> Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.
In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.
$2.60 per W [1]. Seems on the lower side of the average. Maybe you have an actual answer to why FL is so onerous compared to other state, because I haven't found anything to indicate that, yet. My mind is open to hearing the reality but I can't find it.
In 2025 they specifically streamline the permitting process because it was prohibitive (HB 683). The legacy of the prior system is isn’t erased because the rules suddenly changed.
Requiring a grid connection doesn’t impact every install equally but it was specifically there to subsidize grid operators at the expense of people who would have happily done without. Further if you are required to connect to the grid then having a system capable of 24/365 independent operation isn’t nearly as cost efficient.
It’s those kinds of issues that slowed adoption. Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
In 2026 it’s not necessarily that bad, but 2016 was a meaningfully different story.
> Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.
Shouldn't that also have 2nd (etc) order effects like reducing house fires and other fuck ups from installations by people who reckon they can do the job correctly, but actually can't?
Also, Florida I believe gives you market rate for electricity you send to the grid, where most give you a reduced rate like 75% or nothing or offset credits. So it's a higher ROI state than most.
Installation costs where I am at are 50% higher, still require a permit, and I get 75% of market rate for my generated power. So, Floridians complaining about their onerous regulations irk me.
The baseline isn’t zero certification requirements. Florida specifically tacked on a Business and Financial Management exam because their goal wasn’t safety.
Yet almost everyone uses dark patterns, which imply they don't think their product is good enough for users to return on their own volition. In fact, I can't think of a single for-profit company that doesn't use at least one dark pattern.
I can think of one such company. Full disclosure: I work for them. It's a successful startup where the entire retention strategy is for our product to be so freaking amazing you'll never want to use anything else. It's been working very well so far. But our product really is freaking amazing.
Since I posted I thought of another one (assuming you don't work for them). But, they really are rare. I see dark patterns everywhere, so I have a visceral reaction to any claims that companies respect users.
> Anyone who makes products want users of our product to keep coming back as though they are addicted, but not actually addicted.
Can you explain the distinction? I am not seeing it. If I keep refreshing a product page to get another dopamine hit, am I addicted or not addicted but appearing so to your metrics?
Everyone likes a beer analogy (almost as much as CS teachers love car analogies!) so I’ll try and do one that applies in the way I _think_ GP intends:
Brewers want people to want beer, and to perhaps puritans, that desire could appear as “addicted”. However, brewers don’t want addicts - liver failure, destitution, death, are all things I doubt a brewer wants to see in their consumer base because you can’t drink if you don’t have a liver, don’t have money, or don’t have life.
Did I, as a child, think my dad was addicted to alcohol because I saw him drink everyday? I did, that’s the appearance it gave. Was he? Not to the clinical point of addiction, technically - he functioned, maintained relationships and a job, and wasn’t more than occasionally emotionally abusive. He fit the type of customer GP seems to talk about - appearing to be addicted but not wholly, truly addicted.
Are you addicted to your job? You keep going back every single work day. Does that mean you are addicted? Just because you keep repeating an action doesn't mean you're addicted. It just means it is solving a problem for you (such as providing you with a salary to buy food and pay rent) and does it well.
I am not addicted to my job but my employer would like me to be.
I think apps are a different beast. They (generally, with few exceptions) want their users to be addicted. An addicted user is more likely to come back than one that gets a need met. Once that need is fulfilled, they leave.
If companies actually wanted to fill people's needs they wouldn't use dark patterns like having to call to cancel, spamming them without their consent, switching opt-out choices back with updates, etc. Because they use these dirty tricks, it's hard to believe they have the users best interest in mind. They don't. They just want the line to go up.
Citation Needed (that they actually made everyone equal and it wasn't just a talking point). You may want to read a history book that talks about how Stalin denounced uravnilovka and about the existence of the nomenklatura.
There were a multitude of reasons that USSR collapsed, and reasonable people can argue which were more or less important. I don't think it's reasonable to argue it was due to equality (which wasn't even a thing). Inequality certainly was a thing and one of the reasons, in addition to the Afghan War, Perestroika, Glasnost, the coup attempt, the independence movements of member states. I personally think inequality and structured economic collapse was the biggest culprit.
Depends on who 'you' are. I have one package I installed from the AUR and it's from a corporation that just repackages their builds. The problem is always who vets the packages. I trust the Arch team and I trust that one corporation. Also to use the AUR it's a different command, so I can't get surprised by an AUR package. It's not a pacman -Syu is going to pull in a new unknown to me AUR package.
If I read the article correctly, they handed the hiring committee /their own/ anonymized packets and the committee chose to only hire 1/3 of themselves. That mean numer 2 is not the case. Presumably the hiring committee prepared for their interviews of they passed their rounds.
Number 1 can still be true, and likely is. But then what's the point of using dated packets to test the hiring committees calibration?
See my further reply, margin of 20% give or take 10% depending on scale (on average, some products obviously have incredibly high or low margins as is typical in the creative industry).
My point about revenue was that games are pulling in more money than film and TV and we all know they cost less to make, and film and TV has good pay so therefore the games industry can afford similar rates, if not more.
Hmm compared to film/entertainment yes, but from the perspective of an individual developer worker, your alternatives are not just in film/entertainment
Putting the generic term into your corporation's name can be effective means of claiming things that don't belong to you.
Jon Postel reserved 44.0.0.0/8 for a generic purpose: "amateur radio digital communications." Decades later, there was a successful heist when some enterprising individuals who had incorporated "Amateur Radio Digital Communications" misrepresented to ARIN that the assignment had actually been theirs. Immediately after ARIN gave them transfer rights, they pocketed 8 figures reselling the space to Amazon.
Github obviously isn't making explicit claims like this but they benefit whenever people with purchasing power implicitly understand that github is the only option.
edited: Amateur Radio Digital Communications is not an LLC
This lengthy email thread[0] indicates that Jon Postel made the assignment in 1992, that the entity "Amateur Radio Digital Communications" wasn't formed until years later, meaning Jon's assignment had to have been for a purpose and not to an entity of the same name.
The head of ARIN defends[1] the transfer throughout the thread.
From your earlier comment it sounded like there was a "heist" simply based on having a similar name. Looking into it though, it seems like the ARDC non-profit did a pretty reasonable job of proving they were the same folks who'd been managing the IP block for decades. Also, has there been any sort of allegation that they've misused the funds? From what I understand they've pretty consistently used the funds to support amateur radio.
That assumption has come up in almost every conversation I’ve ever had with semi-technical people regarding git, so the confusion is just a fact. It happens so often, I think Linus (or whoever controlled the git trademarks at the time) should have demanded GitHub change their name when it was launched.
In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.
reply