Just wanted to point out that there's a pretty interesting project called Geyser[0] (along with a plugin called Floodgate[1]) that allows Java and Bedrock Minecraft users to connect to the same Java server. This might be an avenue the author could take to allow the tailscale auth here to work. In my implementation I'm using PaperMC[2] as well.
Wife and I had an unlikely pregnancy ourselves. We tried for possibly 8 years with no luck, finally we gave in and started the process to do in vitro with entailed lots of tests and everything. Then, the day before we were scheduled to start the process (during xmas no less) and lay down a lot of $$$ for the procedure, wife takes a pregnancy test and shockingly, it indicates positive. Kid was born healthy and happy. I hesitate to call him some kind of xmas miracle kid, but I mean.. the context and everything really drove the point home. :)
I'm really happy you saved a ton of money and got what you wanted. IVF is not only mega costly, it's also a brutal roller coaster of emotions for all involved.
Indeed. I went through that for second kid and it was just excruciatingly bad for my wife. 28 day cycle of absolute misery and disappointment for months. We are divorced now but I still feel bad for what she experienced emotionally.
Unless you live in a country like The Netherlands, where the first three IVF procedures are, in fact, free. I won't disagree with you on the roller coaster of emotions, though.
Or France, where the first 4 procedures are paid for by health services. Going to the pharmacy for the ovarian stimulation drugs for my wife and seeing the one-week treatment would have cost us hundreds of euros; I sure was glad to live in such a country!
I assume the clinical professionals are paid and the researchers were paid and the pharma venders are paid, so that money is coming from somewhere. Is it that someone other than you pays for it?
It's pretty clear what 'free' means here, the person getting the treatment is not billed for the treatment. In that way, a society organizes that no one has the existential threat (financially or medically) of prohibitively high cost.
It's so obvious that I don't understand how people still see it as this elevating 'gotcha' moment. It's the same when you drink free beer, breath free air, enjoy free time, etc: obviously it doesn't just appear from nothingness but has (opportunity) cost.
> It's pretty clear what 'free' means here, the person getting the treatment is not billed for the treatment.
Actually I think that’s a pretty good example of what confuses me about this usage of “free”. Usually when I call something “free” I am making a claim about who pays for the thing, but as you pointed out, in this case it has something to do with who is billed by the service provider.
> In that way, a society organizes that no one has the existential threat (financially or medically) of prohibitively high cost.
IMO, no current Earth society comes close to that criteria. For example, if someone has a currently untreatable disease, then isn’t that just saying the cost of treatment is prohibitively high? ie, the cost of hiring scientists, renting lab space, running trials, etc.
> in this case it has something to do with who is billed by the service provider.
What else could it even be? You started your gotcha with the truism that it's not free, so, yeah, nothing is free, and the whole discussion is meaningless. You're arguing in bad faith, but that just makes your argument meaningless.
> no current Earth society comes close to that criteria. For example, if someone has a currently untreatable disease
Your counterargument is that there exist diseases that cannot be treated anywhere?
Let me give you an example of something treatable: Endemic (flea-borne_) typhus. In Europe, the given example is "British POWs in Germany at the end of World War I when they described conditions in Germany." [1] In the US, instead Typhus shows up in the reports of the LA Medical Association as a regular occurence (among homeless, mostly). [2]
As I said, my usage is closer to calling a thing “free” if I consume it without paying for it, and importantly it doesn’t matter who receives the bill.
If my wife buys a new couch for our home with a credit card that is nominally her’s, but for which I make the payments, I would not call the couch free despite the credit card bill being in her name.
> You started your gotcha with the truism that it's not free, so, yeah, nothing is free, and the whole discussion is meaningless. You're arguing in bad faith, but that just makes your argument meaningless.
I just asked a question about the meaning of “free” in this context.
> Your counterargument is that there exist diseases that cannot be treated anywhere?
My counterexample to the claim, “There are current Earth societies where no one is unable to get treatment because of insufficient funds”, is anyone in these candidate societies with a currently untreatable disease.
> As I said, my usage is closer to calling a thing “free” if I consume it without paying for it, and importantly it doesn’t matter who receives the bill.
Well then that's exactly, word for word, what OP did. How are you confused if you use it the exact same way?
First OP says, “X is free for me.”, then she says, “My taxes pay for X.” It looks to me that says she both does and does not pay for it, that’s why I’m confused.
In what kind of world did you expect that "X is free for me" would imply that nobody is getting paid for anything regarding an IVF treatment? It clearly means that, _other than paying taxes like everyone else in the free world_ I do not have to pay for it.
This is at the same level as finding a free penny on the street and going "No, but hang on, _someone_ paid to mint this penny so I am extremely confused as to why you would say this penny is free?!"
I hope the other posts in this subthread have made things explicit enough for you, and perhaps you can use this discussion as a heuristic for parsing these kinds of statements in the future.
> It clearly means that, _other than paying taxes like everyone else in the free world_ I do not have to pay for it.
So, other than paying for it, I don’t have to pay for it?
Again, I find this sort of comment confusing.
> This is at the same level as finding a free penny on the street and going "No, but hang on, _someone_ paid to mint this penny so I am extremely confused as to why you would say this penny is free?!"
I think it’s closer to calling the food in the refrigerator at my house “free”. Or calling repairs at the auto shop “free” when the insurance company (who I pay) pays the shop.
I only see two options, bad faith or childishly naive, so I suggested the more flattering option. In either case it's tiring to argue this 'gotcha' strawman - no one here on HN believes that things just materialize.
But I do think it's bad faith, because I doubt burrows picks the same kind of pointless argument about semantics when someone offers him a free sample at Costco, or a free beer, or is confused when reading the Washington Post online, even though it says 'Post' right there in the name, and that the printed New York Times doesn't really tell you the time, and that Fox News is not about foxes at all (even though it absolutely should be).
Yes, but there is a long history of thinking about the various definitions for "free". This alone warrants the discussion. Surely they see what you mean, but it does sound like you both default to different definitions of the word. I agree with you, but I maintain that you are being much to certain about the naivety of the objection.
It is not paying for your own medical care it is paying a small proportion of everyone's medical care.
And in fact for a proportion of the population it is in fact free or nearly so because they have never paid any income tax or the cost was so high that the taxes they did pay plus the proceeds of selling very possession they had and selling their children into servitude still wasn't enough to pay for it.
And lastly, we all understand the point of taxation and redistribution (at least in Europe we do) so what exactly was the point you were repeatedly failing to make clear?
> And in fact for a proportion of the population it is in fact free or nearly so because they have never paid any income tax or the cost was so high that the taxes they did pay plus the proceeds of selling very possession they had and selling their children into servitude still wasn't enough to pay for it.
Okay, so if the person receiving the service doesn’t pay taxes, then they do not pay for the service. And for everyone else that does pay taxes, it is a cost with no attendant service.
> we all understand the point of taxation and redistribution (at least in Europe we do)
What is the point?
> what exactly was the point you were repeatedly failing to make clear?
I don’t have some huge point. I’m just confused by this usage of “free”. There are other usages that I find confusing as well.
A child tells his friends that everything on Amazon is free, meanwhile his parents silently pay for his purchases.
Someone steals a car and tells her friends that she has a new free car.
Wait until you hear about insurances, where it is perfectly normal (in fact the whole point) that the vast majority of people pay in more than they get back.
Sure, if for some reason you want to take the most absolute, most pedantic definition of the word 'free' and you are utterly confused by it meaning something else then, yes, it is not free.
The tutorial for React doesn't touch on Hooks at all, and reading the hooks main documentation: https://reactjs.org/docs/hooks-overview.html does a poor job of introducing them to someone who doesn't know what the concept is, I think the explanation is "too dense" and relies to heavily on the description to convey meaning, when it simply doesn't do that. I think they just need a simpler approach to explanation. I felt like I needed to re-read it a few times to get what it was talking about, which isn't a sign of good documentation.
Have you gone through both the React and Angular tutorials on each of their respective sites?
The angular one is far and away a much more detailed and useful tutorial than the React one. During the React tutorial on their site, I felt like I was being led by the nose towards competency and if I wasn't competent by the end it's my fault. Meanwhile the Angular one appears to give you some understanding of the angular concepts by the end.
At the end of the react tutorial, I feel confused and I'm still wondering what "hooks" are, as I haven't seen them mentioned once in the React tutorial. I tried your commands to setup a react site locally, and all I got was a web page showing React logo with a link to.. Reactjs... Meanwhile, the angular demo at least gives a little helping hand in building an app.
Your premise about poor decision-making is pretty spot on. I just wouldn't call React very accessible; As I'm definitely the target market for React and the process of starting the tutorial for React resulted in some NPM errors and a pretty useless demo site.
For what it's worth, I had the opposite experience learning React vs. Angular from the official tutorials. In React, there was a particular mental model that the tutorial aims to convey, and once I got it things started making sense pretty quickly. Angular had just so many details, the motivation for which isn't obvious at first, which made it just a little too much at once and I wound up bouncing off.
There is a particular problem with the React docs at the moment, which is that they still haven't decided what to do about hooks. These were introduced as an entirely new API that was competing with the old class-based one that React developers were familiar with (i.e., they do the same thing, but in a different way). So the way they handled that was by leaving the old documentation using the old class-based API intact, but also made a whole separate section entirely about hooks and how to do things with them. (I wound up largely reading the two in parallel and ignoring the details of the older class-based API; I found hooks easier to learn for the above reason, that there are fewer different complicatedly-interacting details to try to figure out all at once.)
I can't imagine that the long-term plan is to just keep things like this, since it's so obviously suboptimal, but perhaps it's difficult to decide what exactly to do.
It’s a difficult situation. A new React project should obviously use functional components and hooks. But there are still large code bases that use class based components, and I don’t see that changing too soon, so it needs to be taught.
Imo the docs/guide should include all the old stuff, but at the end and with a big warning saying “here’s the legacy stuff”.
After working with Angular 1.x for four years in the beginning of my career, I have very little appetite for Angular. And a detailed tutorial is only half the battle IMO.
The last time I attempted to use Angular 2, which was around 2016-2018 (don't remember the exact date) I just couldn't wrap my head around the new mental model: it wasn't Angular 1.x, but it also wasn't React. It used TypeScript and TypeScript decorators, and to me that seemed really heavy handed. I also wasn't used to the mental model of "use the CLI to scaffold files" such as models and controllers, and all of that really turned me off.
Nowadays things look a bit different. TypeScript has significantly improved and it really is a pleasure to work with. I'm also open to different kinds of coding styles, so maybe I'll give it a shot. But honestly? React is ubiquitous at this point. And Remix and Next.js are far more interesting to me than Angular.
Thank you I hadn't looked into a replacement, just thought RSS feeds infringed on some techno-gatekeepers fiefdom and had been deemed too dangerous to live.
Keepass + Cloud File Storage + Keepass plugins = about the same thing as Lastpass except you have more control; This could be a positive or negative thing I suppose though. :D
I don't trust LastPass or practically anyone else to be 100% secure. I use keypass, and store the file somewhere I can access remotely (online file storage) then can access it via my phone. If someone hacks your file storage account, they still can't access your passwords. The master password can be as complex or composite as possible and you never enter it into anything except the secure screen in keypass. There are some neat plugins for keypass too.
TL;DR keepass can do everything lastpass does, while you still hold all the keys and the data.
I think the article has some flaws because it seems like the point of the article seems to try and link the sentiment given to people who commit deliberate unethical/corrupt behavior to non-deliberate and otherwise less-fortunate people, which I think is a bit of a disingenuous argument.
I know what it is, it's the idea that someone can write code once, and someone else should pay to maintain it forever using a subscription model. The craziness of this space is that people think that maintaining a tiny footprint on a server somewhere is somehow worth $10 a month boggles my mind. You can buy access to most basic file-syncing services for that much. Why isn't a note-taking app, even a very advanced one, not just a simple one-time payment? If you want to haggle about paying for new versions, sure, but most of the "services" space is full of rent-seeking people, which is probably the thing that rubs you the wrong way.
Another way of thinking about it: Most MMORPGs that charge monthly fees are around $10 a month too, does a note-taking app somehow involve as much work as maintaining the massive-infrastructure and maintenance nightmare of running a MMORPG? If not, why is the pricing so similar?
[0] https://github.com/GeyserMC/Geyser
[1] https://github.com/GeyserMC/Floodgate
[2] https://papermc.io/