I get that people have a handful of reasons why they would prefer that the headphone jack sticks around.
But do you think that in 10 years, and if not that, in 100 years, that the headphone jack will still be the primary interface?
And if the answer is no, that will not be the case, and we are ready to move on today, what's wrong for a company to move on? There will always be tradeoffs in the short term, but the vector of this movement is clearly down the path of no headphone jack.
Given the quality of today's wireless audio devices, and the slowdown in Moore's law, I don't see any replacement for the venerable headphone jack. Like TCP, it's a solved problem.
1) You need an analogue stage somewhere to produce audio; 2) Is it really that large? On my Lumia 950, the battery is virtually as wide as the headphone jack, and the camera lens protrudes from the main body of the phone already.
For those reasons, I'm not convinced a smaller headphone jack is particularly necessary.
Hell, Apple was first to ditch floppy drives, CD drives (some models), ethernet ports (some models), and Flash. They've got a pretty good track record of "we don't need this shit" lately.
This is a nonsensical response ignoring the intrinsic relationship between morality and the information given.
Since the situation is intrinsically related to morality. My advice is therefore also related to morality. Just because the OP doesn't specifically ask for a moral answer doesn't preclude me addressing morality.
Betrayal and ownership are subjective in this context. However, there is still a majority consensus that can be arrived at based on the information given. Many will come to a single conclusion on who is the betrayer and who morally deserves ownership. When a person thoughtlessly steals his best friends girlfriend, what do you think the majority consensus will be?
3. How you subjectively feel about the majority consensus.
4. How the OP subjectively feels about the majority consensus.
In this case, there was not sufficient information given to really understand what the majority consensus is. Additionally, just because something is the consensus, doesn't mean it is necessarily the best course of action individually. Facing condemnation is a consequence, not physical law. The initial response took no time to give an appropriate course of action, and drew on your subjective heated feelings attached to your interpretation of the consensus.
>In this case, there was not sufficient information given to really understand what the majority consensus is. Additionally, just because something is the consensus, doesn't mean it is necessarily the best course of action individually. Facing condemnation is a consequence, not physical law. The initial response took no time to give an appropriate course of action, and drew on your subjective heated feelings attached to your interpretation of the consensus.
There is no need to do a scientific analysis to derive majority consensus. Intuition is enough to know what the majority thinks about stealing your best friends girlfriend. Whether or not the majority consensus is the "best" course of action for the individual is not what I addressed. I specifically stated that my advice was from a moral standpoint, whether or not the OP considers that as "best" depends on whether or not he is a moral man.
The initial response gave a appropriate course of action from a moral standpoint. It drew from a combination of sources all of which can be potentially described as subjective, moral, rational, emotional, heated yet still valid.
It's fine to use intuition, but it's extremely important to be able to reflect and recognize on its shortcomings, which is that you may be inadvertently layering your own subjectivity on what you think is objective. In this case your outburst is not valid.
Is forcing yourself on another person immoral? Yes. Is intentionally manipulating someone's relationship for personal gain immoral? Yes. Are two people recognizing they would be happier together, and leaving a previous relationship immoral? That doesn't seem wrong.
You are the one coloring this scenario as "stealing". There is no information here about who these people are, what their relationships are like. You are projecting onto this situation and constructing this strawman, and in turn moralizing about the strawman. That isn't reality.
It's fine to use intuition, but it's extremely important to be able to reflect and recognize on its shortcomings, which is that you may be inadvertently layering your own subjectivity on what you think is objective. In this case your outburst is not valid.
All morality is subjective and thus so are my views. My views are still valid according to majority consensus DESPITE being subjective. Intuition has shortcomings but not when it comes to something obvious.
>Is forcing yourself on another person immoral? Yes. Is intentionally manipulating someone's relationship for personal gain immoral? Yes. Are two people recognizing they would be happier together, and leaving a previous relationship immoral? That doesn't seem wrong.
The last statement isn't immoral, while the first two are. However I am not addressing any of those things. What I am addressing is this: Allowing yourself to engage in a relationship with and/or develop feelings for your best friends, girlfriend. This is wrong under all counts.
>You are the one coloring this scenario as "stealing". There is no information here about who these people are, what their relationships are like. You are projecting onto this situation and constructing this strawman, and in turn moralizing about the strawman. That isn't reality.
Perhaps "stealing" is an inappropriate word as we are talking about things that are fundamentally impossible to steal. Betrayal is a better word and it is exactly the scenario the OP describes.
If we asked said betrayed founder whether or not he thinks it's betrayal. His answer will be yes. Then if we ask the majority for consensus. The answer will be yes, again.
The problem is that this is your subjective interpretation of what YOU think the consensus is. This is what you think other people think is wrong. Why should someone on this board believe that your conclusions about the consensus are accurate, reliable, or valid? No one is interested in sorting that out. In contrast, the best information to offer here is experience, AKA a data point. Fundamentally your input here is suboptimal.
It's also really clear that what the consensus may be here would vary a ton by the actual situation:
1. Was the original relationship happy? Would the consensus be against this if it were an abusive relationship?
2. Was it just a casual girlfriend, or were they engaged?
3. Was the OP intentionally trying to seduce the girl, or did it just happen that they recognized it was a better pairing?
The reality is the consensus WILL differ based on the situation. There are a ton of shades here, but you fixated on the idea of "betrayal", as if all things with this pattern were uniformly bad. That's clearly not true, and there is simply not enough data for you to overfit and then moralize.
This isn't a science experiment. People walk through life creating conclusions and moralizing based off of subjective intuition. There is not enough information here to formulate a scientific conclusion but there is enough information to form a reasonable one.
That being said... consensus will differ based on the situation, but based on the information given the consensus is roughly the same: Don't betray your best friend. There are very few contexts where having an affair with your best friends girlfriend will be justifiably moral. Let me address some of the examples you gave:
The nature and context of the relationship between the boyfriend and the girlfriend itself is irrelevant and NONE of the OPs business. Although an abusive relationship justifies intervention, an unhappy relationship DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN AFFAIR. Intuitively, it is also highly Unlikely that the relationship is abusive. Make no mistake, anytime you engage in an affair with your best friends girlfriend it is most likely an act of utter betrayal.
If the OP was not intentionally seducing the girl but developed feelings naturally, it is the OPs' own business. It's not his fault he developed those feelings but it will be his fault if he acts on those feelings. He is now torn between his attraction to this woman and his guilt for betraying his friend hence his decision to query people on hackernews. We all have dark desires, but the desire itself does not justify the action.
I fixate on the affair itself and how the act of carrying out said affair is an act of betrayal. The situation and context of the action is not uniformly immoral and I can definitely empathize with the OP. However, despite all of this... you are still an ass hole if you have an affair with your best friends girlfriend. Most people can agree with this, except you.
I can't speak for you but it may be possible that your empathy for his situation is clouding your judgement.
No, you certainly can't speak for me. I have no empathy or relevant experience regarding betrayal, I simply wanted to point out how your response was more irrational than rational.
You are right the majority consensus is betraying your buddy is bad. But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice? You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon. Maybe this advice isn't producing meaningful results? The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.
>But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice?
You realize this entire thread is giving advice based off of the SAME details? How can it "not be possible" to give advice? Also I hope you realize that the OP is ASKING for advice?
>You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon.
Take a look at the post rank. Hackernews lifts up posts based on how recent it is, then it orders by karma. I'm number 5 on this entire thread. Here you make an assumption based on lack of facts. The fact that I am number 5 is literally quantitative proof I have a huge consensus. If I have a consensus it means people do NOT agree that I am "parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice"
>The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
You instruct me not to speak for you, which I CLEARLY did not. Yet you do the exact same thing here? This is a hypocritical statement. How DO YOU KNOW I don't have the relevant experience? You just pulled that fact out of thin air; and in doing so you are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon.
>That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.
The emotional aspects of the affair will bleed into the business situation, that's a given; it would be irrational to suggest it "doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship"
What your saying is like saying we can't put rapists in prison because the prison cell has nothing to do the with rape. If betraying your friend is a immoral, I am suggesting a moral punishment that will prevent further harm to the victim both from an emotional standpoint and financial. If the OP doesn't take my advice he would be harming his friend EVEN further by causing the team-up to become toxic or muscling his friend out. I am suggesting the most moral, least damaging option, which is utterly and completely rational.
Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.
You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
>Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.
Number 5/30 is around the top 15%. Consensus is not required for effective results. I never claimed such a thing, so why is this your point? Consensus is required for morality. Because morality is subjective it is impossible to conclude whether something is truly moral or immoral. Two people with different morals will have incongruent notions on good and evil. Thus for a concrete answer we turn to majority consensus. This is the entire reason why I brought it up. In short, consensus verifies that my advice is effectively moral.
>You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
I am tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad. It usually is, and this case does not deviate from the usual scenario. The business IS a different entity with separate moral obligations. These obligations are may intersect and be in conflict but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the betrayal not the complexities of life. These things are a given and it will be the OPs choice whether he wants to be moral to his friends, business partners or both. I apologize for not having the time to write a 200 page essay about the details on how he should handle every single separate moral obligation that could potentially be compromised by such a large decision.
>Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
When did I say he requires moral punishment. I'm suggesting a moral action. The consensus and I repeat again is not on some stupid requirement. People voted me up because they agree with the morality of the suggestion. If he takes my suggestion, the action will be moral in the eyes of majority consensus. I have no scientific evidence backing that claim up, but my intuition aka common sense tells me it is true.
Seems like there's a few things going on here. It is possible to make a moral statement on minimal information, as you did. It's not very a helpful or useful statement, but there isn't much helpful or useful input either. With more information, what the most moral thing to do, especially regarding the business, would change.
The question is really what constitutes good advice. I suppose it turns out good advice also varies to what is being sought, and why. Maybe someone wants a better answer, maybe reassurance, maybe validation. With more data, we can provide a more objective assessment of the consequences of different actions. Of course, unfortunately, we are not provided any of that here. You can certainly offer your subjective preference to take the moral/consensus action as advice. This advice, as we discussed, is not necessarily effective, and perhaps already known. If what is being sought is objective advice, in that dimension, with only minimal information, the best thing to offer is relevant experience.
This argument started because you accused me of writing a nonsensical comment. The accusation was negative, highly offensive and not inline with policies of hacker news. Now it's descended, thanks entirely to you, into argument about bullshit.
So to prevent people from wasting their time; Maybe you should be less offensive. That's my advice to you. You can take that advice or you can go to hell. That's all I have to say about this topic. I refuse to continue it any further.
Your original outburst began with negativity and calling names. I pointed that out, and it turned into a conversation of whether comments that have consensus are good advice. And certainly, even comments that have consensus can violate the HN guidelines.
People are free to choose how to use their own time.
True. But take a look at the context of the english language and the situation. Usually when one uses the word "steal" in the context of "stealing a girlfriend" it usually is more inline with the meaning: "seduction/betrayal" then it is with the literal definition you are referring to which is "theft."
So lets make the logical leap here, which usage of the word "stealing" am I referring to? "Theft" or "seduction/betrayal"? What do you think? If it's too challenging to figure out I'll just tell you the answer: "Theft." I am literally suggesting that we call the police because a burglar has stolen another persons' girlfriend.
> If it's too challenging to figure out I'll just tell you the answer
I was pointing out your sexist attitudes and the mistakes that you make as a result of your ignorance. You think of her as an object to be traded, not as a person with violition. That caused your chauvanistic framing in your response.
Did you call me chauvinistic and sexist? That's an outright head to head insult. I am not, and using the word "stealing" does not make me such. Many woman use the the term "stealing boyfriend" it doesn't make them sexist. I refuse to continue this conversation due to the extreme unprofessional insults you are using.
Good point, people were speculating that the innards would be swappable, but actually it looks like the model is that you keep the band, but swap the watchpiece.
