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

I'm pretty sure it comes down to radio vs interactive music licensing. A general radio license doesn't allow users to pick the track they want to hear. They only get a shuffled playback and face other limitations like "can't play an album all the way through". Interactive licensing allows users to pick exactly what they want, including playing full albums, but it's much more expensive per track.

It appears that Spotify's engines use a mix of these licenses to reduce costs. Since AI isn't explicitly user-made selections, it's quite possible that the AI playlist generator is limited to a radio license model for playback, simply to save money (considering the additional cost of providing AI).


5x Max is the plan I use because the Pro plan limits out so quickly. I don't use Claude full-time, but I do need Claude Code, and I do prefer to use Opus for everything because it's focused and less chatty.

Sure, I get it. For me a 2x Max would be ideal and usually enough. Now, guess why they are not offering that?

Where do you live? I'm in the midwest, US, and theoretical savings between 2x and 5x amounts to a single full bag of groceries. Literally.

How can this possibly be a concern?


Same here. I'd love a 2x Max plan! More than enough usage for my needs.

Just make two plans and switch, when one of them is exhausted.

Yes, I hear that is what people do. Annoying though.

> you still can't Sign in with Apple on the website.

Apple forces developers to offer Sign in with Apple on iOS devices if any other sign in service is used. Apple can't force them to do it on non-Apple platforms.


> it's hard to see how we ever would have been able to create the modern forms of renewable energy in the first place without fossil fuels as an intermediate technological phase.

That wasn't the point. It's clear that fossil fuels are a phase, one that can't last forever because they're finite. At some point they'll run out. But long before that can happens, we're more likely to transition away. Perhaps not completely, but to the point that they're something like whale oil.


Thank you for stating my thesis better than I could, exactly right. I think they were (and to some degree, especially as a feedstock, are) essential to escape from the energy poverty of e.g. the late 1700s. I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century, or the turn of this century, and saved ourselves a lot of pain. The fact that they are still widely used as nominally primary energy (actually stored secondary energy) is a little disappointing.

> I just think we could have transitioned away at the turn of the previous century... and saved ourselves a lot of pain.

I mean, that's a hugely provocative statement that needs to be backed up with some level of analysis.

You need to look at all of the industries and products that would have become impossible, and what the ramifications of that are.

Even today, you're basically proposing that entire industries, such as long-distance air travel, effectively disappear. And that sea shipping effectively regresses to sailing ships? I can't even imagine how one could begin to perform an even remotely plausible analysis, given how much each industry relies on other industries, and how difficult it would be to estimate how other technological advances would have developed instead.


Mills using water as a source of energy are known for thousands of years. If oil, natural gas or even coal would not exist, that and wind energy would be used on much bigger scale. Then a solar power station using thermal solar could be built like 200 years ago. And nuclear energy would be eventually discovered.

They did say M3, not M3 Pro. You're probably okay.

(Notice how they listed the M1 chips individually.)


Didn't we go through this same kind of uncertainty with PCs, the internet, and smartphones? It's early and we're all noodling around.


Most likely (and natural): they tested it publically and the response wasn't positive, so they held it back until they could do it better.


Our org does 5 minutes past for a 30-minute window, and 10 minutes past for an hour or longer. Works great once everyone gets it. Can be confusing for new hires.


SF / Bay Area is best for a few specialties such as Super burritos, specialty Thai, & shawarmas. But LA is far better for quality and taste, along with a broader range of options.


> A burrito that cost $5.50 in 2014 is now $13.95.

They haven't been that cheap since the 90s. 10 years ago, they were around $10.


> They haven't been that cheap since the 90s. 10 years ago, they were around $10.

You do realise that the article has actual photos of the menus from different years, right?

What's your hypothesis here? They photoshopped the images?


No hypothesis, I didn't read far enough.


They're looking at actual 2014 menus.

But yeah, it's likely an outlier in 2014 to be that cheap. More like $7-8.

Locally (not in SV), one can still find "cheap" burritos at Mexican joints. By cheap I mean $11-12.

In one local restaurant, they bumped up burritos from about $11 to $18 within a year. I stopped going there.


Read TFA. They got the price from the menu they were comparing to in 2014.


Ah, thanks! Looking through the Yelp pics, the price rose to $8 in 2016 and $9.50 by 2019. I expect Mission growth and rent increases have been a big factor.


It seems backed up by a photo of it in 2014? It's unreadable at this scale, but I assume they have a better quality version they got the price from.


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

Search: