they're fairly unique in their free DDoS protection. They provide a LOT of security and uptime services for free that you just don't really find elsewhere (at least, the last time I checked; I'm sure they have reasonable competitors by now).
Even if a monopoly is not legally enforced, it can still dominate through quality or market forces or numerous other avenues.
Really? So every company that has a free tier is “dumping”?
CloudFlare is not s monopoly even by HN commenters weird definition.
But if you define “dumping” as “selling a product below what it takes to turn a profit”, every unprofitable company funded by YC is doing something illegal.
> Really? So every company that has a free tier is “dumping”?
Offering a sustainable free tier isn't dumping. Funding a free service with profits from a different business is.
> But if you define “dumping” as “selling a product below what it takes to turn a profit”, every unprofitable company funded by YC is doing something illegal.
Some of them have sensible unit economics and just need investment while they scale up. But yes, intentionally or not there is absolutely a whole lot of antitrust violation going on in silicon valley VC.
You really think a company can’t legally enter a new market by funding the division from another market?
Was Amazon engaging in “dumping” when it was using the revenue from Amazon to build out AWS? And no “AWS wasn’t started by Amazon selling excess capacity”
You can legally invest into a new business with revenue from your existing business. What's not legal is running a line of business in a way that's inherently unsustainable.
So how is CloudFlare having a free tier not “sustainable” when that’s what almost every company does? Do you think the Google Pixel makes money selling only 800,000 phones a quarter? Would it be sustainable as a standalone company?
Is the “HomePod mini” a line of business? Would it be sustainable if it weren’t subsidized by the rest of Apple?
Are you starting to see how meaningless your definition is?
I really do feel like AR is the future, moreso than VR.
As technologists we have a tendency to want to build our own world instead of integrate into the real world. It's understandably easier/cleaner, but it strips out all the richness of the real world.
the American style of suburb is quite unusual compared to e.g. Europe though, and AFAIK is driven by zoning laws and car-centric infrastructure more so than by consumer choice. Markets don't necessarily offer people what they want, people's imaginations are often constrained by what's available on the market. Something something, "faster horses".
I don't buy it based on my own experience living around the world. I lived in Asia for a while where an apartment was the norm and public transit meant you didn't need a car (and most didn't have one).
What would the majority do if they had the money? What was their "dream lifestyle"? Buy a single family home, with it's own land and a car.
Sure, not everyone likes that lifestyle, but a hell of a lot of people do like it.
I would totally want to live in a single family home with a garden in a city - all the benefits of city living, with space.
But single family homes set in the suburbs, amongst endless other single family homes? It's nowhere near as good. You have to drive everywhere and there's not enough density to support local shops.
I think it's a mistake to assume that because almost everyone would, with enough money, want their own home and land, that they'd also want it in the suburbs. You just need to look at property values to see that isn't the case - houses and apartments in the city are worth more.
I could trade my terraced house in the city for a much larger one in the distant suburbs. But that would mean driving everywhere, living by busy fast roads, not having a huge range of shops nearby, having to commute further into work, not being able to cycle - all things that make it not worth it. Clearly a lot of my neighbours feel the same way.
I think that biggest killer is kids once they are beyond toddler stage. Kids ability to go independently to sports club, visit friend or go to school ads a lot of comfort to both kid and parent. And kids occasional ability to fetch something from local store is a neat addition too.
I live in a suburban single-family home in the US with a yard and garden in a small town just outside a small city. I use my car once a week at most (but normally not at all), usually just to enjoy a day trip into the city. From home we walk or bike to restaurants, groceries, coffee, library, parks, breweries, boutique stores, etc. I think this is the ideal, and if someone gave me all the money in the world I’d honestly be hard pressed to find a place I’d rather live. But even money isn’t an issue, because cost of living is fairly low here.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that outside the cities it’s all highways and endless suburbs.
I was thinking the infrastructure and amenities state of US suburbs, where they're basically stamped down in blocks off a highway. I live in a single family home and drive a car in the UK, but there are tons of amenities within walking distance (and I can walk anywhere), community events and green spaces, etc. I can drive, get a bus or cycle into the nearest city, which my town is clustered near to, so opportunities are aplenty. I know my neighbours, family are nearby, and so on. The vibe I get from American suburbs is that they're much more like isolated house-units and if you want to do anything you have to drive to somewhere totally different.
I dunno. The most expensive are houses near center of city usually. People pay a lot for that. Then second most are apartments near center of city. The houses further away are cheaper. Some people definitely prefers them, but I dont think buying patterns show them being majority.
The houses with no stores around, with no busses around where you and your kids needs driving everywhere are comparatively cheap. Even people living in houses with yards seem to prefer them if they are either walking distance from forest, walking distance from stores/community centers and ideally both.
The most expensive are houses near center of city usually.
The houses in the suburbs of Bay Area peninsula are more expensive than the houses inside SF city limits. Of course there many factors like schools that influence that, but I wouldn't argue your observation is always correct.
And price is due to supply/demand. If the supply of single family homes in the middle of cities was high enough to keep costs down, sure, plenty of families would choose those. But they aren't, so people trade off living close to a city center with a lower cost single family home.
> But they aren't, so people trade off living close to a city center with a lower cost single family home.
Yes, but I dont see majority of people doing that worldwide. And where they do that, they prefer houses in near villages where there are stores and community centers nearby. And those houses have small businesses in them.
The local stores or walkable infrastructure are not exclusive feature of cities. That is something that does not exists only where it is illegal to open local store near the houses.
What do you mean "worldwide"? When I lived in Asia people lived in small concrete boxes with no windows so they could work in big cities and not pay a lot for rent.
With the exception of wealthy countries, I'd argue most people don't have the choice of living in an apartment in the city or a big house in the country.
I don't see anything that would suggest majority of people anywhere prefers to live in houses in locations with no transport other then car and no stores etc nearby.
In wealthy countries, people live in remote houses like that because it is cheaper. Houses in walkable places are way more expensive. You have to be at the level of "shopping and everything is done by somebody else and kids are driven by nanny" rich to get to demographic where it is opposite.
Whoa, we just went from "single family home" to "single family home...in locations with no transport other than car and no stores etc nearby".
I never said people prefer that.
I said people prefer a single family home, a yard and a car. That's not actually achievable in most city centers (unless wealthy) so many people give up location in exchange for a single family home, a yard and car.
Thus, suburbs aren't forced on anyone. Many people chose a single family home, in the suburbs, over an apartment in the city. The cost of that is not being able to walk everywhere, and people are willing to pay that price.
This is what the thread starts with: the American style of suburb is quite unusual compared to e.g. Europe though, and AFAIK is driven by zoning laws and car-centric infrastructure more so than by consumer choice. Markets don't necessarily offer people what they want, people's imaginations are often constrained by what's available on the market. Something something, "faster horses".
You specifically said "I don't buy it" to the above comment that was about car oriented suburbs specifically.
Nowhere you specified you are changing topic from the above (suburbs) to "house anywhere".
>What would the majority do if they had the money? What was their "dream lifestyle"? Buy a single family home, with it's own land and a car.
> Sure, not everyone likes that lifestyle, but a hell of a lot of people do like it.
Nope, dream ofmost of the people would be to "buy a single family home, with it's own land within the city without doing taxi driver for your kids".
But since this is completely scifi since houses in city are the most expensive people have to settle either for city apartments or house outside city and becoming taxi driver.
Also, presumably the issue of needles and human waste can be resolved with further prosocial investments in harm reduction facilities for drug users and housing for the homeless. These problems aren't intractable.
The UK's hardly a haven of social democracy, but I've never seen human excrement on the street and only seen needles off the beaten path. We don't do a very good job helping our homeless population though.
To those unsympathetic to addiction being a medical condition, these facilities are just seen as legalization which goes against everything they've been fed. This isn't even a NIMBY thing as they don't just not want it in their area, they don't want them to exist at all.
Showing how they have worked in Europe, then they will just write it off as socialist policies run amok.
giving people needles and drugs is called harm reduction for a reason - it's to reduce the risk of dirty needles and street drugs, these policies don't solve drug addiction, they just keep drug addicts safe(r). Solving drug addiction is actually a tremendously hard problem but it starts with helping rather than punishing addicts. Portugal is a good example of doing this right: drugs are broadly decriminalised and the government provides help to addicts. Here's an article on drug policies across Europe (and some other countries): https://www.foundationswellness.net/drug-abuse/do-other-coun...
I’m all for providing help to addicts, but giving them the drugs doesn’t seem to help. While I offer no solutions, I don’t think this is working and believe there is a better way. Perhaps rehab centers or synthesized equivalents that decrease potency over time.
The myth of the Philosopher's Stone is not widely known outside the UK. Without correct context the title is dead boring and doesn't sound like it has anything to do with magic.
Imagine picking up a book called "John Smith and the Architect's Compass" and having someone tell you the title makes sense because there is a legend about an ancient cult who guards a a device that can locate the holy grail.
It's pretty widely known at least in Western Europe. I knew it from primary school history class in the Netherlands (long before the first Harry Potter book was published). Similar for German and French colleagues.
Not sure why the title should be changed to sound like it has something to do with magic. For people who are aware of the legend, the original title would mostly bring up associations with alchemy.
the myth is explained in the book. the only difference between 'philosopher's stone' and 'sorcerer's stone' is that the former provides a connection to a real myth.
Philosopher is an overloaded term. For someone who doesn't know the myth the definition is squarely non-magical. For someone browsing a bookstore the magical meaning is missing. It just sounds dry and boring. That doesn't help the book get sold.
At the time she was an unknown author with a single kids book. I think changing the title to make the theme more obvious was justifiable. Changing the term throughout the book was unnecessary.
Personally, I grew up with the Philosopher's Stone and always wondered why she chose that name. It was only years later when I learned it was a legend outside the books did it make sense. The book does explain the meaning in the context of the novel, but not the wider cultural significance. That dampens the impact (just like how the Crystal Skull is not nearly as impactful as the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones).
Computers are already exponentially more intelligent than humans in constrained domains, like executing mathematics. Presumably we'll just keep expanding this category until they're better at everything than us, all the while reaping industrial benefits from each iterative improvement.
Even if a monopoly is not legally enforced, it can still dominate through quality or market forces or numerous other avenues.