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

I use lights every day, but I know way less about electricity than my grandparents, two of whom who could remember when their town was electrified as children and who therefore treated it as the marvel it truly is. And also because we've worked out a ton of bugs in electricity and it often just works.

My kids will know way less about filesystems than I do, because I had to learn DOS commands to navigate around the operating system if I wanted to play computer games, which led to a lifelong interest in how computers actually work at a level they can (and, so far, do) happily ignore.


Or in your scenario, understand the concept of 8.3 file names and why they existed, and when they were removed, and how :P


Sheesh, trigger warning please! I remember the how.


Exactly the right attitude. If you're dealing with an employer that thinks everything should be transactional and that it's no issue if they nickle and dime you on small things, it gets tiring (ask me how I know). When your employer acts in ways that value their employees, it's ok to put a value on that, even if you recognize they're not your spouse and they may lay you off or act in other un-loyal ways in the future.


GoDaddy will have known of this investigation since it began—probably for years. So it’s 90 days from now(ish), but they (should) have gotten a head start.


Hah! But if you say “on holiday,” I would have expected you to know “lift.”

(or is there a region in the US where this is common? Everyone I know would say “on vacation,” but the US is very regional.)


Yeah, but in a ski town I could see making the same mistake.



So the concern is that Google is making Hangouts better in a way that is hard for competitors to replicate? (And by "hard," I mean, "competitors have to ask users to install something," not hard in any HN-relevant sense of the word.) This forum sure has a lot of wanna-be Handicapper Generals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron


If it's easy for users to just install the extension, then obviously there's no point in Google doing this in the first place. The fact that they bothered sounds like a pretty compelling argument for it being worth caring about.


Worth caring about why?? Because you think Google shouldn’t be allowed to make things better for their users? Like I said, you are so concerned about fairness you’re missing the point.


Worth caring about because they have a browser monopoly. It's not allowed for the exact same reason why in the olden days Microsoft wasn't allowed to add APIs to Windows that could only be used by IE, even if it made things better for IE users. It harmed users in the overall market by making it harder to compete.


> in the olden days Microsoft wasn't allowed to add APIs to Windows that could only be used by IE

This is not true.


It was at a central point in the antitrust case against them in the 90s, and was found to be an anticompetitive practice.


Four years ago, Altman’s mentor, Y Combinator founder Paul Graham, flew from the United Kingdom to San Francisco to give his protégé the boot, according to three people familiar with the incident, which has not been previously reported.


This makes no sense. Phishing comes from phreak + fishing, but the "ph" in phreak is already from the word phone (phone + freak) -- so the ph in "phishing" already comes from the word phone! The telephone version of phishing should be... "phishing."

But thanks for the explanation.


Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist, and this word was new to me. FWIW, I inferred something like "v for voice interface". IMHO the "ph" in "phishing", despite the etymology, has lost any meaningful semantic connection to "phone" per se. So this new term might seem redundant or circular in its derivation, while still being a valid / useful addition to the lexicon. (shrug)


It is sometimes referred to as 'vishing - a portmanteau of "voice" and phishing.

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


Your question is worded to suggest you are not actually open to the answer, but I will try anyway: in antitrust law. You cannot create an open App Store ecosystem, invite in outside developers, and then pivot and kill them all off by steering customers to your own app. Closing off your previously-open ecosystem can be illegal. Read Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs.


I am open to explanations. I'm especially interested in how a phone manufacturer that is 3rd place among others can be said to have a monopoly over the market. Or do you mean just for iPhone apps? Because at that point, how fine do you get to dice it to find a monopoly? I'm sure that once you slice it thin enough, almost any company can be said to have a monopoly. Where does it end? Joe's Pizza has a monopoly on the sale of pizza on the 300 block of Main Street, and has been trying to keep out competitors by buying the store next door.


Actually the US and the EU both target anticompetitive behavior. The US law is older and so is call antitrust for historical reasons, not because of a legal difference.


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

Search: