Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | phasecode's commentslogin


I remember back around the same time in 2008ish, I was reading the old WoW Glider (Glider was a Bot for WoW) forums and came across someone who was running a massive WoW farm from Germany racking in close to 150k a year. It's so interesting to see the transition both games have gone through to embrace the Pay-To-(Somewhat)-Get-Ahead with both WoW offering Tokens ($20 for 150k gold) and RuneScape offering Bonds ($7 for 4 million GP).


I dabbled in selling scripts for Wow, D3, RS, NeoPets way way back, even wall hacks and auto-aim bits for FPS games... Wow was the best in my opinion - it was fun waking every morning with an ungodly amount of loot, felt like Christmas.

It led to a passion for process automation, both hardware and software.

The one thing I could never overcome were the people in my surroundings - family, school, work ... they all said I was a cheat and if I cheat at video games what else wouldn’t I cheat at, why stop there. I haven’t noticed one comment regarding the ethics or morality of process automation for video games even though almost all games ban it under TOS. Would be fun to have a game encourage scripting.


Could be my then neighbor. Started while in school and made around that sum with Glider. Went to study engineering (nothing IT) and then tried to focus on his health and reduced the wow sidejob.


>Why poison the earth when you can have wildflowers at your feet and songbirds in your trees without even trying?

Because if my lawn has any random wildflowers the HOA will send a letter and a fine if it isn't fixed within 5 days.


[flagged]


You don't always have the option to opt out of an HOA, especially when buying a home. If the neighborhood said home is in, and has an HOA, you're usually grandfathered in.


Yeah you do. You don't move there.


[flagged]


Good for you. Not everyone has that luxury


Not having a HOA is a luxury? This is an absurd statement. HOA are associated with wealthy neighnorhoods...


Where did I say an HOA is a luxury? I said not everyone has the luxury of being able to avoid HOAs.


That's...exactly what they just said. You claimed not having an HOA is a luxury, they claimed exactly the opposite (because HOA's are generally in wealthier neighborhoods, the people who can generally afford to be pickier).


[flagged]


> It’s insufferable enough to have my landlord give me crap for vacuuming my car out in my parking space

Why did you not flatly refuse to buy into that particular form of idiocy?


i didn’t. The rules in question were adopted after i moved in, and as a renter not a tenant i don’t get a vote.

unlike owners, though, i can just move out if i want to in a few months.


Yes, things always look different from the inside.


Marcus by Goldman Sachs is offering 2.25% on its High Yield savings accounts, if you can't get into wealthfront. I've been pretty satisfied with the offering.


Store your files in backblaze then proxy them through some cheap vps (to cover bandwidth) and add local cache through something like nginx so you're not going to the source frequently.


Some hints: ovh is good for eu/(northern) us (loadbalancing ip + vps behind it to spread load - be prepared to ditch vps if you're getting horrible performance), scaleway if you can live with just eu Probably as cheap as it gets from big providers

Obviously going to have to compromise (round robin dns > ~1gbps, self managed stuff), but thats just expected If it's just images probably just go with cloudflare


Can make byte range requests a bit complicated and slows down your site when there's cache misses


Use the slice command in nginx and $slice_range your cache key ;)


I'm not asking for advice I'm stating it does technically complicate your setup. What if two people request overlapping ranges concurrently etc... it is more moving parts to setup, test and administer


Linus (Tech Tips) did a really good walk through at D-Wave's facility here for anyone who's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60OkanvToFI


I would love to see Walmarts online growth split apart from the acquisition of Jet. Chance's are they are riding the coattail of that acquisition and once that drys up the only thing left is to spend a ton of money on customer acquisition to fuel "growth". Having both used Amazon and Jet, I find that Amazons customer support and checkout experience is significantly better then Jets.


This might be a bit too basic but Kurzgesagt has a great video on Quantum Computers (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhHMJCUmq28).


Off topic: How do you pronounce the name?


I would say like "morpheus"


Hopefully FireFox and-or IE will be the next to step up. I don't see Chrome stepping up until every other browser has.


Firefox, I doubt it. They love the ad money so biting the hand that feeds them is risky, never know who will feed them next and how much.

Microsoft might, even though Bing is profitable and in 2015 brought in ~ $1b a quarter https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/bing-is-profitable/ . Might be too much money for Microsoft to ruin it.

All Apple right I think, but if they wanted to hurt Google they could start a search engine, maybe by buying DDG.


As a browser vendor, yes, you have to try to not piss off advertisers, because if website owners don't make money off of your browser, they're not going to test against it much, but why would you list that reason specifically for Firefox? Firefox is the browser that's willing to bite advertisers' hands more than any other browser. They even ship effectively an ad blocker in Private Browsing.


DDG is not a search engine.


Can you elaborate? DuckDuckGo[1] sure looks like a search engine to me.

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/


OP probably means that DDG uses Bing search results to populate the index


Is it ice-cream? Dance Dance Gelato?


You may wish to visit this link:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15726778/chrome-ad-blocker...

By the way, a friendly reminder that EFF is happy to take donations and there are a variety of ways to do so.


Blocking a few egregious ad types is not at all the same as the blocking of privacy-invading cookies as Apple is doing.

> The Chrome ad blocker doesn’t just help publishers, it also helps Google maintain its dominance. And it advantages Google’s own ad units, which, it’s safe to say, will not be in violation of the bad ad rules.

Don’t be evil, indeed.


Right, but it's a start - meaning they might eventually get there. It means there is pressure and that they may be obligated to take notice. It's not the end, it is the beginning.


> Right, but it's a start - meaning they might eventually get there.

Get where, exactly? 88% of Google money comes from Ads[0], if you think their plan is to remove them from web you are either crazy or stupid.

[0] - http://www.businessinsider.de/how-google-apple-facebook-amaz...


It means it's a start towards protecting the user and working towards privacy and security goals. They will still make money selling ads.


It means it's a start towards removing competitors ads as "bad ones," meaning "use Adwords if you your ads to show and bypass the ad-blocker."


This is needlessly cynical. At the end of the day Google ads are unobtrusive and sane and have some standards in their construction. No fake download buttons, flashing gifs, and so on. It’s not their fault that most of the ad industry sucks.


Actually, I spoke to a Googler about this a couple months ago, and this is actually false! Despite Google's Chrome/Security teams planning to penalize sites with fake download buttons in early 2016 (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/googl...), a Google employee actually confirmed for me that they weren't against the Ads team's policies, which is why they were still prevalent on sites with Google Ads this past year.

Which presumably means one division of Google could make money on a fake download button ad while another division of Google was penalizing a website for displaying it.

The employee in question said he was going to bring up the concern internally and try to get the policy changed, but I haven't heard anything since.


HN is full of cynics today. Google commits to taking a step in the right direction and people just refuse to believe it. I don't mind the downvotes, I've got karma to spare, but it is pretty silly. They should be applauded and encouraged, and we should be happy they are going this far.

It's in Google's best interest to make ads less intrusive and offensive. That way, people have less incentive to block them. Google can, and will, still profit from ads. However, they need to be good stewards or more people are going to just block them.


Firefox already has some protection implemented [1], but I don't know exactly how much is blocked.

[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-pbm...


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

Search: