Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more kwonkicker's comments login

It's about appealing to broader market. Missy people have no idea what ffmpeg is and even if they did, there is no way they can productively use it.


Easy. Invent a resilient plastic that the microbes don't like to chew. And start counting the money untill that plastic becomes the problem.


Things last a lot longer in a vacuum


That's propaganda from the home vacuum bagger racket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_for_use_in_vacuum

Enjoy this article that the political wiki-mafia didn't find interesting enough to "fix".


Isnt the entire amazon marketplace doing the same? Marking up cheap white label alibaba products by a couple 100%s and selling it to americans?. And then bragging about making millions with "dropshipping"


"Independent" is a relative term


I think what the comment you are replying to means is that priorities can change, even more so if there is a change of ownership in the horizon.


See my sibling comment to yours for clarification on my mistake, but to respond I don't think Vlad intends on selling the browser since he needs it to promote his search engine, Kagi Search. Doesn't completely mitigate the risk but I think enough since its now tablestakes in the search engine space to offer your own browser, Brave is the same way.


The people wants the link. so you better deliver.


Oh man, they killed the only davemaoite we ever had, it's so sad


Biologists do this as well. Once we encounter a new species, it's killed and then studied.

This is called a 'voucher specimen'. Obviously it's possible to make a species extinct if you kill the only one of it's kind, and the necessity of voucher specimens is a topic of debate amongst field biologists.


But now that they know where to look for it, I'm pretty sure they'll find more.


How many people have died in movies?! I'd guess it is negligible. People have died during theater performances. And it doesn't get safer than a theater.


There are a surprisingly large number of them. Even more when you include serious injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_ac...

A woman was shot and killed by live ammo on a movie set about a month ago.


Before turning seven or so I and my friends thought they really shoot people on set. All for the sake of the art, you know, somebody has to sacrifice to make a good movie. I remember that we argued whether it’s fake or not, and the consensus was it seemed real.


I believe nobody said "evil boogyman". But saying "government controlled" isn't much of a stretch for any Chinese company. I expect they do have some level of "de facto" control on over any company operating in the Mainland


I think that's not a reasonable expectation. Unless you believe that setting regulatory clauses in doing business as "de facto" control. But then so does any business.

Much like every other nation on Earth, the government will seek to take a hand in the largest businesses operating in their jurisdiction.

"Expecting" the Chinese government to control every business in China is very dystopian and baseless. They couldn't do it even if they wanted. The same way my country can't regulate a simple scooter ride-sharing startup during a pandemic...

I wouldn't question China's control over companies like Alibaba. I wouldn't question the US' control over companies like Google. Which again is a totally different ballpark.


My understanding is there has been a large push to have communist party members have a formal and active role in businesses. The economist had a nice article on this: https://archive.is/HGX2L

This is at the very least much more explicit than the control political parties in the US exert over businesses.


Being explicit in your doings is not necessarily evil. Governments frequently push to control everything that they think might benefit themselves. China just has everyone's balls in a vice and so can do it publicly.

But yeah. I'm only here to say that equating control of giants to be very different to control of everyone.


In the US, "human resources" is a misnomer for a corporate department that ensures regime compliance. Thankfully, most policies exist for the sake of worker's and minority's rights.


Every government has some level of "de facto" control over companies through legislation and whatnot. Sure that control may be more direct in China (and that's a big maybe in my opinion because I doubt a huge country with complex interactions can be handwavely summarized as that) but I just don't see the need to bring that up whenever anything happens in China.


then you've probably never worked in the Chinese tech sector because it is the literal Wild West. The competitor manipulation story in this case is utterly believable to anyone who has ever seen in what kind of quasi feudal wars Chinese tech companies are often engaged, because there is virtually no government oversight. Regulators on the mainland were generally so far behind the curve that tech companies until very recently more or less did whatever they wanted, which accounts for their enormous growth over the last two decades.

About ten years ago there was the infamous "3Q war" where Tencent and Qihoo engaged in pretty ridiculous measures over the messenger market by blocking each others usage on consumer machines when the other one was installed, orchestrating fake media articles about pornography, police raids and at some point calling on users to go into a general strike. The war basically only ended because at some point the government stepped in and for the first time enforced anti-trust law.

This has changed to some degree but China's tech sector always was so hilariously under-regulated it makes most Western countries look socialist in comparison


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: