Origin has already been functionally unusable already for most platforms, as if you launched it on any EA App compatible platform, Origin would automatically force update to the EA App unless you messed with the files to disable the check. Shutting down the app will mostly just pull up the ladder for anyone on an incompatible platform.
I switched to the EA App recently. It's definitely a lot more user hostile than Origin was. Unlike Origin, there's no setting in the app to make it close when you hit the X button, and every time you open the app it opens a full page of ads for their games, with no option to have to have it default to your library instead. All in all it really just seems like an enshittified update offering no new features I want and a lot of "features" I don't want.
> The Stanford research has not yet been published in any form outside of a few graphs Denisov-Blanch shared on Twitter. It has not been peer reviewed.
While I don’t doubt the existence of some useless engineers and people secretly working two engineering positions, the fact that they’re claiming 9.5% of engineers are useless based on the output of some code analysis tool and the paper isn’t even published yet makes me think this is junk science. Is their tool going to mark the engineer with decades of institutional knowledge who mainly spends their time helping others as useless? Or the tech lead who is a manager in all but name but doesn’t have time anymore for code?
Allegedly their algorithm controls for that, and companies have explicitly given them a list of employees who can't be measured by commits alone:
> I asked Denisov-Blanch if he thought his algorithm was scooping up people whose work contributions might not be able to be judged by code commits and code analysis alone. He said that he believes the algorithm has controlled for that, and that companies have told him specific workers who should be excluded from analysis because their job responsibilities extend beyond just pushing code.
No company above trivial size would be able to produce such a list without a significant amount of work (you'd need to survey every single EM, at the very least), so I would, ah, have doubts.
> The real opportunity isn't in API fees or enterprise AI. It's in something far bigger: AI-generated, personalized audio and video advertising. Think programmatic advertising, but orders of magnitude larger.
It’s hard to embrace the hype of this “opportunity” when the end goal seems downright horrific for society
The possibilities are as exciting as they are endless.
Before AI, could you call up 4.2 million numbers in an instant with responsive robo-agents? Could you add convincing details to your pitch based on behavioural information collected from over 100 data partners?
Could you deliver a heartbreaking plea in the voice of each and every person's child?
We're not afraid to take advantage of the very latest in personalized advertising, and that's what's going to set our toothbrush subscription service apart from the rest.
The catch looks amazing, but one thing I don't understand is why SpaceX needs the technology to catch a booster they've already demonstrated the ability to land boosters on barges. Is the arm more cost effective to scale compared to a barge?
This booster is much, much larger than the Falcon 9 first stages that land on barges. It's ~70 metres high, versus ~40 metres for the Falcon 9 first stage, and weighs about 275 000 kg compared to the ~20 000 kg of the Falcon 9 first stage.
In short, it would require such huge and heavy landing legs and landing barges that it probably wouldn't be feasible.
FYI that first link is showing a previous, larger, concept iteration of Starship (then known as ITS) which would have had a 12m diameter, versus the 9m version that SpaceX ended up building.
The second link seems to show a version of Starship that's relatively up-to-date.
After checking if everything is okay with the vehicle. And of course the government agencies must determine that frequent sonic booms (there is one per booster landing) are acceptable for the public.
Weight. Legs weigh a lot. That's dead weight for a launch system, and it serves only to reduce payload to orbit.
For Falcon 9 that's not that big a deal because they're NOT trying to reuse the second stage. Whereas with Starship they need more fuel to recover the ship, and that means they need to save weight elsewhere to avoid losing too much payload to orbit.
It takes time for the barges to return the booster to the launch pad. They want to be able to launch Starship, have the booster land back at the launch pad, have the arms set it back down on the ground, and recycle the booster for another launch in just a few hours. Then the arms can be used to stack the booster and the next payload on the launch platform.
Hey, your comment just got a reply, if you want to read it please subscribe to Hacker News Plus for just 1.99 an hour. If you spend less than an hour a day procrastinating here, then it's free. But we all know that's not the case.
But don't forget, if you signup for the premium+ you will get one free boost each month, so your post will be on the front for up to 30 minutes and it will be seen by more people!
> When a user buys $30 in Robux, the platform’s virtual currency, Roblox recognizes $30 in bookings. An average of $3 of that $30 is spent on a “consumable” (i.e., a single-user or otherwise perishable good), and so Roblox recognizes that $3 as revenue right away. The remaining $27 is spent on “durable” goods such as an avatar. As an avatar can and often will be used over time, Roblox recognizes this revenue over the average lifetime of a Roblox user
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this point correctly. From my understanding, wouldn't roblox consider their revenue in a given month to be 1/9th of this months purchases + 1/27th of last month's purchases + ...
If so, why would their revenue recognition make them unprofitable? Every month they only realize 1/9th of revenue from that month, but that would be offset by the other 8/9ths of revenue coming from the last 27 months. Wouldn't it just make their recognized revenue a frontloaded rolling average?
It could be their active user count is increasing very fast and that is eating the rolling revenues via infra costs, customer acquisition costs, perhaps they are subventing that growth in other ways like discounts to get players into the paying segments etc.
The graphic at the end of the article says the author's team only treated patients with gunshot wounds, and not tramples or sprains, so I imagine those lower priority injuries were diverted to other hospitals.
I switched to the EA App recently. It's definitely a lot more user hostile than Origin was. Unlike Origin, there's no setting in the app to make it close when you hit the X button, and every time you open the app it opens a full page of ads for their games, with no option to have to have it default to your library instead. All in all it really just seems like an enshittified update offering no new features I want and a lot of "features" I don't want.