So when V2 comes out in 2 years, you keep your $400 band, and just pay $500 for the watchpiece.
We should look at the bigger picture though, past our subjective preferences.
Lyft/Uber should be exciting from a business perspective to the HN community because it represents a business model that has been uniquely enabled by changes in the landscape. Ten years ago, this business wouldn't work, but the rise of the smartphone, and then GPS implicitly enabled this entire new segment. People, for better or worse, no longer need to be trained taxi drivers to drive people around the city because of smartphone GPS.
The more interesting conversation is about how this trend could have been anticipated.
I think mmxiii is saying that the phone+GPS combo has enabled people to become cab drivers, not to summon them. Previously, you'd either have to either be very familiar with geography, or purchase a GPS unit - probably not very expensive, but still an investment for a very part-time job.
>in realizing that there may actually be value in some of the BSing
I don't know if this is the conclusion to take away. The OP of this topic is an example of where meaning and relevance does exist for design decisions, and can lead to a very thoughtful conclusion.
The Pepsi one, in contrast, is just applying as many functions/transforms on a problem, and hoping some of the results look OK.
The mistake here is that you are conflating your subjective preference with reality. You are implicitly evaluating something against your own context, but to understand why twitter,etc are successful, you need to ask questions about what OTHER people value, and why they do it.
It's worth noting that most popular web apps today started out as related but different ideas, and it wasn't always a result of some clear-cut vision. Twitter for example was a group SMS service and there was a lot of uncertainty about its actual purpose and utility, even among the founding team:
>>"With Twitter, it wasn't clear what it was. They called it a social network, they called it microblogging, but it was hard to define, because it didn't replace anything. There was this path of discovery with something like that, where over time you figure out what it is. Twitter actually changed from what we thought it was in the beginning, which we described as status updates and a social utility. It is that, in part, but the insight we eventually came to was Twitter was really more of an information network than it is a social network." -Evan Williams
You say that, but it is the same as the dotcom days, everyone thought it was a "new economy", yadda yadda. Right now, ALL these investments are highly speculative. Any of these companies could do a MySpace overnight.
Very much agreed. But think about it - even Myspace was only sold for a little over half a billion. We are orders of magnitude higher now. Holy bubble!
I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context.
When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives.
So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.
I am a Twitch partner and just last week I received a survey asking me my thoughts about affiliate marketing in regards to promoting free to play games, selling games, and relate peripherals. Seems timely now.
All of the top Twitch streamers have revenue sharing partnerships with G2A.com, a digital download videogame marketplace. It will be interesting to see if Amazon pushes their competing offer.
Valve has no need for adding on a hugely expensive live streaming site. Steam has very little serious and threatening competition and their own IPs (Dota and CS) are raking in cash along side their marketplace. They are doing well now and don't have the same stock holder expectations for growth as a public company would.
While most posts are touching on privacy or failure cases, I am still struggling to understand this product from a social perspective. First of all, this general idea has been floating around since companies like loopt, when mobile started taking off. I remember working through the use case considerations for this kind of product, and that's where it really dies.
This breed of product is based on the idea that location = event. If someone is at a location, that means something is going on. But it ignores massive implicit social constructs: 1. Facebook friends are not real friends (Circles is slightly better but classification is onerous), 2. Someone you don't know well is unlikely to share their location to you, and less likely to agree to hang out based on location, in contrast someone you do know well, you will easily be aware of their location and availability.
The reality is that this product captures one piece of information - where is my friend right now. But on any serious reflection, you should be able to discern that this piece of information is incredibly secondary to the nature of the actual relationship when determining whether or not to hang out.
One place I can see this being useful is at music festivals or other large open-area events. Often you're going with other people, but you're not necessarily going to stick together the entire time. Being able to find each other easily would be a nice improvement, as phone-tag is a pretty terrible way to do it.
Some of my best friends have moved to different parts of the country. And because of the distance, we simply talk less. But whenever we do meet up, it's like they never left.
Just because I don't talk to someone on a weekly basis doesn't mean I wouldn't want to meet up if it were convenient.
