Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mschild's commentslogin

Fair. Depends on the game to be honest.

I switched from Windows 10 to Fedora recently. Most of the games I play work without issue but I know there are some which categorically refuse to work (mainly some specific anti-cheating software reasons).


> And since they will still have some residual value 5 years from now.

I dont know any private person in my circle that actually sold their laptop until it wasnt broken or so painfully old that the used value was mostly for spare parts. That may change a bit with the skyrocketing pc part prices but still.


I find Teams is often simply picked because of cost reasons.

A lot of companies are paying for office and teams comes bundled with it. Why pay extra when its included?


Don't forget network effects. If other companies you are working with use Teams then there is less friction if you also use Teams yourself.

That was the reason we ditched Slack. I hate Teams with a passion, but we're not going to pay 6k per year for a chat app if we get Teams for free. There's just no way to defend that decision.

6k would be a no-brainer.

In our office, we'd definitely need the enterprise version for compliance reasons, not because of the features. That's about 14/user/month.

At a workforce of roughly 2500, that's a 4million+ yearly cost for something that is comparable to something you can get without that pricetag. It's no competition at all at that point. Think about it, would you be willing to ask your boss to pay 4 million so you can have a different chat app? No matter how much more ergonomic and friendly and intuitive it is.


That's a very upside down way to think about it.

The question is: "are staffers $14 / mo more productive with it, than the free version?"

The answer may also boil down to satisfaction, support calls, other things, aka 'total cost of ownership' as well.

Not 'But it costs $X million!'.

Companies will spend a fortune giving staff the right monitor, or chair, but literally don't think they're smart enough to know the dam tool they use all day?

Let them pick their chat software, like they pick their monitors.


This is exactly right. You're going to pay a dev on the order of $10,000 per month, then make it harder to do their job to save $14? That's idiocy.

The person responsible for picking our work laptops asked me for advice selecting our new Macs since our old model was being replaced:

"Do we really need to spend an extra $1000 for 64GB of RAM instead of 24GB?"

"That'd save us $300 per year, or about a dollar a day, over the deprecation schedule, and it'd make our devs slower. We spend more than this to have lunch catered."

"You know... good point. 64GB it is, then."

And that's how we opted for beefy machines on this hardware cycle. The guy I talked to is extremely smart and competent, but just hadn't looked at it from that angle. Once he saw it, he instantly bought in. There are dumb ways to save money with massive negative ROI, and cheaping out on basic equipment and resources is one of them.


My company doesn't OK basically any software requests, even cheap stuff :( We also don't make anywhere near $10k/mo (not USA). REcently got a new dev machine and it had 512GB m2 SSD and 16GB of RAM. I had to order 32GB but I had to explain why: to run docker images (and i'm hitting limits with 32GB constantly). I had to wait 2 weeks for the RAM upgrade. I wanted a bigger SSD but it would have taken longer and I needed to upgrade ASAP. It doesn't even have a USB-C plug (but a SD card slot, good grief).

> You're going to pay a dev on the order of $10,000 per month,

Mhh, far from it.


Careful, at some companies that kind of talk leads to discontinuing catered lunch.

I would not be working at one of those companies in the first place.

Monitors are a personal choice. My monitor doesn’t force anyone else to install yet another a chat app to talk to me. The choice of chat app has to be made centrally, or at least at an organizational level.

I feel like most Americans don't appreciate the financial constraints under which European startups are operating :) The median series A is something like 1–6 million Euros over here. You have to seriously consider what you spend money for on these scales.

> I feel like most Americans don't appreciate the financial constraints under which European startups are operating :) The median series A is something like 1–6 million Euros over here. You have to seriously consider what you spend money for on these scales.

I, living in Germany, rather wonder myself quite often why US-American tech startups don't act much more frugally: this would give them so much more leeway/runway to make their startups succeed.


Half of the time it's startups subsidizing each other in a circle to have users. Like if you're a VC, you "force" your companies to use tools made by your other companies. So everyone will use the chat app made by one company the VC owns, the CRM software, all the different SaaSes etc. So it's just money moving in a circle, but then all the apps get to claim good sales and user numbers.

A big part of it is that if you're in a very competitive realm, where most of the startups you hear about are working, then every day counts. If you can spend $1M to develop a product in a year or $2M to develop it in 6 months, that extra million gives you a 6 month head start in sales, revenue growth, and publicitity. Depending on the numbers involved, that frugality could cost huge amounts of money overall.

Note that you don't hear so much about the many, many startups doing slow growth things in less glamorous fields. I know a few companies making agricultural products for small farmers. Yes, frugality makes perfect sense for them. They're not going to have a hockey stick growth curve where they go from $0 to $10M to $1B over the course of 2 years. Their revenue graph will look more like a traditional manufacturer. They're doing things the way you describe, but they're not all over tech and non-tech news sites.


Quicker and bigger is better than slower and smaller. Especially in a competitive sector.

Better to go bust quick, than to eke out a tiny profit by being super frugal. The latter is a waste of everybody's time.


The reasoning makes more sense when you factor in that your startup’s VC is also Slack’s VC.

You’re actually giving that same venture capitalist $4m of their own money back, in a way that makes their investment more valuable.


> 6k would be a no-brainer.

"It’s one banana, Michael, how much could it cost? 10 dollars?"


That would be 420k/yr. To get to 4 million you need 25000 users. That's quite a big company.

So cca 16 million $ yearly for my corporation... Nobody is going to approve that, thats a ridiculous sum. There must be massive discounts above certain threshold.

Your corp has 95 thousand employees but bats an eye at 16 million dollars?

Also yes, volume licensees generally get massive discounts.


You can easily defend that for only 6k with 'but we like it and we'll be more productive with it and we won't hate our jobs'

yeah, but that wouldn't be honest. Slack is more pleasant to use, but not 6k more pleasant to use. I'd rather put up with Teams and get my devs a raise instead.

How few devs do you have? Assuming a small startup of 12, you'd be able to give each dev a raise of $42 per month. Your devs would have to be severely underpaid to notice a $42/month raise.

And if you put it to a vote, "would you rather upgrade from Teams to Slack for $9 per month, or get $9 of taxable income more per month?", I think there's a very good chance you'd be switching that week.

(I don't love Slack by any means. Still, I'd pay $9/mo out of my own pocket not to use Teams.)


We used to have anti trust regulators. We don't now.

We've got a lot of billionaires with a higher balance on their bank accounts though, so you can't say it was all for nothing

It's not the billionaires that depress me, it's the "temporarily embarrased billionaires", the wannabes who don't believe in the American Dream but idolise instead a winner takes all Ferengi style system.

You get teams for free with office but how do you justify that logic when free office suites are available? You can’t justify your decision on functionality because that could also be used to justify the cost of Slack. If you’re actually considering cost vs functionality then it’s no longer a no-brainer.

yeah I don't understand how this isn't blatant market abuse through their monopoly position

Regulators should be all over it. EU has tried, but unsuccesfully, since it was lawyers who came up with the mitigation.


Regulators are either sleeping on billions of lobby money or asleep at the wheel

Yep, the amount of penny pinching some companies do nowadays is insane. Teams coming "for free" with their Microsoft 365 subscription is net positive for the bean counters.

Chat software is absurdly expensive. I’m not saying teams is good, but being nickel and dimed is a real risk for businesses too.

18€ a month per user for Business+ with Slack... I really do question whole thing... Ofc, when someone is making quarter to half a million paying twenty for basic cup of coffee is nothing. But still whole thing for chat application seems absolutely insane.

>Chat software is absurdly expensive.

Define absurdly expensive here. I can probably guarantee that for small to medium sized business paying Slack or Microsoft for chat software is miles cheaper than self hosting it yourself.

My Google-Fu says Slack costs $18.00 /user/mo for their Business+ subscription plan. That's still relative peanuts compared to the yearly salary, let's say 60k/year, of developer you hire to self-host and maintain an on-prem Matrix/Jitsi instance with all the equivalent bells and whistles of Slack/Teams, but guess what, even then your clients/partner will send you MS Teams invites for calls, so you still have to pay for it anyway.

Then isn't it easier if you just fork out the cash for Teams so you can focus on your product instead?


The other thing is availability of alternatives.

Most standard users simply dont have an option. Mac Neo brought Apple into a lower price range, but requires a new device. Linux is there (and frankly fantastic at this point) but good luck getting the average person through the setup process.


> good luck getting the average person through the setup process.

an enterprising hardware manufacturer can take on the mantle, and be the trail blazer with a no-setup machine that works.

Personally, i would imagine something like framework laptop, and steam machine, are the best candidates.


This is what the Steamdeck is. But it took an absolutely massive amount of work over a decade from valve just to get gaming working. No laptop manufacturer could afford to do the same for fixing wine for desktop software since they aren’t getting a cut of the software sales like valve does.

That's mostly because they didn't care before. It also took a massive amount of work to get gaming to work on windows.

How long would it take for some MBA to come there and say hey if we install this full of crap we could make multiple euros per unit... And then fill it with crap, spying and other things?

Purely hypothetical, hasn't happened yet. The reason is that Linux system vendors are lead and staffed by people who are idealistic like the average Linux system customer. They know their clientele, they know it would be bad for business.

Good luck getting the average person through the setup process

AI is part of the problem with what MS has shoved in to things but it may be part of what can help with the underlying issue of this behavior by corporations.

The average user increasingly will not need to be walked through in certain ways, they’ll only have to be aware something, some way, is possible. Because we are most of usthe average, meaning outsider to knowledge and understanding of things their functioning on a computer. I can strip out tired windows behavior to some extent and certainly stand up a Linux desktop. But I didn’t know how to easily manage retrieval of data from an old disc image that refused to mount. But I knew it was there and not impossible so I asked Claude. A one shot prompt that a few minutes later had Claude reading raw bytes in someway and finding the location of a few files I needed.

So there is potential for AI to fill some gaps in this way and make some things easier and more in reach of average users. It’s potential only though, so continuing to work and ensure open models remain a thing, it’s important. Just like the Internet enabled a lot of things previously out of reach of people. And yeah, that was not an un mixed blessing with the rest, so all the more reason to move forward thoughtfully.


> Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor.

Thats China. In Europe, this building speed isnt going to happen anytime soon. The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers.

Besides that, part of the point of switching away from oil and gas is at least some independence. Europe isnt known for its nuclear fuel supply so now you're reliant on another country again.

Yes, most solar is produced in China but its about as low maintence as it gets and there is still enough knowledge to produce in Europe.


> The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers.

Well you better get on that, then. It’s going to a lot worse in 5 years.


> Thats China. In Europe, this building speed isnt going to happen anytime soon.

It wasn't going to happen in China either. China also disn't have the knowledge. And yet...


The US Department of Defense went quite a bit further. They created the Condor Cluster in 2010 which was comprised of 1760 PS3s. At the time it was placed 33rd worldwide for a supercomputer.

https://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomput...


At the time, entire PS3s were cheaper than what it cost to get the CPU from IBM.

they couldn't have gone for 1776 of them?

at some point it was claimed that the reason sony removed the ability to run linux was because, literally, Saddam Hussein (maybe not) was using them to pilot jets or somesuch.

I haven't looked, but I am pretty sure that Saddam was dead before the ps3 launched. At the very least, his 2003/2004 ouster was before the ca 2007ish (I think) launch date.

Ok, I looked it up; Saddam Hussein was executed on December 30, 2006 and the ps3 launched on Nov 11, 2006 in Japan and Nov 17, 2006 in the US. So, technically, he was alive for the launch.

That factoid has the ingredients for an awesome conspiracy theory ;-)

in case you don't check up again, i did find this https://web.archive.org/web/20041120084657/http://arrakis.nc...

And in my mind the whole story was a publicity stunt, considering the political wind at the time and the place that broke the story; which was then quoted at me in college.


I said the word claimed. in the past. And it was more like: thousands of PS2 because sony/japan marked them dual use because they "were so powerful." So probably astro-turfed or even native advertising (considering the place that "broke" the story.)

buuuuut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster the US government went ahead and did make a supercomputer out of PS3s.

anyhow thanks for helping me confirm my memory is functioning perfectly.

