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

I would pay extra to get an iPhone mini, they could sell it as a “pro” feature. Still holding on to my mini too.


I sometimes think in terms of "would you trust this company to raise god?"

Personally, I'd really like god to have a nice childhood. I kind of don't trust any of the companies to raise a human baby. But, if I had to pick, I'd trust Anthropic a lot more than Google right now. KPIs are a bad way to parent.


Basically, Homelander's origin story (from The Boys).


I would much rather use Vue than React too. That said, from a bird's eye view, I would say they're siblings. In a way I would say that Vue inherits the "react approach", and does it much (much) better, but its also not a fundamentally different approach.


Most definitely, I've always loved React ppl open a Vue codebase and be productive in like ~30 minutes.


Swift is available for Linux, license is Apache 2.0. There's even swift bindings for some linux ecosystem libraries, e.g. adwaita-swift for writing gnome apps and qt bindings for writing kde apps.


I… wow, I actually really like this idea. As you may have seen in my other comments, I’m not blind to the advantages of toll money being used to improve roads etc. This preserves that upside, while making the publicly owned resource roughly equally available to everyone.


Highways are almost always publicly owned monopolies. We, the public, choose to build them because they enrich all of us.

If you want to raise the money to buy land and build a private highway, price segment away. If you want to price segment a publicly owned and operate commons, it needs to be in the public interest.


People are clearly arguing that price segmentation on roads is in the public interest. Which it clearly is.


It's anything but clear although I think a self-appointed group assures us they know what's best despite tolls being wildly unpopular when real people are asked.


No pretty much all real-world evidence points to them being positive [0]. Feel free to share evidence otherwise, if you have any.

You can argue about popularity if you want, the topic is actually about whether they're "in the public interest" though. Those are distinct things, and "I don't like them because they're unpopular" is pretty hilariously circular logic -- not the type of thinking I'd want my name attached to, that's for sure!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/conges...


FTA:

>The problem is that the model no longer works. Over the decades, the cost of maintaining roads and highways has risen, even as cars have become more fuel-efficient. And raising gas taxes, even just in line with inflation, is generally considered to be political suicide. The last time Congress did it was in 1993. The result is a giant deficit. In fiscal 2024, the federal government spent $27bn more on maintaining roads than it collected in tax. At the state and local levels, fuel taxes covered barely a quarter of road spending.

So apparently that's how the owner intends to raise the money and build. Beyond that, "who should pay for government spending" is of course the perennial discussion, and exactly what we are debating right now.


This is allocating public property, not personal.

The money raised by auctioning access is of some public benefit, but is it enough to offset the deep unfairness of the public granting, for example, software engineers a shorter commute on average than teachers?


Don't forget that having lanes which are guaranteed to be congestion-free is useful to everyone, not just the rich.

If you're in SF and you get a call that your mother is in the hospital in SJ and it's 5pm, you would happily pay $100 in tolls to get there (I think the actual price is less than $20).

Unfortunately, there is no practical way to do this other than by charging money to use the fast lane, and this means that the rich will get more of the scarce resources than the poor.

This is no big deal - it's kind of a tautology, if you really think about it.


This is allocating wear and tear on scarce highways. Dividing it evenly by use. Poor people who would never drive on this road should not be subsidizing the use by software engineers, for example (the non-toll model).

> for example, software engineers a shorter commute on average than teachers?

Housing prices already have this kind of effect -- highly compensated employees can afford to live closer to their preferred locations. There's no reason not to allocate road resources to the users who are willing to pay for them (which is a much broader segment of the population than just software engineers). Pricing is a better system than road communism.


Since the roads are paid for by taxes, the software engineers are paying more for them in the first place. Why shouldn't they get more of the benefit?


Because a civilized society is not about "who pays more gets the more benefit" from public infrastructure.

A dog-eats-dog jungle of underdeveloped monkeys in clothing, on the other hand, sure.


If it's a question of fairness, the guy you're replying to has a point. If it's a question of civilization... well, toll roads are kind of inextricable from civilized society.


Any efforts to consolidate around a community fork yet?


Parrot? Sure, but a parrot operating in a high dimensional manifold. This breaks naive human assumptions.


I really like "agent assisted coding". I think the word "vibe" is gonna always swing in a yolo direction, so having different words is helpful for differentiating fundamentally different applications of the same agentic coding tools.


abbreviation ass.coding.


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

Search: