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

The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD.

What planet are those people on? That's Gucci bag territory. They can take their res and shove it, that's almost NINE GRAND (granted, Canadian pesos) for a freakin display! Who is this for, just Pixar employees?


It's a halo status symbol for price insensitive people. Lamborghini makes compromised overpriced vehicles but they have a market.

> The freakin stand alone is $1300 CAD.

We're not just talking about Apple's stand-alone display, but even their laptops are high-ppi. 13" M4 Apple Air:

> 13.6-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology;2 2560-by-1664 native resolution at 224 pixels per inch

* https://www.apple.com/ca/macbook-air/specs/


And how much do you think the Humanscale mount costs that you would otherwise use? The Pro Display XDR is too heavy for a $30 Amazon Basics mounting arm or anything similarly cheap.

The Pro Display XDR is 7.48 kg and a $199 Ergotron LX Pro is rated up to 10 kg, so that's a fifth of the Apple stand's price.

And looking at Amazon.de listings, it's definitely possible to buy a cheap arm that's good for 7.5 kg. A "suptek Monitor Mount" is good for 10 kg according to the listing: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0833NQ8CR


If you’re suggesting the only way to mount a display of that weight drives you into that price territory, that’s just ridiculous.

There’s huge monitors from other companies that come with mounts that handle more weight than that. Granted, it’s not some art deco CNC monstrosity.

I think the sibling comment nailed it: this is just a status symbol.


That was my issue with multiple monitors years ago - I'd be cranking my neck over too often (looking at logs, etc). I vastly prefer an ultrawide where I can put logs / monitors on the side flexibly.

I have a 34 inch now, and feel like I could use more space - but it's nice to know there's an upper bound. Do you feel like there's still room to go beyond 40, or is that the sweet spot?


3x27” high-PPI displays in portrait orientation is the winner and no one does it

The center display is always actually centered. The short edge of a high-PPI 27” screen is wide enough for actual normal width browser or IDE usage, but now you get much more vertical real estate on that window.

Not nearly as much neck movement as an ultra wide and since the entire array is pretty square, the neck movement is way more balanced.


I went from 34"(3440x1440) which felt a little bit small to 38"(3840x1600) and it is nearly perfect. I can have my main window in the middle and 2 or 4 smaller windows (logs, chat, youtube, etc) on the side.

The only thing I want now is double pixel density.


I honestly think 40 is the sweet spot.

You'd be surprised the stink people can put up with when you have a leader to the south of us that is engaged in the kind of regressive behaviour that he/his administration is.

Not that I'm condoning this at all, I think China is a very concerning actor on the world stage. But I can certainly understand the mindset of many Canadians to reflexively seek out alternatives to more USA interdependence, short sighted as some of that may be.


It's about drag racing on the way to your Jiu-Jitsu club with the baby seats in the back. And still being able to fit that new vanity from Home Depot in on your way back home!

Reply to the sibling comment about little to no negative externalities:

Sports cars sure do have negative externalities. I live next to a custom car mod shop in the boonies. People hoon around here like there's no one else alive. They put my life and the lives of my family at risk on the regular. That is most definitely a negative externality.


Oh sure, but look at the vast popularity of these monstrosities that never even see gravel. I get how you (and I) find that abhorrent, but there's clearly LOTS of folks that find a blinged out useless luxury pretend truck to be very attractive.

I was in the market for a pickup recently. I had wanted to like the Cybertruck, but ... too damn ugly, too version 0.3, too many dweebs driving them, too many teething issues even for a first cut. Plus it's as heavy as an F-250. There's almost no actual reason to grab one besides it being electric. Since I drive so little, I'd never pay back the embedded energy it takes to make the thing - so even that isn't a selling point.

So instead I got a used Tacoma, and disappeared into the ocean of Tacomas that exist here in the PNW. It could be worse :)


Trucks don't have to see gravel to be working trucks.

If you use a truck for work purposes once a year it is likely cheaper to just drive a truck for everything than have a second car. Don't say rent a truck is an option - you probably can't rent a truck for most work purposes - most rentals have fine print against that, even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than just owning your own truck.


Are you in the US? Most Home Depot locations will rent you one of several sizes of work truck for as low as $20 for a quick there-and-back of 75 minutes, or ~$100-200 for a day. I understand Lowe’s to do something similar. U-Haul does trucks.

And if your needs are more ambitious, there’s Sunbelt Rentals through much of the country and Enterprise’s Trucks arm as opposed to their more consumer-familiar operation.

If I’m using it once a year, I’ll splurge for a bigass 1 ton 4x4 which Enterprise Trucks is currently listing for $139 a day including 150 miles… and in 100 years, have spent the $13,900 difference between a dweeby little smarte car and owning my own pickup

Not that there’s the least thing wrong with just preferring to own one, just options that I wish I’d known about earlier in life.


Have you read the contract with Home Depot? You can't use their trucks for anything other than hauling your purchased from Home Depot home.

I haven't see the contract with enterprise trucks, but I suspect it is similarity restricted against the type of damage this is normal from using a truck for work. You can at least tow a trailer with them. Their locations are not convenient for me either.


I have thoroughly audited Home Depot truck contracts many times and don't believe this to be true. Do you have a source? I have never seen "secret" fine print beyond the agreement which is embedded badly in https://www.homedepot.com/c/Tool_Rental_FAQ . People use these trucks for work all the time, and I use their trailers very frequently to haul all sorts of things.

EDIT: I realized I have plenty of these contracts archived and don't need to believe HN conspiracy theorists:

(a) Use Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the use of the Vehicle:

• The Vehicle will not be operated by anyone who is not an Authorized Driver;

• All occupants in the Vehicle must comply with seat-belt and child-restraint laws;

• The number of passengers in the Vehicle will not exceed the number of seat-belts and child-restraints;

• Renter will only operate the Vehicle on regularly maintained roadways;

• Renter will ensure that keys are not left in the Vehicle and will close and lock all doors and windows upon exiting the Vehicle;

• Renter will not (i) transport people or property for hire; (ii) tow anything (with the exception of an attached trailer if rented pursuant to this Agreement); (iii) carry or transport hazardous or explosive substances; (iv) engage in a speed contest; or (v) load the Vehicle or transport weight exceeding the Vehicle’s maximum capacity;

• Renter will not engage in reckless misconduct which causes the Vehicle damages or causes personal injury or property damage; and

• Renter will not use the Vehicle for the commission of a felony or for the transportation of illegal drugs or contraband.

So unless you are trying to reuse the vehicle for hire or tow a non-Home-Depot trailer (which I admit is kind of restrictive, but nothing like what the parent post says), it seems fine.


Can’t use a truck for towing and can’t drive it off of the road is pretty restrictive.

For a truck you rent in an at least semi-urban area by the hour it’s never mattered for me, it’s always covered all of the “I live in a city but need a pickup truck” cases like picking up landscaping materials, appliances, large furniture, and so on - a lot more than “just being allowed to bring stuff home from home depot.” Since I drive an SUV which can tow now I just do the opposite and rent a trailer when I would have needed a pickup bed, which also works well.

I’m actually far from a pickup truck hater; they certainly have their place (my parents live in a rural area and I can’t really see them not having one), and I occasionally miss owning one, but I’ve never managed to make the economics come even close to balancing out vs. renting for myself.


Yep. Renting a truck where you could actually haul a load of dirt or mulch, or tow anything, you will need to go to with a "commercial" rental which will be 5x the rate for a consumer rental or "Home Depot" truck rental. The Home Depot/consumer trucks don't even have a tow hitch.

LOL, the Home Depot flatbed I rented a week ago (the $19 deal although I went a little long and ended up paying $32 total) had just hauled a load of dirt or mulch. No one read me anything saying I couldn't use it for purposes other than carrying a Home Depot purchased item (although that's what I was doing). The HD page for the F250 flatbed does say they only supply a hitch if you are renting something towable from them but says nothing about using it for other purposes (like hauling dirt).

The fine print is on the cantract and not elsewhere.

    even if you can find a place to rent a truck the cost quickly gets to more than
    just owning your own truck.
What? I regularly rent a Lowe's truck when I need one (tends to be every year or two) to move mulch, furniture, whatever. I don't understand this take.

I have not read the contract with Lowe's - but I know home depot's contract states that you can only use the truck to take things you by at Home Depot home. If there is an accident you could be in big legal trouble with your rental use (so long as there isn't one they might not care)

U-Haul rents work trucks and vans meant to be haulers and rented out specifically for hauling.

Their trailors only though. Which often have surge breaks (terrible)

It's a lot cheaper to rent a trailer.

I hope someone fully capitalizes on what Edison is trying to do up in Canada.

That is a fully electric drive train hybrid. That way you can charge it at home and charge it with a generator under use. Problem is our current laws are making certifications a mess.


> Oh sure, but look at the vast popularity of these monstrosities that never even see gravel.

Normal-sized pickups aren't meant for offroading.


Say what?

A decent SUV can get you by in a pinch. A “normal sized” truck, is exactly what you take off road - yes you might have to do some modding, upgrades, but I don’t understand this take. And I’ve been around many a truck at the top of a gnarly mountain.

I must be misunderstanding what you’re saying here. Even rock crawlers aren’t typically using F250 and larger truck sizes.


It's not anyone's job to "promote it in a good way", we have no responsibility either for or against such tech.

The analogy would be more like: "yeah, the motor blew up and burned your garage, but please don't be negative - we need you to promote this saw in a good way".

Sure, it's important to "hold it right", but we're not in some cult here where we need to all sell this tech well beyond its current or future potential.


I think that was a typo and should have been "prompting", not "promoting".

I would expect that we’ll end up compressing (or whatever term you would use) this at some point so many of those syntactical differences will not be as significant.

But I would love for more expressive and compact languages to do better, selfish as I am. But I think training data size is more of a factor, and we won’t be all moving up Clojure any time soon.


I can't speak to Clojure, but I will say that LLMs are actually surprisingly good at writing and understanding Julia code compared to some languages that have a much larger training corpus to pull from.

> Our ability to zoom in and implement code is now obsolete Even with SOTA LLMs like Opus 4.5 this is downright untrue. Many, many logical, strategic, architectural, and low level code mistakes are still happening. And given context window limitations of LLMs (even with hacks like subagents to work around this) big picture long-term thinking about code design, structure, extensibility, etc. is very tricky to do right.

> If you can't see this, I have to seriously question your competence as an engineer in the first place tbh.

I can't agree more strongly. I work with a number of folks who say concerning things along the lines of what you describe above (or just slightly less strong). The trust in a system that is not fully trustworthy is really shocking, but it only seems to come from a particular kind of person. It's hard to describe, but I'd describe it as: people that are less concerned with the contents of the code versus the behaviour of the program. It's a strange dichotomy, and surprising every time.

I mean, if you don't get the economics of a reasonably factored codebase vs one that's full of hacks and architecturally terrible compromises - you're in for a VERY bad time. Perhaps even a company-ending bad time. I've seen that happen in the old days, and I expect we're in the midst of seeing a giant wave of failures due to unsustainably maintained codebases. But we probably won't be able to tell, startups have been mostly failing the entire time.


One of the things about "math" is how theorems need to be proven to work for all numbers. I remember reading a thought experiment decades ago about an alien mathematics which didn't prove a theorem formally but would consider it proven if it worked for all numbers up to some really large number. Perhaps even just some large number of spot checks. And statistically maybe that's a functional approach?

And that's what it feels like now. We have the "old school" developers who consider CS to be equivalent to math, and we have these other people like you mention who are happy if the code seems to work 'enough'. "Hackers" have been around for decades but in order to get anything real done, they generally had to be smart enough to understand the code themselves. Now we're seeing the rise of the unskilled hacker, thanks to AI...is this creating the next generation of script kiddies?


I dunno, I've picked up my share of hitchhikers and to me it wasn't about being a trade, it's about sharing presence and our stories. Not a transaction, but just sharing.

One time I was stopped on a single lane highway in the mountains, in driving rain, as a power pole was blocking the road. A fellow commuter was in the same boat, but he was on a motorcycle. I invited him in my car and we just chilled and shared some light conversation. No trade, nothing gained besides someone offering a little shelter to another.


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

Search: