Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jbm's comments login

I was so curious about this that I actually took a look at the site he mentioned (tvfool) and tried to see what channels were available in Calgary where I live.

The three 3 oligarchies (Rogers x 2, Bell/BCE, Corus), CBC and a religious network. CBC doesn't even broadcast the NHL finals [1].

At this point, what's the point? Renting Blurays at the library is much less annoying (even when they skip at pivotal scenes).

[1] Incidentally, the actual broadcaster for the playoffs, Sportsnet, is a morally compromised network that specialises in showing gambling ads to children. Shame, but unsurprising given Canada's business "culture".


Agree, subscribed for the playoffs, first time watching since 2004. Quite shocked to be paying $26 a month to watch one Keanu Reeves commercial five hundred times and thousands of online gambling adds. My kids have grown up add free until now at least.

I do recall advertisements being repeated ad nauseum up until I was a college student (after which I stopped watching TV for the most part). I don't know if it is something about the Canadian media landscape or what.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWleK1dvRF0

This specific advertisement used to play over TSN 10-12 times per hour, to the point where it became a pre-internet video meme for me and my friends.


I’m pretty sure CBC does broadcast the NHL finals?

The gambling ads in sports are deplorable, but pretty much ubiquitous in any non-amateur sport broadcast in the country now.


Oh no, someone did a thing! I'd better demoralize him or her or else I'll be less of a human being.

Op, congrats on your work.


> rubber on roads

Funny how this suddenly became a thing after electrification became a thing. Need to find a new way to wag the finger after all.


This is normal. Once you solve the biggest problem, something else becomes the new biggest problem.

The biggest problem with tailpipe emissions used to be horrendous smog. That was mostly solved in many places, and now the biggest problem is the impact on the global climate.

The biggest issue with childhood mortality used to be disease. Now we (correctly) focus more on accidental deaths.

EVs solved tailpipe emissions, but they’re not perfect. Their biggest problem is just something else.


It's always been a thing? I'm pro-electrification, BTW.


I am 100% on the side of reducing pollutants — but this was never publicly seen as a major issue and I'm suspicious about the timing.

The oil industry is a conglomerate of degenerates spamming boomer logic all the way down to the workers. Their memes propagate throughout society and lead to the other boomer characteristic of rewriting personal and societal history.

The finger waggers now are being programmed to pretend they talked about tire particulates and the carheads are being programmed to pretend they never cared about 0-60. This another "We have always been at war with Eastasia", just like they all opposed the Iraq war from day 1 and didn't cancel the Dixie Chicks, et cetra.

This may have been discussed in specialist literature somewhere but even when I did ecology courses in university circa 2001ish, I never heard about tire particulates, while I did hear a lot about greenhouse gasses.

It's a concern but not a civilization ending concern like climate change. I low key resent these attempts to move goalposts to satisfy the writer's urge for negativity.


It's pretty clearly a talking point.

Consider that a bus has six to ten tires that each weigh around ten times more than a typical car tire. This is presented as the alternative to cars, is it even any different? Not implausible that it could actually be worse, especially if the bus isn't at full occupancy at all times.

Meanwhile the weight difference between EVs and petroleum cars is emphasized in the complaints, even though it isn't very large, while the much larger weight difference between any cars and buses is ignored. Because the point isn't to complain about tires, it's to complain about EVs.

And if the point actually was to complain about tires then you still wouldn't be talking about EVs, you would be talking about tires and how to make them shed less or construct them out of lower toxicity materials etc.


The city bus comparison is uneven, but if we consider peak travel times during the week, the density intuitively seems like it works out to less waste. City buses have their numbers and schedule dialed back when you're not in peak hours, and I suspect that it's peak hours where you see the bulk of waste from tires.

My city buses in peak travel hours have anywhere from 20 to 75 people on them. Even if we assume that every one of those folks would have carpooled (which rarely happens), we're looking at a lot of cars, and thus tires, on the road.


> The city bus comparison is uneven, but if we consider peak travel times during the week, the density intuitively seems like it works out to less waste. City buses have their numbers and schedule dialed back when you're not in peak hours, and I suspect that it's peak hours where you see the bulk of waste from tires.

This is really the problem with buses outside of extremely high density areas. (And extremely high density areas should have subways.)

You get off work at 5PM, you want to go to an entertainment venue and then go home at 10PM. You can find a full bus a 5:15PM that will take you there because it's rush hour, but then you can't get home on the bus because there is no bus service after 9PM. Which means you can't take the bus there during rush hour either, because you need your car to be there so you can get home.

Or, you can run mostly-empty buses in the darkness hours, but there goes your efficiency.


Last time I did the math, a Tesla Model Y only had 3x less tire emissions than a semi truck per distance traveled. City buses are on-par with a Tesla Model Y if you only care about mL/km tire wear.


How is that math supposed to work when a city bus weighs almost ten times as much and has more and bigger tires?


The city bus uses tires with a harder rubber and dimensions such that the pressure at the road is less, plus its normal driving patterns have less wear than typical Tesla use.

To make those sorts of calculations easy, you can ignore all the pressure/usage/etc nonsense and just do basic math on tire dimensions (including min/max tread depth and width, not just radius, though I typically ignore siping and whatnot) and typical longevity. Volume lost per mile driven is basic high-school arithmetic, and the only real questions are regarding data quality and whether the self-imposed constraints (e.g., examining real-world wear rather than wear given optimal driving or something) are reasonable.


> The city bus uses tires with a harder rubber and dimensions such that the pressure at the road is less

Harder rubber seems like it could make a difference, but then you could also put tires with harder rubber on a car.

You can get a heavier vehicle to have the same pressure at the road by using more and bigger tires, but then the problem is that the tires are bigger and there are more of them.

> plus its normal driving patterns have less wear than typical Tesla use.

Isn't a city bus constantly starting and stopping, both as a result of city traffic and picking up and dropping off passengers?

> To make those sorts of calculations easy, you can ignore all the pressure/usage/etc nonsense and just do basic math on tire dimensions (including min/max tread depth and width, not just radius, though I typically ignore siping and whatnot) and typical longevity.

I tried plugging these in and it still comes out as a 6-wheel commercial bus has several times the tire wear as a 4-wheel light truck, rather than being the same.

And I expected the difference to be even more, but I guess that goes to show how much the weight argument is motivated reasoning if ~7x the weight is only ~3x the tire wear and then people are complaining about something which is only ~1.2x the weight.


>I tried plugging these in and it still comes out as a 6-wheel commercial bus has several times the tire wear as a 4-wheel light truck, rather than being the same.

Pardon me if I ask the obvious question, but did you divide your result by the average number of people moved? Because that's the actual utility of mass vs. individual transport. I would find it rather surprising if tire wear was the one measure were buses didn't win out.


A typical city bus has something like 2500 cubic inches of tread that it burns through, compared to 650 for a Model Y. Tires typically last 500k miles, vs 50k, generously, for a Model Y. I'd said "comparable," but that was just to avoid argument. From a tire wear perspective, you're better driving a bus even if you're the only person on it.


I knew that there had to be a mistake somewhere.

No bus tires to not typically last 500k miles. <100k is the norm, and really not more than a long-life car tire.

They do get retreaded more often than car tires do, but that just means they get new rubber added regularly.


I saw this one and figured out where it came from. Google's AI thing says bus tires can last up to 500,000 miles. You follow the link and it says that buses can last up to 500,000 miles, with no implication that they do so on a single set of tires.


Oh, that explains everything. Next we will come full circle with AI being trained on this conversation. Sigh...


Ehh you can't really just put harder tires on a car and leave it at that. Harder tires means less grip, and that is a serious setback and much less safe in a car than the typical bus that runs city routes at lower speeds and less adverse road conditions.

Tire temperature also will play a big roll in tire wear, and I wouldn't expect bus tires to get very hot only rolling half the time and at a lower speed than the typical car.

And of course you also gotta factor in passenger count. Buses generally have more than just 1 or 2 people, while the vast majority of cars will have 1 or 2 people most of the time. And even if a bus tires were to wear out twice as fast as a car's tire, that is still less wear per person than a car.


That's true, but it is all relative. 70k+ mile tires for cars and suvs are fairly common. They sacrifice some ride quality and performance, but not so much as to be unsafe.


>It's always been a thing?

Is there a way to quantify this? My experience as well is that the tire particulate pollution has mostly been an anti-EV talking point.


Well many of my fellow Americans would only accept an EV if it's gigantic, and even though I can't leave the house without seeing a Prius or a RAV4 hybrid, the news acts like it's gas versus electric as if Toyota hadn't solved this twenty years ago


I like the walled garden but its a bit of an exaggeration to say they are doing a good job.

Just last week, while looking for a password app, they had a "validator" app with in-app purchases using the old google authenticator logo in the #1 position. Worse it was an ad; someone saw all of that, both as an ad and as an app, and let it go.


Sorry, Apple iOS is not a Wall Garden, it is a Prison Cell. A Wall Garden / Gated Community allows for the deployment of personal security such as a home security system with monitoring company, video surveillance, and personal security guards. Apple does not allow any if that. You cannot even preemptively block known Command and Control services, best C&C servers operate in plain sight, such as X-Twitter and Facebook on iOS.a


Seems a bad analogy. In a prison cell, it's deliberately made hard for criminals to damage each other, isn't it?

Apple's prison actively cooperates with criminals to run scams on you that you cannot avoid.

On second thought, it sounds exactly like a real prison. On second thought, great analogy!


To rescue a flailing project that I took over when a senior hire ghosted a customer in the middle of a project, I got the 200$ Pro package from OpenAI (which is much less usable than Claude for our purposes; there were other benefits related to my client's relationship w/ OpenAI)

In the end, I was able to rescue the code part, rebuilding a 3 month long 10 person project in 2 weeks, with another 2 weeks to implement a follow-up series of requirements. The sheer amount of discussion and code creation would have been impossible without AI, and I used the full limits I was afforded.

So to answer your question, I got my money's worth in that specific use case. That said, the previous failing effort also unearthed a ton of unspoken assumptions that I was able to leverage. Without providing those assumptions to the AI, I couldn't have produced the app they wanted. Extracting that information was like extracting teeth so I'm not sure if we would have really had a better situation if we started off with everyone having an OpenAPI Pro account.

* Those who work in enterprise know intuitively what happened next.


> That said, the previous failing effort also unearthed a ton of unspoken assumptions that I was able to leverage. Without providing those assumptions to the AI, I couldn't have produced the app they wanted. Extracting that information was like extracting teeth so I'm not sure if we would have really had a better situation if we started off with everyone having an OpenAPI Pro account.

The hardest part about enterprise backend development is understanding the requirements. "Understanding" is not about reading comprehension, and "requirements" are not the written requirements somebody gives you. It's about finding out what requirements are undocumented and which parts of the requirements document is misinformation. LLMs would just dutifully try to implement the written requirements with misinformation and missing edge cases, not the actual requirements.


Canadian ATC has serious issues, and the whole air travel system is much, much more expensive than the US.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-ai...


Strange, my copy of fitbox died after about 2-3 years of occasional use without any abuse.

To be fair, this was the case for my Joycons too (Calling it drift is branding, they are effectively unusable)

I like Nintendo's games but their QC has always been a little off. I got bad joypads even in the 80s when we got a NES. (Not having the internet and being a dumb kid I thought I was only limited to moving up and left on Zelda for whatever reason)


I have an Xbox 360 wired controller that I purchased circa 2008. I use it at least 1-2 times a week - these days for gaming on PC mostly, although I still pull the 360 out of the closet from time to time. The thumbstick rubber is definitely starting to get a little worse for wear at this point, but the controller still functions perfectly.

I cannot understand how we used to engineer controllers that last, and now we just... don't.


Literally have the same thing; a wired XBOX360 controller that I bought a long time ago. I had to clean up the gunk inside a few years ago, but it still works perfectly fine.

I've seen some videos explaining the cause of the Joycon issue and it feels like it must be cost cutting (on the most important component of the device). People even fix it temporarily with a piece of cardboard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StRvTiRagPo

Keep in mind, these are 100$+ in Canada. Per my experience, I think it will be another 40 years until I buy another Nintendo console.


I think it's literally cost-cutting. Parts that used to be built well enough that they last years are now built just well enough to not fail in testing.

Luckily, you can now buy third-party controllers that use hall effect sensors.


Dead zones. Older controllers had bigger dead zones so the wear didn't matter as much. Switch joycons are physically smaller sticks so this makes the problem worse. There's even less tolerance to wear.


I enjoy playing with Suno as a toy to flesh out bits and pieces of creative ideas I have that I cannot complete at my current stage in life.

Weird, stupid things. Writing theme songs for TV shows that don't exist, finding ways to translate song types from culture A to culture B, BGM for a video game you want to make, a sales song for Shikoku 1889 to sell Iyo railway shares, etc...

Some of us have zero cultural influence and services like Suno mean we aren't listening to the original brainrot (popular music). Sure, you might create garbage but it's your garbage and you aren't stuck waiting for someone to throw you a bone.

I love Suno, it's a rare subscription that is fun.


I agree, you can make stupid ideas happen without having to make a huge investment in something you want to hear as a joke. There was a metal song I thought had lyrics that would also work as pop-country and I did quick cover of it on Suno to see if I was right.

I'm pretty sure that I actually could, if I really wanted to, create this cover legitimately and even put it on Spotify with royalties going to the original artists (it seems they have a blanket mechanical license for a lot of works). But it was a "gag" song that probably has a market of just me, so hiring a team of people would be a lot of time and money for 3 minutes of a giggle. I also would have to worry about things like if it's changed too much to be a cover and getting sued for putting in extra effort.


Distribution services like Distrokid, CDBaby, Tunecore etc will handle the mechanical license for covers. As long as you don't change the lyrics or melody, a cover will remain a cover, even if you change a genre from metal to country. The "derivative work" carveout is to protect people from changing the lyrics to e.g. something offensive and the original rights holder being unable to do anything about it.

That being said, your idea isn't original; there's already a flood of automated AI-generated cover songs being pushed onto Spotify, and they + distributors are (allegedly) starting to actively combat this.


My "idea" was to get human artists to record it, which is, yes, very unoriginal. I guess that was a bit ambiguous.


I speak Japanese — I'm pretty sure it isn't gibberish when I put in custom lyrics. (It does sometime read Kanji wrong but not when you put in the pronunciation)

I can't say anything about autogenerated lyrics.


You must not use it that much.

Features that worked in mIRC in the 1990s are broken, like sending messages. Right this second if I click to reply to someone's message, I can't add a message in Japanese unless I copy-paste it in. This happens every few months. I can't tag people who have non-English names reliably.

It crashes my browser. There are weird security settings, and when you have multiple environments, it is completely unusable without having multiple browsers. Sometimes you can't log in without clearing your cache completely.

It is sheerly anti-organic, adding features no one wants.

I'm literally taking time out of my vacation to complain about it, fml.


I use it every single day, constantly, and it works just fine for me. Only compaint I ever had is that the search functions suck but thats common to literally anything microsoft has ever done


I would have to agree with you. I use it every day for work and besides some wonky syncing between Outlook and Teams and the search which you already pointed out, it works. More than I can say for some of the older tech we were using before Teams.

I would also not that I've never been a huge power user or rely heavily on it for anything really outside of calendar or channel conversations so for me, on a basic level it works.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

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

Search: