The saltiness isn't a good look here. Especially seeing as he's not the poster.
It's the HN algorithm which is probably due to the fact that other posts from his domain have done relatively well, plus the actual poster here has quite a bit of karma.
Really love this style of writing. Pairing the diagrams/illustrations with the easy to grok copy is really helpful for folks like myself who have been mainly focused on the front-end.
What tool do you use for your diagramming, is it all hand-drawn?
Half of these tools are behind a demo and don't show pricing, yours included. Usually that is because it's too costly, and it becomes a non-starter for me.
We're expecting our second here in a few months, and from my research it's really expensive and most folks would be better off donating. I feel like banks feed too much off of peoples fears instead of the better good. What are the odds of someone needing their own cord blood vs. it being a publicly accessible thing? It feels like donating blood to a bank to store it for myself in case I ever need it.
Again, it's an exciting field with a lot of really good outcomes, but it kind of plays into the whole, "what if something happens to your kid fear" to sell it to people, instead of thinking about all the other kids that you could be saving.
It's a fairly popular trend now, doing exactly what OP said. It usually involves buying a few acres and trying to be self-sufficient. Of course there's a subreddit for it https://www.reddit.com/r/homestead/
This is pretty common in a lot of ToS, if you use their stuff (especially for free) they want to be able to use you on their nascar page of logos, or in their pitch decks. I don't really see what's wrong with that?
Apologies, I'm based in Pennsylvania and it's definitely more noticeable here. I expect it will become more apparent elsewhere too.
We're at 3x the total population that existed when europeans started settling here, and without an appropriate way to cull the herd I don't see that changing. We have milder winters (so no starvation), less interest in hunting, and again a lack of natural predators.
I love that the answer is always more technology will save us. Whether it's carbon removal advances or cloning, we just look towards future advancements instead of cleaning up our act.
I understand that expecting some sort of big shift in how we live is not feasible, it's just a shame.
From the article it sounds like invasive species, plus the fact that we have royally screwed up the local ecosystem.
For instance — white-tailed deer are growing exponentially, eating all the underbrush and outcompeting other animals, and they have no/few natural predators left.
I agree that not much has changed since the 80s, I think it's just catching up to us now.
This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime.
It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed.
Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?
Source? Look at MongoDB, Okta, Datadog, Elastic, etc... they wanted more capital, I'm sure their staff wanted liquid equity, this seems like a win for everyone.
They did take VC funding though? By pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (and a meager $1.3 million in funding) they were able to start a company!
That's not an insignificant sum of money, I see that they didn't take further rounds, but still this feels like a nice marketing piece with a bad headline.
It's the HN algorithm which is probably due to the fact that other posts from his domain have done relatively well, plus the actual poster here has quite a bit of karma.