It doesn't just seem to say it, it says it explicitly: "monkeys are, in terms of currently recognized taxa, non-hominoid simians". Perhaps the accepted terminology may change at some point, but currently apes are not monkeys.
I remember reading or hearing that if we follow taxonomnic rules from the ground up, humans would be classified as hagfish (don't quote me on that, I have a terrible memory)
Cracks me up that OP is trying Anna's Archive before Wikidata, NGL! Both great sources, though.
I recently (a year ago... wow) dipped my toe into the world of library science through Wikidata, and was shocked at just how complex it is. OP's work looks really solid, but I hope they're aware of how mature the field is!
For illustration, here are just the book-relevant ID sources I focused on from Wikidata:
ARCHIVERS:
Library of Congress Control Number `P1144` (173M)
Open Library `P648` (39M)
Online Computer Library Center `P10832` (10M)
German National Library `P227` (44M)
Smithsonian Institute `P7851` (155M)
Smitsonian Digital Ark `P9473` (3M)
U.S. Office of Sci. & Tech. Info. `P3894`
PUBLISHERS:
Google Books `P675` (1M)
Project Gutenberg `P2034` (70K)
Amazon `P5749`
CATALOGUERS:
International Standard Book Number `P212`
Wikidata `P8379` (115B)
EU Knowledge Graph `P11012`
Factgrid Database `P10787` (0.4M)
Google Knowledge Graph `P2671` (500B)
>1. They’re not talking about any lucrative activity — the primary worry is longterm sexual harassment via stalking.
There's potential for far more, and far more lucrative corporate and state harassment here. Think like low effort red light camera mail ticket but for the general case.
"We see that someone has posted a picture of X at your location. Here is a copy. This is a violation of a) your leas b) the zoning code, please pay us $1000, if you would like to appeal please fill out the attached form and include the $500 appeal fee and if you lose the fine will be $2000. Reminder: you agreed to this in subsection ABC of <your lease|the zoning code>"
1. That repo is based on 250+ .go files and stores stuff as git blobs, which is obviously a much more involved, collaboration-focused approach than this tool's 1 .sh file and human-readable markdown files.
2. `tk` seems to be built with agent usage in mind from the jump. I'm sure `git-bug` is perfectly usable, but it's clearly not a focus.
3. The two linux package managers listed for `git-bug` are for (drum-roll, please...) arch and nix. Of course the latter can be setup on every (?) distro, but speaking personally, I find that to be quite the red flag for a devtool! I'm sure it's a bright green ones for fans of those distros/mindsets, of course :)
just to address the package management situation on linux: i currently use nixos, and previously ran arch linux for over a decade. the AUR package is community maintained, as is the nixpkgs package (i maintain it though, so the community doesn't really need to here).
making installation simple on other, more commonly used distributions is a goal, but is less of a priority at the moment than feature work and bug fixes. we're very open to package maintainers on those distributions packaging git-bug, however :)
Oh my lord it's written in bash. That's incredible. Well done! It's good to feel like the new kid sometimes as I approach 30 and ossify technically -- I'm sure this will develop a healthy fanbase of senior engineers, if the one's I've known are anything to go off of.
More relevantly: I've spent way too long rolling my own issue tracking systems (plural!) over the years, and it's good to see someone else share my intuition that dependencies and tagging are by far the most important part of solo-ish issue trackers. You'd be shocked how many massive tech companies publish issue trackers where dependencies are an afterthought (or worse: a paid upgrade).
My only tiny, soft suggestion would be mention "Unix Philosophy" rather than just the MVP link, tho it is indeed cute. As I alluded to above, the former has a dedicated cult behind it already ;)
I feel like using Bash is a double-edged sword. Yes, it's available on every modern unix-like (notably absent from the base system in the *BSDs), but the language (being an sh descendant) is honestly horrible for anything more complex than 200-300 lines of plugging one command into another. Ticket isn't even pure Bash; it embeds several inline, 100+-line AWK scripts, and a giant jq query (an external tool!). All of which is horrible for syntax highlighting, mind you.
These days Python is almost as universally available, and I've seen few systems ship without Perl. Both provide excellent backward compatibility; I have many scripts that still run unchanged on Python 3.6 (2016).
Thanks! I agree completely. Dependency tracking is such a vital part of organizing work and it's hard to find good tooling for that. Beads started out as one and I wanted to maintain the simplicity it used to offer.
And I may just go make a README tweak re: unix philosophy... The MVP story floated up from the back of my mind when I went to go build this but you're totally right.
I love the design and the underlying message, but I just have to engage on the three examples of "radical monopolies". Most pressingly, I don't think any of the three show an example like that of the automobile, whose ubiquity is mandatory!
1. Describing "proponents [of the industrial revolution]" as some external group seems pretty absurd, and gives the rest of the piece an unsettling Kazinsky vibe. Yes, of course there are a variety of problems in the world related to the textile industry, that's obvious. But blaming "wage theft" and "over consumption" on the technology itself just seems absurd. You can still buy handmade clothes, and due to transportation-enabled specialization, they'd almost definitely be much cheaper and higher quality than they would've been in 1725!
2. Citing a 256 page report on antibiotic resistance[1] with no page number for the vague claim that they were overprescribed to some extent in the 1950s-70s is just plain rude! Regardless, there's no economic system forcing antibiotics on you; if you really wanted to for some reason, you could even save money by refusing them. Rather, the basic realities of human health are what makes them so ubiquitous, in the same way that they make food or hand washing ubiquitous.
3. This summary of the issues with LEO internet satellites is just way, way oversimplified -- the most egregious part being the implication that it is now "impossible to use earth-based sensors... to learn about space"! More fundamentally, equating LEO telecommunications with astrophysics research because they both involve things above our heads is goofy and misleading. Even more fundamentally--and to return to my overall point--there's no attempt to even vaguely gesture at a "radical monopoly" here! It's fair to say that the vast, vast majority of people only interact with LEO satellites when using GPS, which, again, is absolutely not mandatory.
And, finally, the web:
The web is no exception to this pattern. A vision of interoperability, accessibility, and usability, the World Wide Web was first conceived in 1989... But the proliferation of access and ultimate social requirement of access has spawned countless troubles for human society...
I hope it's clear how "technologies come with downsides" is a much more vague, obvious, and less-useful point than the Radical Monopoly thesis.
It’s an industrial, production-minded way of approaching a discipline that has all the hallmarks of being a great craft
I feel like the word "craft" is pretty telling here, as it strongly implies a break from the marketplace. If you don't like "industrial" websites, maybe take up issue with the concept of industry instead?
Hand-coded, syndicated, and above all personal websites are exemplary
I love personal websites, as do we all. The idea that more than, say, 5% of the population would be interested in them without radical changes to our work-life schedules is a tad absurd tho, is it not? You really think the millions of people who are happily sharing AI-generated images of Jesus statues made out of plastic bottles on Facebook could be tempted away to learn HTML and build their website from scratch? Overwhelming https://xkcd.com/2501/ vibes from this section!
And, finally, my thesis:
The internet does feel genuinely so awful right now, and for about a thousand and one reasons.
No. It can feel awful for one primary reason that dwarfs all others: advertising, which is of course just a wrapper over capitalism. If you want the internet to meaningfully change, no amount of artsy blogs will do the trick: you need to change the economic forces that drive people to contribute non-trivial intellectual products.
I, for one, see a world without advertising within our grasp -- still-capitalist or otherwise. We can do this. The Free and Open internet can exist once again.
> No. It can feel awful for one primary reason that dwarfs all others: advertising, which is of course just a wrapper over capitalism.
Huh, I wonder. What if we had a domain that is actively anti-capitalist. No ads, no products, no asking for financial support. Kinda like how GNU operating systems are hostile towards closed source software. (Tho I am AI-doomist and I don't think that online spaces can survive several billion new human-like agents that are trained to be as cunning and malevolent as possible.)
Reminds me of on interaction a few months ago where I mentioned the left-right spectrum in passing and someone accused me of making HN a worse place, only to call me a "snowflake" in their very next response! As usual, "things shouldn't be so political" is often uttered from a highly-political sense of discomfort. The quintessential example for me was its usage in US anti-desegregation rhetoric in the 1960s, alongside its resurgence in the anti-DEI movement today -- demanding that no one discuss our shared institutions is too often an endorsement of them, rather than an honest effort to focus on something else.
"toward the left" aside, it's always a little frustrating to read the ubiquitous "this place sucks" comments on here and Reddit. I have tons of problems with HN--both petty (markdown when??) and fundamental (SV/PE has metastasized in a discomforting way...)--but I'm still here because I love it, and think it's one of the best communities the internet has to offer.
Specific critiques of specific people or ideas are always welcome, but comments like "everyone here is curmudgeonly" just makes me wonder why they bother to log on in the first place...
Genuinely curious: would you mind please explaining to me how your contributions are more productive than the person you are responding to (read: attacking)?
It reads like you are upset at the poster using "DEI" and projecting your own behaviors onto them ("tedious and unproductive political discourse", "immune from critique or any burden of evidence").
I’m glad someone else noticed the time frames — turns out the lead author here has published 28 distinct preprints in the past 60 days, almost all of which are marked as being officially published already/soon.
Certainly some scientists are just absurdly efficient and all 28 involved teams, but that’s still a lot.
Personally speaking, this gives me second thoughts about their dedication to truly accurately measuring something as notoriously tricky as corporate SWE performance. Any number of cut corners in a novel & empirical study like this would be hard to notice from the final product, especially for casual readers…TBH, the clickbait title doesn’t help either!
I don’t have a specific critique on why 4 months is definitely too short to do it right tho. Just vibe-reviewing, I guess ;)
Aside, why not link the original video instead of a reddit post?
It's a compilation, but regardless, Reddit seems about as "original" as any other platform. I'd certainly rather see Reddit links here than YouTube links, all else being equal!
the vast majority of equity of companies are held privately
That's an good intuition, but it turns out to be false globally (TIL!): "There are nearly 25x more PE- and VC-backed companies than public markets [globally], but the total capitalization of private equity and venture capital is just 12% of public equity markets." per https://www.harbourvest.com/insights-news/insights/cpm-how-d...
vulture PE firms do exist but are not as prevalent as people make it seem online. It's a meme that many people seem to have latched on when the vast majority of PE firms and companies work perfectly fine
...source? It's certainly possible that I'm suffering from confirmation bias, but "company goes through PE acquisition" headlines seem to be followed by "brand dissolved" headlines in way too many cases. Even if it's not a literal majority, the problem seems A) widespread, and B) behind many of the most harmful symptoms of the rot beneath the American(/global?) economy!
My mistake, I should have said vast majority of companies, not equity in companies, are privately held.
If you're seeing it in the media, of course it's confirmation bias. Do you think it makes a good headline to say that a firm bought a company, grew it over 5 years, then sold it? Yet that's what happens in the majority of cases. Those in the media are the exceptions that prove the rule.
>> "brand dissolved" headlines > If you're seeing it in the media, of course it's confirmation bias.
It's a huge mistake to narrow down the problems of private equity firms (PEFs) to the dissolution of the companies they buy.
> Do you think it makes a good headline to say that a firm bought a company, grew it over 5 years, then sold it?
How is that different from what the video said? They buy all the hardware, grow the price of it by the mere fact of buying it up, hoard it, and then they sell it back to you at even higher prices as cloud services.
They make a profit but you are robbed. It's the strategy of scalping which has been going on in the GPU market for quite some time, but now it's used by corporations on an industrial scale.
The problem is precisely in the normal operation of PEFs, or rather, in the regulations that allow them to operate that way.
> It's a huge mistake to narrow down the problems of private equity firms (PEFs) to the dissolution of the companies they buy.
I'm not sure I ever said this, certainly there are some problems attributable to their companies but not all.
> but now it's used by corporations on an industrial scale.
You mean, buying raw goods? It's not "scalping" if a company is buying what they need to integrate into their finished goods. That is to say, they are not buying them with the express purpose of reselling those same items back to you, as is, which is the case with actual scalpers of concert tickets or GPUs for example (and which is the actual definition of scalping, no economist would call this scalping). That's like saying I'm being "scalped" when a construction company buys timber to build into a house. Oh no, I'm being "robbed" of being able to buy my own wood, and the company is increasing the price of the wood by mere fact of buying it up, and then because the house costs more than what I would've paid for the wood.
If it's taking away your ability to buy your own wood and build your own house then it is robbery. If I bribed the government to sell me the water rights under your house and then started charging you for water, would you say that is fair?
It's not taking my ability away, I just have to pay more, same as anyone else, according to the laws of supply and demand. The water rights under my house are my own property so your analogy doesn't work.
No, it's not same as anyone, the AI and datacenter companies have long term supply agreements at lower prices, essentially front-running the retail market. These agreements redistrict the volume available for retail and we end up scalped.
At every step the corporate purchases happen at lower price points, like this:
Price at 10 ->
corporate, high volume, buys at 10, hoarding of hardware ->
price up, retail buys at 20 due to a starved retail space ->
corporate, high volume, buys at 20, more hoarding ->
price up, retail buys at 30 due to a starved retail space ->
It's not really any different from wholesale vs retail, of course a seller would prefer higher volume higher margin customers over lower ones. That is in no way scalping as defined. Just because you're not a high volume customer does not mean you are getting scalped. It's like saying because Sysco doesn't sell directly to you and only to restaurants that the restaurant is "scalping" you when you buy their food. Your explanations really are not very convincing because the behavior you're describing is how wholesale works in any field.
