Caddy is a bit quick and dirty, rapidly-developing, with neat plugins but hard to configure for more complex scenarios and too light on the docs (IMO).
HA Proxy is robust, comprehensive, mature, and bulletproof. It's basically boring because it works so well.
If you have to choose only one to learn, choose HA Proxy.
I wanted to try it out just now but hit a roadblock immediately - it cannot automatically obtain and maintain TLS certificates. You have to use an external client (e.g. acme.sh), set up a cron to check/renew them, and poke HAProxy to reload them if necessary. I'm way past doing this in 2023.
If getting Let's Encrypt to work with HAProxy is your only struggle, you'll soon overcome it and be loving HAProxy. And there are multiple ways to set up Let's Encrypt, if you don't want to use acme.sh. For example, you could use certbot. There are blog posts that cover that pretty well.
I'm not too familiar with all of the features of coscreen, but I've been really enjoying Tuple and it has a linux client beta. https://tuple.app/downloads/linux
Not independently, but if wrapped with a loop, given memory, given internet access, and directives as intrinsic motivations, it could, in theory, come to conclusions and take actions to acquire resources aligned with its motivations. If that outer loop does not have rules (or rules that are effective and immutable), it could become very powerful and potentially misaligned with our interests.
How would such a loop enable it to come to conclusions? I'm genuinely curious.
Does what you're saying have something to do with reinforcement learning?
For at least one general intelligence, the human brain, that is in the wrong order. Act first, decide later. Unless by decide you mean act and then make up a narrative using linguistic skill to explain the decision. Even observe can directly lead to actions for certain hot topics for:the person.
All we know for sure is that sensory data is generated, the brain does what it does, and then we have acted. We can’t break that down too well once it leaves the visual areas, but there is clear data that the linguistic form of decisions and so on lag behind the neurological signs of the action.
And humans have a well known tendency to make a decision on a linguistic level that they then fail to carry out in the realm of actions.
One can enjoy spending time with coworkers at work, see the value of being in person together, AND not want to commute. At the end of the day, we all may choose to work remotely over being in office, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any trade-offs.
This is a product that I actually _would_ pay for as an individual. It's reasonably priced and worth the increase in efficiency and better experience. Plus their pricing is fair and flexible.
Yes, it seems fair to me to spend real money on Jetbrain's tools, if you like them.
It is strange how reluctant programmers are to spend on tools even though they are, as a rule, quite willing to let themselves be paid handsomely for their services. Yet graphic designers pay for Adobe's tools. Who can read this riddle?
Important caveat here. My only exposure to JetBrains had been through Intellij which was thoroughly unpleasant around 2012-2013. That impression has left me forever sour towards them. Surprised to hear people say that it could be a step up from VSCode.
It looks like "Fleet" is their VSCode competitor? I'm not sure if the homepage does a good job at communicating how this improves over of VSCode. First of all VSCode has an enormous ecosystem of tools which seems hard to replicate. In terms of advertised features for Fleet, it seems like the one most highlighted on the page is multiplayer, which would possibly enable others watching me code live? Sounds nerve-wracking. Although I could imagine some helpful scenarios when pair-programming or something.
Other items that are advertised don't really encourage me to want to make the leap, especially as something I have to pay for. It sounds like they could host your code, or something like that, which could be nice. An annoying part of my workflow is that I work on the same codebase between multiple machines and every time I hop between machines I have to commit the changes to a private repository that is separate from my team's repository. It seems like it would be somewhat straight-foward to have the same code shared between all machines.
Other than that I would be interested to hear on how any Jetbrains products would improve productivity.
> Surprised to hear people say that it could be a step up from VSCode.
VS Code is very* lightweight. Both in speed and in features. Comparing it with IntelliJ makes it seem very basic. Now, for some people that’s okay, but JetBrains IDEs are full-blown IDEs.
*: Compared to something like JetBrains tools, or literally any other electron software.
For TypeScript there's little difference since most of TypeScript support comes from the same language server running in the background (there's an option in the menus to restart it if it breaks, same as in vscode).
Although autocomplete is better (especially for pure JS), it doesn't warrant paying for a license IMHO. Personally, I use IDEA for TS because I use it for other languages where it blows everything else out of the water (so muscle memory).
Also, if you're doing server-side development, it has a very good built-in client for two dozen databases (which pretty much replicates the functionality of their DataGrip product), so you get decent data editing / import / export / DDL support, and excellent autocompletion for your SQL (interspersed among TS code, or not — doesn't matter).
Edit: also, 100% of their products' funtionality can be used from keyboard. I don't touch the mouse at all. I think vscode can support something like that, but with very heavy customization (and even then I'm not sure). Out of the box it pretty much forces you to use the mouse for many things.
I almost never use the mouse in vscode, emacs keybindings and the command pallete and keyboard shortcuts created any time I touch the mouse. But I also don't get everything I want, (like macros and web browsing and face customization and rectangular editing) that I get with emacs, so I only use vscode for liveshare.
Incidentally, I use and pay for tabnine (another ai assistant) in emacs and it's fantastic - single line completions are superior to whole snippets I have to read with copilot, and don't get me out of my flow.
I am surprised the tabnine company completions are way easier to work with than in vscode. With grouped backends, company lsp + company tabnine is great. I'd encourage kite users to try it. Well worth the money.
Even if JetBrains does support your language more "natively", what makes it better than using a language server?
As a student I can use JetBrains tools for free but personally, I'd much rather use something like VSCode combined with clangd than e.g. CLion, as I don't see anything that would make CLion better, while the JetBrains UI is downright cluttered.
As for keyboard use, the command pallete (Ctrl+Shift+P) is right there and should be able to do anything. And thanks to the magic of language servers you can use any editor you like, including (Neo)Vim or Emacs, while keeping most of the capability for language specific stuff.
— advanced refactoring for all supported languages: implement interface, extract interface, automatic "generification" for methods and classes, stuff like that. Saves quite a bit of manual typing.
— built-in database client (which I have already mentioned) which also provides autocompletion for database/table/column names, both for SQL queries, and various supported libraries like ORMs.
— navigation (jump to definition/declaration, find all references, etc.) works everywhere: any supported programming language, XML, files like JSON schema, YAML, you name it. For example, you can put the cursor to a primary key of a table, press your "find all references" shortcut, and it will show the list of all foreign keys referencing that primary key. Same with things like URLs on the client side (for example, the first argument to the browser's fetch() function) — put the cursor on the URL, press "jump to definition", and it will jump to the controller method that implements that URL, including the correct HTTP verb if there are multiple method for that URL. This is just one example, there are dozens of little things like that. All that makes it much easier to work with fullstack projects (to me at least).
— the UI and its "control interface" (so to speak) is consistent. For example, you use the same key combination to jump through search results, list of issues, list of references, etc. etc. Same for other key combinations — they jump make sense, you press what you think will work and it usually just works.
— it also supports fuzzy search everywhere, not just in the command palette. For example, you open up the list of databases, start typing in the name of the table (or database, or foreign key, or procedure, or whatever), and it highlights matching entries and lets you jump between them. Press Up and Down to go though its suggestions. The same mechanism works in filesystem tree, search results, issue list, and so on.
> JetBrains UI is downright cluttered
All of that can be hidden. I have the filesystem tree to the side, the main editor taking 90%+ of screen real estate, and the tab bar on the top, everything else is hidden behind a keypress.
> As for keyboard use, the command pallete (Ctrl+Shift+P) is right there and should be able to do anything
This is not the same at all. Everything can be done through keyboard shortcuts without typing in obscure commands (even though fuzzy search helps, it's pretty slow).
You should use what you think is convenient, I'm not forcing anyone. The more pressure you put on JetBrains by using the alternatives, the better for us.
My understanding is there's Fleet, their VSCode competitor, which sounds like you're referring to, and the UI refresh, which parent is referring to.
The UI refresh is the same IDE under the hood, just way simpler. I control the IDE primarily through command palette (I think many do?) so decluttering would be great- the UI is unnecessarily complex when you can press a key and type a few words to do what you want.
I feel like most of these can be accomplished in VSCode with an extension... We use GraphQL at my work and the amount of coworkers I've run into that don't have the GQL extension installed kinda surprises me. It makes a huge difference so part of me wonders if the criticisms of VSC not being "full-blown" enough is just people not being aware of available/relevant extensions (also probably why VSCode now randomly suggests possibly relevant extensions now)
In my experience JS autocomplete in IntelliJ isn't better, it just shows more stuff. Most of it unrelated and won't work / will be `undefined` if chosen.
It does, however, teach junior developers that the autocomplete is unreliable, which is a good thing I guess — I've seen juniors in statically typed languages like Java fail coding interviews because they couldn't remember any of the syntax, the knowledge was contained in the autocomplete and didn't transfer to a whiteboard.
I do agree IntelliJ's autocomplete is kinda crap out of the box. But if you turn off all the machine learning stuff it's back to being alright.
> I've seen juniors in statically typed languages like Java fail coding interviews because they couldn't remember any of the syntax, the knowledge was contained in the autocomplete and didn't transfer to a whiteboard.
Is this really a problem? How much Java code does anyone write on a whiteboard outside of an interview or teaching setting?
This is only a problem if they wanted to get hired, and then failed the interview because even the basic syntax of their language of choice is unknown to them in the slightest.
I didn't invent the rules, I'm just doing the interviews, occasionally from both sides of the table.
(However if I did invent the rules, I'd probably still require e.g. a Java developer to know Java at least a little bit. Is this really controversial?)
Their support is also often stellar - if something breaks in a free product, get ready for some free support also (read, none, DIY).
And, maybe you think fixing your IDE yourself makes you a better developer - if you are building IDEs, maybe, sure. I'm more than happy to outsource that a company which does this as its bread and butter.
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells (or tries to) enterprise office solutions. They may have optimized for a single use-case (TypeScript), outside of promoting their web-strategy (typescript), I wouldn't expect them to care one lick about VSCode, once it stops being particularly important.
To be fair, there is a FOSS binary distribution of VSCode -- VSCodium[1], though it is maintained by the community. It operates in a similar way (licensing-wise) to IntelliJ IDEA Community vs. Ultimate.
I write a bit of TypeScript recently in both VSCode and WebStorm, I also have many years of experience using both tools. Started with VSCode since it lightweight and this is what I use to edit most of the text. Unfortunately VSCode had troubles indexing the project, refactoring, figuring out types and navigating between methods. Everything works but VSCode hangs for a few seconds every time I do an action that needs a code analysis e.g. go to a method definition. Most of the time it was faster to search and replace rather than to rename a method. WebStorm was the opposite - opens in a few seconds, but then everything works instantly.
I use both, and it really depends on the language.
Something like Java is really benefitted from IntelliJ, Spring integration is excellent, but especially scripting languages like Python or JavaScript/Typescript don't get enough uplift and you might as well use VS Code.
I mean for Java. IntelliJ is made for Java. If you want to do Python, Jetbrains (the creator of IntelliJ) made PyCharm. For Javascript, they made Webstorm.
Granted; I was very junior then--and I think my issues may have been mostly related to the finnicky nature of java tooling and dependencies rather than the IDE itself.
I have to say I had the same experience with IntelliJ when developing for Android in 2013-15 or so. This year when trialing CLion I was very positively surprised by the evolution of their platform, it's easily the most usable environment for C++ development I have used.
I have experience from pure VIM, VSCode, Visual Studio for Windows, the reliable refactoring features alone are worth the price. With VSCode I would find the refactoring support not reliable and the intellisense features also might just stop working randomly depending on the project.
Prompted me to move to WebStorm also for web development, and I must say I have been very positively surprised there also.
Seems they have made some important strides in the past years, can highly recommend testing their environments out.
I think it’s because the free and OSS tools are of such a high quality for developers. There is a much bigger chasm between GIMP and Photoshop than there is between VS Code (with plugins) and JetBrains.
It’s hard for many to get over the fact that JetBrains is infinitely more expensive than VS code in dollar terms.
> There is a much bigger chasm between GIMP and Photoshop than there is between VS Code (with plugins) and JetBrains.
I don't believe this to be true. I think the difference is graphic designers tend to use much more of their toolings' functions, whereas almost every day I'm surprised someone I work with doesn't even know some IDE feature was possible, let alone how to use it. Hell, almost every frontend developer I've ever seen use either VSCode or WebStorm orchestrates everything from the built-in terminal and is baffled when they never see me use one - because it's all configured via run configurations, and that's a _basic_ feature.
That makes sense though.. Terminal commands are easy to put into team wiki or record in personal notes or put into your CI config. There is a command history, it is easy to chain commands, etc..
Unless using IDE's native tooling is making you much more productive (say its debugging does not work without it) it is better to avoid it if possible.
IDE's native tooling makes you more productive because you set it up and never interact with it. If you need to manually do stuff, or do it all the time, you can slap it behind a keybinding. My cmd+F6 to do everything that needs to be done to get the iOS app built and debugging inside a simulator is obviously going to be more productive than having to jump into the terminal every time. Ditto for the run configuration (also cmd+F6 in a different project) that spins up docker and all that blah blah to get the API server running.
This is what I'm talking about, for what it's worth, a programmer doesn't immediately see the utility in the tool and doesn't use it, and that's the story for 99% of the things an IDE does. It's always faster to do it yourself once, or twice, especially considering setup time and learning curve, so people don't make use of the tools. I see people using grep instead of their IDE search because they cbf to figure out how to do it in the IDE!
> Unless using IDE's native tooling is making you much more productive (say its debugging does not work without it) it is better to avoid it if possible.
I have a friend who works as a dev for a decently sized software editor, so he's seen his fair share of people interacting with the tools. They work mainly with Java and the company pays for Intellij for everyone.
He's often complaining about how people never try to learn the IDE and always do things manually. They usually don't really know what they're doing in the terminal, either (they mostly use Windows, so the terminal is rarely second nature).
But whenever he shows them a few nicer features, typically around refactoring and such, they're always blown away and never look back.
He has, of course, interacted with his fair share of graybeards who only use vim, but those people don't usually take ages to accomplish simple tasks.
Because I'm always disappointed with paid proprietary software eventually. Despite some shortcomings, I used Windows 7. Anything after that had a confusing interface with two settings panels, some kind of an attempt to bring a tablet interface to desktop, loss of control over my computer.
After installing NixOS, I never actually boot into Windows 10 anymore. Naturally, I never use MS Office or Photoshop anymore.
It would feel weird to buy some proprietary software, even if it is good. Why not contribute to an open source effort?
I donate to the FSF and subscribe to iTerm2's patreon, FWIW.
I have to admit, though, I think the world would be a much more drab and less productive place if open source were completely dominant. We'd all be chiding each other to donate more and pitch in more, while barely scraping by in comparison to the vast wealth sloshing around today. Maybe it would be a BETTER world if it weren't all fueled by addictive mobile games, privacy invasive advertising, etc. But we'd be a lot less rich
> It is strange how reluctant programmers are to spend on tools even though they are, as a rule, quite willing to let themselves be paid handsomely for their services.
Ability to find someone willing to pay XYZ for foobar does not imply that I am willing to pay the same amount of money for something similar.
In fact, by doing this exact transactions it means that I find such transaction advantageous for me.
Also, I had enough stories of lock-in and losing access to proprietary systems that I prefer vastly inferior open source.
Also, I am not aware of paid systems worth paying for.
I use primarily Linux (Lubuntu), git, Codium, Python, Kotlin, pgsql, Android Studio, LibreOffice, Firefox, uBlock Origin, Leechblock, sqlite.
For what I can pay that makes it worth it? For contributing back, I prefer working on code over donations (due to geoeconomical situation and ability too direct my effort precisely where I care about things over donations often being wasted)
I also pay for JB tools. But that's because it's well beyond me or other open source developers to make a product that's competitive with it, and the competition is well behind (VS Code and Eclipse are good, but once you learn IntelliJ more advanced stuff, you feel like a programming God - something worth paying for ;) ). An IDE is insanely complex nowadays. I am not sure what Kite had in mind, but to me, what they were proposing would be "just" an IntelliJ Plugin. And I don't pay, and can't see myself paying, for any plugin.
I am glad to pay for software, but I want it to be free as in freedom: I insist on being able to modify, fix, extend and share it. So all of my tools I rely on are AGPL, GPL or BSD-licensed.
Graphics designers don't have much choice because even if they decide they are entirely fine with free program, the graphics design world runs on Adobe file formats. Not the case for programming
Because developers want to be able to hack on their own tools: fix bugs, add features, whatever. Graphics designers do not have the skills to hack on their own tools, so there isn't a huge population of them sitting around going "damn, I wish I had feature X -- I know, I'll build my own editor and open source it!"
Some do. Probably over-represented on HN. Others want to work their hours and spend the rest of their time with non-technical hobbies, or with family, or literally anything else. If that isn’t you, no big deal. But we should not paint all developers with the same brush.
Enough developers want to hack on their own tools that the market is smaller than you would naively expect, counting the number of developers and how many tools they each use. It's a bit like asking "how come we're having so much trouble selling our extended warranty to professional mechanics, even though professional drivers buy extended warranties all the time?"
The real reason is that there are free alternatives. For many people, “free and open source” is the same as just “free”.
Again, I can fix most things on my car. I can afford the tools needed. But I don’t want to because opportunity cost.
One thing I have always found weird is the whole, “hey can you look at my computer? It is all slow” is considered okay to ask anyone in IT, but it (at least in the circles I was raised) inappropriate to ask a mechanic in the family to work on your car, the accountant to do your taxes, the plumber to replace your toilet.
And even with mechanics, some like to work on specific cars as a hobby, much like an engineer might want to play around with ML and work on a CRUD app for pay.
Think about having a friend who is doctor. We might often just ask them hey I have this pain in the neck what do you think could it be? It is not seen as asking them to work for you but merely asking for advise, like you might ask any friend. Advise is free right? And the person asking you for advise is happy to give their advise to you if you ask them. Reciprocity!
The problem with the computer MIGHT be very easy to fix if you know how to fix it.
But if you accept their invitation to help them then you don't want to just give up after 10 minutes. It would make you look not smart if you could not help with the problem after all. You have been hood-winked into working hard to look good.
The worst part is if you do something to their computer and some new problems appear later, you will be responsible.
I think family mechanics and accountants do get asked for help. Plumbers maybe a little less.
I think there's an accurate perception that IT work is generally air-conditioned and doesn't involve physical danger or sewage, so it's not as big of a deal to ask for help.
Simple. I told my parents if they buy either a Windows computer or an Android device, I couldn’t and wouldn’t help them (yes they can afford Apple devices). During the height of Covid, my dad had emergency surgery and I didn’t want to go see him when he was already weak (he’s better now). I sent them an iPad because it was much easier to use with FaceTime than figure out which badly integrated video calling solution that Google was pushing this week.
Good god no, I just want it to work. I used to be that way, but you can be too in love with customizing your tools to the point that it gets in the way of doing your own projects. I do not want to spend all my time carving better knife handles.
I think about writing my own IDE sometimes, but then I think how all-consuming such a project would be, and having to support a userbase made up of developers.
I don't often hack my own tools either, but it's great to have the possibility to do so.
When you really need that bug fixed for your edge case or platform, it's much easier to submit a patch rather than wait around for someone else to fix it.
It's definitely nice. I've been trying to search for somewhere that sells fonts that can be used for web that aren't licensed by number of pageviews. I know there's free fonts, like Google Fonts, but I'm looking for something nicer that I can buy a reasonably priced site license for. For reference, the body copy on that site uses Miller Text, which would cost $4,000 for an unlimited pageview version. That would not even include the italicized version or multiple weights. Maybe I wouldn't need to worry about it for most projects, but I don't want a bill that can spike to $100s without notice based on however they calculate their pageviews.
Only a small selection of fonts, but ones I find really beautiful are designed by Matthew Butterick. They fit your requirements nicely. He also wrote some great books on typography.
I'm a little tired of the rhetoric about Netflix adding ads. It's only on an entry-level account that is subsidized from the normal pricing (IIUC, correct me if I'm wrong). You could argue that they've artificially inflated the price of the normal plan or that it's a slippery slope, but it's not like they've forced ads on the existing plans.
I think what's more interesting/concerning/insidious is hidden ad content like product placement. It's getting to the point where personalized product placement could be embedded in shows dynamically.
It's not really about Netflix. The point is merely that "just because you pay them, doesn't mean you're not also a product to them". Companies love nothing more than to charge both ends of a deal.
Take Spotify as another example. I pay them, along with 188 million other people. Does that mean they won't turn around and ask artists, record companies and rights-owning conglomerates for money (or rebates) for putting their stuff in front of me? Of course not. Paying them means they have some interest in pleasing me, but it's far from the only way.
On the off chance that Spotify was being scrupulous about not taking payola in any form, it would be impossible for me to verify. Which is in itself a reason for them to cheat; they don't get much economic benefit from goodwill if no one can actually see them being honest.
This is not a reason to not use Kagi, it's just a reminder of what forces we're up against. Kagi will need an unusual amount of transparency in everything they do, in order to stand a chance in the long term.
And it IS a reason to not get warm fuzzy feelings merely from the fact that you're paying them.
If that happens, I would then look at other search engines as well.
Most people wouldn't once they get used to doing it one way, so that's all to the good for Kagi. But people like me wouldn't then use it, which is what life is about - your own personal choices.
I prefer to pay for services because at least there is a slight chance that they will follow their business plan.
But nothing stays the same for forever. As a consumer, we must also change to the changing environment. I'm completely weened off Google, for quite a while now, for example. I'm paying for everything that I use. But it is so little as to be laughable. For example, I use tutanota for my email, first account is free and subsequent ones are $1/month. Big whoop. $12 per year for private emails. I have a number of emails through them because I segregate all my emails - one for just friends, one for business, one for education, etc.
I would consider the Netflix UI to be ad laden for some years now with hundreds of originals shoved in your face in a non-customizable fashion and autoplaying etc. Also personalized thumbnails based on past watching behavior. You could argue that it's a good UX for most people, but for me it's always felt a bit more like user hostile marketing.
Netflix doesn't have enough content, so they resort to these tactics.
All major content providers left them years ago and started their own Netflixes. So they're left with a few movies from ten years ago, a couple of recent-ish releases, and their own content.
really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
I real wish that HN wannabe lawyers would stop throwing *poly words around with no legal justification.
In the streaming space in the US there is: Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video, HBO/Discovery, Paramount Plus, Peacock, STARZ, and a few other players. There is no “opoly” in streaming video.
That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that.
They certainly have the ability to uniformly raise prices (tacit collusion) with no viable competition to enter the market and fill the gap (as even the vast sums others have thrown into it have shown how hard it is to produce good original content).
This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) in this market is a big barrier to entry - which naturally leads to a small number of players. Natural monopolies and oligopolies are common - but do require closer regulatory attention to ensure desirable consumer outcomes than just letting the free market decide.
It may not entirely fit all definitions, but the general economic theory and applications/implications are relevant to consider this market.
The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
> That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that.
The market is “content”. Netflix competes with YouTube content producers, TikTok and it even said that one of its biggest competitors is Fortnite.
> This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content)
This goes back to YouTube. You and I may not think that YouTubers and TikTokkers are producing “decent original content”. But there is a generation that spends hours on both.
Besides that, there were over 550 original series being produced last year (https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/). Competition is much fiercer for your attention than it was when you only had the three major networks producing content and everyone else buying rights to show reruns.
There are bidding wars between all of the streaming services for new content from producers. Competition is more fierce than ever.
The price of streaming before was never sustainable. Netflix was borrowing billions a year for years to produce and obtain content. Disney+ was never going to be profitable selling its service at the introductory price. It’s not “collusion”. Every company has to turn a profit eventually.
Yes I realize that Netflix was “profitable” by GAAP standards. But it was getting deeper in debt every year.
Very little as a percentage of all the professional content that’s in the world.
And the value of IP without execution capability is overrated. Warner also has iconic content. But Disney has been able to make successful movies out of its 3rd tier IP while Warner has struggled with its first tier.
Sony isn’t doing too well with most of its Marvel content except Spider-Man and that’s produced by Disney.
>The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
I think time has shown MS was correct in making their own browser, but of course incorrect in all the corrupt tactics they used to make their browser succeed over Netscape's.
This is severe rose colored glasses. Netscape was always a horrible application and crash prone on every operating system it ran on. There were geek wars back in the day bragging about how well our operating systems handle Netscape crashes - classic MacOS failed miserably.
IE was a much better browser. Especially the Mac version that when it was introduced, was the most CSS compliant browser that existed.
Netscape starting over from scratch was cited as “Things you should never do” in an article written by Joel Spolsky (StackOverflow cofounder) two decades ago.
It's not just netflix. I hate the my Google TV pops up with ads for media. My PS5 boots straight into the store. At least my Apple Tv mostly doesn't shove ads in my face though my iPhone seems try try to shove Apple Music and/or Apple TV+ at me now and then
2. Create a new plan at the price of the old plan. With ads.
I'm sorry, but pretending that they're not adding ads to their "regular" pricing plan is semantic at best. This isn't something they dreamed up overnight. They've been planning this for years and increasing their prices accordingly.
I agree with your product placement comment. I feel gross when I notice it. I also wonder what happens when Netflix decides it makes way more money on people watching the ads - ie. Google initially calling ads a detriment to search quality but not being able to resist the $. I could see a day when they remove the no-ads plan.
Chromecast screensavers _are_ an add for other shows in Netflix.
I am paying and have no way to disable that visual pollution nonsense.
Extremely exasperating when you are trying to choose something adequate for toddlers and they keep seeing flashy stuff on the screen and saying they want to watch that.
It's not about the user having to see ads. It's about Netflix trying to sell ad spots to advertisers, which might affect all (even paying) users. I.e. by getting pressured into censoring or promiting certain shows, to close the advertising deal.
HBO started broadcasting 50 years ago, charging a monthly fee for commercial free movies (often released much earlier than on cable) and tv shows.
With the exception of filler ads for their own content that occurs when they need to wait for the next quarter time, ex movie ended at 12:55pm. There have been no ads
I'd consider making the search experience more like https://www.flaticon.com/. The drop-shadow boxes are too distracting. Adding consistent spacing will help too.
I love that it's easy to get to the source, but having a page in between would be nice to see other icons from the set and information about where the icon is from.