ETA: https://web.archive.org/web/20041120084657/http://arrakis.nc... probably where this "wacky" idea came from...


Based on my bubble, vegans, vegetarians, and meat eaters that do want to decrease their meat consumption.

At this point, in Germany at least, discounter brands like Lidl and Aldi have beaten Beyond Meat at their game though. They produce alternatives that taste as good or better, for significantly less money.


I have been vegan for 12 years. It is not that hard to make vegan burger patties at home. Or you can just cut up a block of tofu and season it to be eaten in a burger. Takes about the same time or less to cook as these Beyond grease fests. Besides there is so many cheaper alternatives these days that I very rarely buy them.

We don’t need meat alternatives. Vegan diet is cardiovascularly extremely healthy, seems to protect against most cancers, tastes good and is most importantly ethically and environmentally only viable option at this point. It’s pretty cheap as well, tofu, lentils and veggies are not exactly expensive even without all the gazillion subsidiaries pumped into meat production. [Of course your vegan diet can consist of eating only canned soda and potato chips and that is not healthy nor cheap, but the problem there is that you are a moron, not that you are vegan].

So the problem with meat alternatives is that you don’t really need them and if you want burger patties etc. you can make them at home pretty easily or these days buy cheaper alternatives sold in most supermarkets.


Convenience is king.

I get where you are coming from. I try to buy unprocessed as much as possible, but there are days where I want something that I could do myself or buy premade from the grocery store. On days like that, I'm glad I have the option to buy premade even if my self-made version tastes better, is healthier, and often cheaper.

Besides that, its a good tool to get the general omnivore to reduce meat consumption. A friend of mine does eat meat but is lowering her consumption of it. Having a convenient alternative that she doesn't have to think about and can just get prepackaged helped her half her meat consumption in a effectively a few weeks.


Vegan for 15 years. I cook 95% of my own meals, including black bean burgers, tofu, etc... Sometimes I want something that tastes like meat and I reach for a Beyond or Impossible burger. I don't need it. But I can't recreate its texture and flavor profile on my own. It's not "better" than other things I can cook. It's just different.

> ethically and environmentally only viable option at this point

Seems like a broad statement that I don't agree with, but why would it be the most important aspect unless the framework is a religious one and that's where your ethical framework derives from? It's a dietary choice, nothing more, and if you feel that way it's perfectly fine to do so, but don't blow it out of proportion.

I personally tend to enjoy some vegan food, and enjoy the people in my life who are vegan or choose other restrictions as they see fit, but if they decided it was important beyond that, such that it might impact our relationship, I'd let just let them because it's a bit silly. Eat meat, don't eat meat, pick your suppliers of whatever you eat carefully if you have the means and choose to, have your personal principles whatever they are, all the more power, it's just not much more than that, no?


Are you seriously asking me why ethics and environment might be the most important consideration in the decisions I make? I don’t use cocaine either - not a dietary choice. I also do not bludgeon poor old ladies to death with a shillelagh - not a simple choice how I decide to get my daily exercise.

Interestingly enough I also don't use cocaine and don't bludgeon poor ladies to death. I'm also not particularly tempted to do either, but if I did cocaine it certainly wouldn't be an ethical question, more of a recreational indulgence. Seems like we have more in common than different.

Why are you trashing vegans that are still living unhealthy? Be glad that they still chose to eat vegan.

You come off as very militant in that sense.


I gladly trash all people who live unhealthy, myself included. However, that is not what I say in the text, that is what you read into it. Examples of ”unhealthy vegans” are always flatmates who survive purely by vegan donuts or some other absurdity like that, but it has not even anecdotal evidence in terms of health benefits or the lack of thereof of the said diet or any other.

> Beyond grease fests

Vegans have a problem with avocados and beans now? THat's where the "grease" comes from in these fake meats.


This was someone equating a chopped up tofu pattie with Beyond Meat, e.g. totally out of touch with the target market. Random ass food delivered via hamburger bun does not make it a hamburger analog, but Beyond, Impossible, etc do.

Yeah, I never understood what Beyond's core innovation was. Impossible had that whole synthetic heme thing going on. Beyond seemed almost like opportunistic mimicry. But Impossible turned out to be pretty expensive IIRC.

