Yes its the typical attitude than gives HN users a bad name. And this particular comment doesn't seem to have done beyond surface level research either on his investment works. Maybe not even surface level. Too much confidence too little works just empty words.
I've begun to call it (in my own head) "pessimissivism", a fatal combination of being pessimistic and dismissive. It can't be unique to HN, but I find it particularly jarring that it has taken root here, given the optimistic and open-minded origins of this forum.
We are talking about about billionaires gambling with company issued casino chips while messing up the actual brick and mortar economy. Being open-minded and optimistic about this activity brought us such wonderful events as 2008.
Value investing a la Buffett and Munger is certainly not how we got 2008. Quite the opposite. In fact they were some of the most prominent individuals before 2008 outspoken about the risks of the derivatives that led to 2008, calling them "financial weapons of mass destruction".
Lots of negative stereotypical assumption there. If you have some source backing all this, share your claims otherwise personal attacks without any serious base isn't a good reflection.
The amusing part is the implication that communication skills can't be learned, even by someone who's worked alone their whole career, if it came to that (*especially* by someone of Fabrice Bellard's calibre). Gatekeeping much?
Except, this complexity isn't saving time and resources. This complexity admiration culture has resulted in slower code thats harder to understand, debug and maintain too. What should be used only for small amount of time is used from get go like complex architecture and deep abstraction. Fetishizing simplicity is bad too for sure but a blip on a radar and not such a trend and far less of an issue compared to fetishizing complexity thats rampant.
Not a game dev or even a gamer, I'm defending attack on simplicity not blow or muratori.
A year or two ago when I first read about it, I saw in the software faq, or maybe it was a post by its creator on HN itself or reddit, that they will make it paid once it reaches stable version(version 1?).
Outright killing adblocking will reduce Chrome's market share significantly. Enough that Chrome may lose its position as the top browser. Its a terrible business decision that can kill Chrome or atleast give a chance for someone else to take their position. Why would they do that?
Crippling enough that most people won't notice is a viable business decision. Introducing a security benefit, inserting a self interest(crippling adblocks while providing vastly inferior alternative) which won't be noticed by most people but they are being secretly compromised behind the scenes since less ads are blocked and are being tracked more effectively is a profitable business tactic. Bringing a benefit along with a profit tactic compromising customers and pretending the said compromise is as big of a detriment to the consumer, which it is not, is whats going on. Is this so hard to see? Its not a FUD but the profiting parties trying to sway the opinions.
