getting profit on the investment is at least one of the goals of the whole deal.
I don't think I ever saw a Documentation page in a search result. Instead, I saw (and see) dozens of copies of the same SO Q&A content spread across multiple sites. I wonder if they would have had better success if they adjusted their SEO strategies and went after the rehosting sites (more?) aggressively.
Google was never pointed at Documentation, so you wouldn't find it there. There were constant concerns within the meta SO community about the quality of the content and how embarrassing it would be (not a small fraction of it was worse than W3Schools of old - https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/334638/ ). It could have been rather damaging to the SO brand to have such poor material shown as examples of what is desired.
Most of SO's operations are something I would not like to fund. I'd be happy to donate for their core service, but that's really only 10% or less of their headcount. Who funds the other 90% and why would they want to?
SO is too big to go for a Wikipedia style model unless they strip off just the core SO part and relevant engineers and make only that part donation based. And I'd guess the other 90% would end up in layoffs anyway.
> Most of SO's operations are something I would not like to fund.
Can you elaborate? Do you mean the other stack exchange sites like Photography, Gardening, Software Engineering, etc.? Or the careers site, or something else entirely? I'm only aware of the Stack Exchange network and careers.
Keep in mind that the Wikimedia Foundation also spends about 85% of the money they raise on things other than operational costs [1] (servers + engineering).
Of course things get framed to manipulate opinion.
Now, I actually don't mean this with any snark, but how is what you're doing any different? This tax credit applies to plenty of vehicles sold for much less than $100,000.
The majority of the EV market is high-end, luxury vehicles.
There is a 200k cap on the credit. Meaning mass market EVs do not receive the credit. It exclusively benefits low volume, high margin EVs. Which are exclusively marketed to the rich.
Meaning if you sell more than 200,000 cars you no longer get the credit. GM sold 10 million ICE cars in 2016. If they were all EV 9,800,000 would not have received the credit.
> Requesting money to Wikipedia viewers is done so often it gets as annoying as an advertisement-packed Wikipedia would potentially be.
I wonder, do many people here agree about this? I don't keep track, but feel like I only see the fundraising messages 2-3 times a year. This is way more preferable to me than seeing (probably multiple) ads on every page all the time.
> It’s still not totally clear what Magic Leap is doing, but it sure has raised a ton of money (more than $1.9 billion) in order to do whatever it is that it’s doing. To date, we’ve been able to gather that the company may be launching a device called “Magic Leap One.” And last month, Bloomberg suggested Magic Leap may be gearing up to ship that device to a “small group of users” in the next six months or so.
That might be the most I've heard about what they're doing and when it might be available. I've read some "leaks" in the past, but nothing that has stuck with me. Anyone got any info?
> “Dark chocolate probably has some beneficial properties to it,” said Salt Sugar Fat author Michael Moss, “but generally you have to eat so much of it to get any benefit that it’s kind of daunting, or something else in the product counteracts the benefits. In the case of chocolate, it’s probably going to be sugar.”
Interestingly, the chart just below this quotation shows that it takes ~70 calories of straight cocoa powder to get a "heart healthy" dose of flavanols. With dark chocolate, which has less sugar as the cocoa percentage goes up, they don't distinguish the type but you need 750 calories. That's quite a bit.
70% cocoa dark chocolate is somewhat (not entirely) palatable to most people, but getting up to 85% becomes a distinguished taste even for dark chocolate lovers.
Jives with my first thoughts after reading the submitted headline: that even if they could show cocoa was good for you, there is no way that translates into the standard Mars chocolate bars. I can totally see how it benefits Mars though - I've seen people give way more twisted justifications for eating junk food than "cocoa is good for you" as an excuse when eating a chocolate bar.
A really good dark chocolate need not be an acquired taste.
In the UK, Co-op's own brand 85% dark chocolate is excellent. It's rich enough that you'll probably never want more than a square or two at one go (which I count as a point in is favour), but it's fruity and delicious. Also Sainsbury's Organic Santo Domingo 74% gives much fancier bars at several times the price a run for their money.
Green & Black's 70%, on the other hand, which is widely available, is over-priced, chalky, bitter, marketing-led nonsense.
I am a diabetic (since 2015) and have come to really appreciate 90% dark chocolate. Maybe it's weird coming from me, because I was legit addicted to it, but added sugar is sooooo overrated.
85% or better and some no sugar almond butter is really nice. I have come to prefer it, and occasionally Justin's with some sugar (but not a lot, 20g-30g of carbs). It is underrated health food. Easy to travel with, filling, etc.
To be fair, “come to appreciate” sounds a lot an “acquired taste” you know? Curious aside though, what brand do you go for? I have a friend who likes similarly dark chocolate and I’m always on the lookout for presents.
Not really a dark chocolate connoisseur, but your post got me wondering. Hershey's Special Dark (which a lot of people are probably familiar with and is way better than regular Hershey's milk chocolate) is 45%.
75% is pretty standard in Europe. I've tried a couple of 99% cocoa chocolates too, but these are really for the hardcore lovers (gets glued to the teeth and other taste issues).
Because you're not supposed to chew it (I believe that's even written in the "tasting tips" on the Lindt packaging at least). Bite off small bits and let them melt in your mouth. It's kind of like a dark and very tasty coffee, if that sounds good to you, give it a try.
Now if only I could find it in the supermarkets around here... (as is common in France)
Lindt is entry-level because it is cheap. I actually prefer Lindt to many higher-end brands. There are certainly better chocolate bars, but the price difference is often hard to justify.
Yeah they are king of the 90% price point and seem to use it as an anchor for uniform pricing on their whole bar range in Switzerland.
I think that gives the perception and benefits of being high end to the high volume but lower blends, but means the over 90s seem a bit too poor. But I'm not really sure how the botique 95% blends are and I'm glad lindt's aren't up to the challenge. It is hard enough to travel with a 90% addiction.
Look for an Endangered Species Panther bar. They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.
> They're in almost every grocery store around here (I can only assume they're popular), 88% cacao, and much less bitter/harsh.
Evidently you're in Utah, USA.
It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.
McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.
Some tomatoes are considered acidic, but in practice most tomato varieties have the same acidity - just varying levels of sugars, which makes them taste more / less acidic. Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?
> It's good to mention actual location, rather than 'around here', for people that don't know where you are.
Why? What difference would that have made? Either the bars exist where the parent lives or they don't. My location has nothing to do with that. I only mention that they're common in my area as a "maybe they're common enough to also be found where you are" data point.
> McDonalds are pretty much everywhere - that means they're popular, by definition, however most discerning consumers wouldn't consider them a high quality product.
What's your point? Are you saying that the Endangered Species bars are low quality because they happen to be popular(-ish) in my area?
> Is the 'much less bitter' quality of this bar you're referring to a result of a higher ratio of sugars?
Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that. I wonder, though, if it's not something in the manufacturing process since all Lindt (even the "sweet" bars) have the same sour/acidic flavor to me.
It makes it easier for other people to determine the likelihood / difficulty of them finding this recommendation of yours.
The hyperbolic passion conveyed by 'hate' and 'taste like car battery' to describe a luxury item you are not compelled to consume meant I wasn't about to put much effort into looking anyway.
However, I've just now tried to locate a 'black panther bar' and have discovered it would cost me US$50+ in order to obtain.
Presumably because I'm not 'around here'.
> What's your point?
That popularity does not imply, let alone guarantee, quality.
> Possibly. I don't really know enough about the respective bars to really speak to that.
Could you perhaps review the nutritional information on one of your packets?
Reviewing their website, Endangered Species Natural Dark Chocolate (72% Cocoa) is about 27% sugar.
The Black Panther variety (88% Cocoa) is 11% sugar.
In the plain dark chocolate market there doesn't seem to be much variety - or indeed much room for variety - of ingredients:
Lindt does not seem to include soy lecithin in their comparably dark (90% Cocoa) chocolate. (Of course they may use it but not mention it -- this seems unlikely as around here (Australia) we're fairly strict on nutrition and ingredient advisories on processed foods.)
So, it might be informative for you to work out if soy lecithin's presence is the key.
I don't have a particularly acute sense of taste, and haven't eaten chocolate for a couple of decades, but some casual googling on the subject turns up some quite passionate tomes in both directions (no difference, lots of difference). Impossible to summarise, so I'll let you do your own research & taste tests if you're so inspired.
So much condescension for an opinion. What exactly have you apointed yourself to teach me?
The original parent asked for an opinion, and I gave it. Perhaps hyperbolic, but also concise in its description.
It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
What makes each bar taste differently wasn’t part of the discussion until you brought it up, and you obviously have answers to that question, so there’s no need to belabor it.
> It would not be “informative” for me to research anything, since I already know about the soy lecithin angle and didn’t think it was worth mentioning.
Whereas I would suggest it's precisely the kind of interesting insight that you should have shared, given its potential importance to the discussion, and the fact the word lecithin doesn't appear anywhere in TFA or HN comments (at the time).
Anyhoo, ultimately I did manage to learn something interesting from your 'where I'm standing right now there's shops nearby that sell chocolate that I like' contribution. So that's good.
Aside -- can hyperbole be concise? Brief, certainly. Concise to me suggests accuracy.
The first 100% cocoa bar I've had that was actually pretty good was: Montezuma Absolute Dark Chocolate Black from the UK. I found it once at my Trader Joe's and sadly haven't seen it since. Seriously tempted to order a supply from abroad despite the high shipping cost.
My wife has a square or two of Ghirardelli 86% dark chocolate each day - one square being about 60 calories. I can't imagine eating over a dozen per day!
I had to cut sugar, I tried things with less in it, so I ramped up the dark chocolate %. 70% is my sweet spot.
I hope I can get a little benefits from this (and other nutrients of course). Although dark chocolate also contains bromide derivatives who can be harmful too.
70 Calories of chocolate is about 11-12g of (70-85%) dark chocolate, or 12-13g of Milk Chocolate(1). Chocolate's LD50 is approximately 1000g/Kg(2). So basically your body weight in chocolate. It's the theobromine that kills you, same as dogs, but they're much more sensitive to it. And it strongly depends on the kind of chocolate, pure cocoa is much higher in theobromine than milk chocolate: So 5 oz of Cocoa powder ~= 8.6 oz of Baking chocolate ~= 26 oz of Semi-sweet ~= 27oz of dark chocolate ~= 59 oz of Milk Chocolate ~= 3583 oz of White chocolate.(3) (White chocolate has no cocoa powder in it, just cocoa butter.) Note that these comparisons are of just the theobromine content, not the the 'healthy' stuff in chocolate.
I have personally tested this back when my metabolism was young by eating 2 pounds of Hershey's Kisses in one evening with no ill effects. :)
I don't think we know that much about flavonols, quercetin is the most studied and most of the studies used a 1000 mg/day dose, but I don't find any info about a most effective or maximum dosage.(4)
The reason to eat chocolate is cause it tastes fucking awesome. If you're trying to eat it for your health I feel sad for you. ;-)
"~70 calories of straight cocoa powder" is what the parent comment says, not 70 calories of chocolate.
That's an odd way to measure it though. Maybe they meant grams. If they didn't you have another battle because the calorific content between brands of cocoa powder varies wildly 70kcal may be as little as 17g, or as much as 40g.
You probably meant CACAO beans (note: not cocoa, which is a product made from cacao). There are actually products called chocolate beans, but they are typically just pieces of chocolate that have been formed to look like beans.
I'm not too sure how I feel about this. I'm trying to battle my knee-jerk negativity about this, but I'm not sure I can come up with good reasons to. At best, I think my hopes are that IGN will be hands off and Humble will continue on as is.
I'm almost always disappointed when interesting companies that appear sustainable get gobble up by larger entities, especially in the media and technological space.
That said, every time I make a humble bundle purchase I come to a decision point about how much of a "tip" I am going to give to the humble themselves. Over time I have increased this amount as I recognized the value of the service they were providing.
Now that they are owned by IGN, I honestly don't think it will be increasing any further, and instead would be much more likely to decrease. I'll wait and see, at least.
Take from that what you will, but I suppose the money amount I will actually put up in such cases is a stronger signal about my feelings than many other things I could put into words.
I'm of one mind to go and grab all my purchases for backup while I easily can. Total speculation, but I could see this happening: purchases are put behind some sort of IGN Gaming software like Steam. It seems like this acquisition would be a really solid foot-in-the-door for such a thing.
It isn't exactly a platform, but it sounds like you would be well served by The Theoretical Minimum [0]. The courses [1] start at classical mechanics, but the second one is QM and builds from there. They are all taught by Leonard Susskind, who is a fairly big name in the field.
There are two books available specifically tied to The Theoretical Minimum [2], but I'm not sure how they related or tie into the video lectures as I have not read them myself.
Just had an interesting experience with that. I moved the frame so that it showed the timer countdown and screens as well as John. After it hit 0, they put up "Please go to Q&A". After a minute or so they started flashing it from the white text on black background to a bright white screen to get his attention. After a couple rounds of that, John goes "Please stop flashing the go to Q&A, I'll get to it" and they stopped the flashing. Certainly something I wouldn't have seen otherwise.
Also interesting seeing now what is close to John's view of the queue for the Q&A.
> I wonder why other big players aren't just stepping up and making their own SSDs
There are only a handful of fabs making the required NAND chips. Spinning up a new fab takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention some serious technological and manufacturing know how. So it's really not easy for someone to just up and enter the NAND market.
I don't exactly doubt that price fixing is happening, but my understanding of current high SSD and even RAM prices at the moment is that there is a serious demand that outstrips the current fabs abilities. Mobile devices are eating up a lot of the NAND output.
In addition, chip fabrication processes are notoriously fickle, especially at very high densities. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the NAND chips came out DOA from the production line.
In the case of GPUs they can turn a defective GPU into a lower tier GPU by disabling malfunctioning components, which means that it isn't a total loss. I doubt NAND chips can be salvaged in the same way. Since they are so simple, there's nothing to recover. It goes straight into the bin.
The difference is that NAND doesn't need to BE high density except in those mobile devices. For both consumer grade SSDs and enterprise SSDs, NAND already has such a huge storage density advantage that if they actually used up the space available inside a 2.5" or 3.5" case and weren't concentrating on transfer speed as much, yields wouldn't be much of a problem.
NAND does actually have a degree of flaws it can tolerate as they are made today in consumer SSDs. I am not certain, but SLC Enterprise SSDs made for database servers and the like might get the best yield chips I'd guess. On consumer grade devices, there is an amount of 'slack' space that the chips actually can accomodate that is used for relocating data from damaged areas, wear levelling, some bookkeeping, etc. So if you buy a 1TB SSD, there might be enough actual storage on the chips to hold 1.1TB if all of it was made available. I'd not be surprised if particularly bad runs come out and get binned as 512GB devices because large portions of the chips are unreliable.
This is not especially dissimilar from how CPUs were made and marketed for years - CPUs that wouldn't clock at 1.6GHz would get sold as 1.4GHz, for example
Kinda like how ladders are rated: they say 300Lbs .. it'll probably take more than double that - but if it breaks when you overload it, the manufacturer can point to the rating and say, "you exceeded its spec"
Also, Koduri recently left AMD after what many felt was a disappointing discrete graphics release in Vega.
[0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12003/intel-to-create-new-8th...