In my opinion as a mostly-vegetarian who used to adore burgers as a kid, the Impossible brand was by far the most realistic (and my beef-loving partner would agree, they made stroganoff with it and loved it)... but the price truly is ridiculous at this point. It started out just barely justifiable, and it's simply too high now.

I am more than a little bit outraged that animals who were raised in miserable industrial production facilities to meet an ugly end are having their parts sold for less than a decent alternative simply because of subsidies distorting the market.


If I look at walmart right now, they have Impossible 'ground beef' for $9/lb and real ground beef is more than $7/lb. So the price isn't too high everywhere.

Agree. Impossible is on a different planet in terms of being very very close to the taste of real meat. Unfortunately still premium priced.

It’s a pity that Beyond is getting so much attention because they’re not the best ambassadors for meat alternatives. People will try it, and then decide to wait another 5 years before trying again.


Which bums me out, because I like Beyond stuff. It has a distinctive taste that is obviously not real meat but very good in its own right IMO.

I still eat impossible sausage as a substitute for pork and find it pretty dang good. I grew up in appalachia so we know our pork sausage and impossible seasoned well comes close.

Aldi in Germany might be very different for all I know, but I've been vegan or vegetarian my entire adult life and I think every burger alternative besides Beyond/Impossible is quite awful, though I usually don't eat meat alternatives in the first place.

Beyond was available well before Impossible was. I used a combination of Beyond and Boca as my primary substitutes for ground beef, until Impossible came along, and now I use almost exclusively Impossible.

I don't feel like they have a niche anymore, but there was a time I considered them my top choice, before impossible dethroned them.


I love meat and I love good hamburgers. I’ve tried those Lidl and Aldi alternatives and they were uneatable for me and my family. They have slowly disappeared from the shelves. Only a couple of products remain.

I have never tried BeyondMeat but I’d be surprised that it’s so bad.

And I have eaten many classic vegan burger alternatives based on lentils, peas and chickpeas. They didn’t aim to taste like meat and were actually edible.


In my experience, the pea-based products are pretty good.

I'm a huge burger fan and stopped eating meat at home, thanks to this wave of vegan alternatives.


> Is tossing stuff over the fence considered ok now?

Has been for a long time unfortunately. AI didn't create this behaviour but certainly made it easier for the other side to do it.

> Review the slop with the person that submitted it.

Alternatively, mark them as "Needs Work" if you can. But yes, put the ball in their court by peppering them with questions. Maybe they will get the hint.


>Has been for a long time unfortunately.

Yea, this is so annoying and AI has only grown the problem.

On the support side of things I love when the customer says "your documentation doesn't work like the product".


Yes and no.

I started my career with a graduate program from a larger company. I stuck around in that company for close to 5 years and would have liked to stay longer. My reason for leaving were the absence of a career progression. The first 3 years, the company had a great career progression path. Clear outlines what it needs for a promotion, fair and transparent pay, etc.

That changed and despite hitting/exceeding my goals, I was denied a promotion twice with no good reason. My boss, who is fantastic, told me that he cannot give me a good reason because he himself did not receive one. So I left.

Generally speaking, my cohort of the program was part of the company much longer than most employees. I don't think a single person left in the first 3 years. Attrition only started now that there was a general shift in the companies culture and communication.


For the original version released in 2013, range was a bit of a concern.

Later models, 120ah full electric version, the range is about 250km. In comparison to newer cars, not a lot, but considering you can buy newish used ones for under 15k, its not a bad deal if it fits your needs.


Funny how I'm downvoted for even mentioning an i3. I've also heard several comments insinuating that I must be gay for driving such a car. Are we still there in 2026?

don't read too much into a downvote here or there. as i read this the downvotes are already gone again. some people are just idiots. also some people just misclick.

I get downvoted to hell and gone for saying such controversial things as "AI doesn't really solve any problem I have", so I just assume people who downvote to disagree instead of commenting to explain why they disagree are too lazy or too stupid or too stoned to get enough of a spark across a synapse and not really worth caring about.

If I was in it for the karma I'd be in the billions by now.


Complaining about downvotes is boring, don't do it

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

Search: