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

You guys haven't been keeping up the boycott, have you?!


A service that is not sustainable cannot be said to be superior.

As in each and every Uber ride is subsidized to the tune of a few dollars???!!!!

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/uber-true-cost-uh-oh

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-lose...


Public transit isn't sustainable either; it's about public good paid for by tax dollars. It usually costs far more to run buses in suburban areas than they bring in revenue.

IIRC, there were Amtrak routes in the Northeast that became very popular, and the gov't was bleeding money increasing the amount of service because every ride was subsidized by something like $10-$20/ride.


That seems rather unlikely. Generally, the reason public transport loses money is because it doesn't have enough riders, since the cost is relatively independent of the number of people that use it up to some point. You don't tend to get this kind of success problem in public transport, unlike with (say) VC-subsidised services like Uber.


Please!


I look at titles and abstracts, not at journal names, in my literature searches.


Because that makes sense.

Unfortunately that doesn't matter.

What matters is where the people who have/distribute the money look at.

That last sentence holds in principle everywhere, from company politics to financial markets.


I don't know if the authors are trying to avoid it, but what they are describing hints at a similar conclusion for the opposites of attraction: hate + racism


not really. It's saying if you can't understand the emotional state then you dont get the reward so its more neutral than hate


Easier to list who was not affected??!!


Nice: so many we's in the last paragraph.


Just avoid amazon.

It's really not that difficult.


Good idea to avoid amazon.

Did you try unsubscribing from all their newsletters?


The "study" is based on 20 test subjects.

Doesn't seem right to publish a paper based on such low numbers, especially when, as here, the experiment seems to be pretty cheap.

Direct link to study:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20161206/18523.pdf


The bitrates they chose were also a joke. I haven't seen an mp3 lower than 128kbps in over a decade unless it was a podcast.

It all seems obvious when you skim the study. Of course introducting artifacts will affect the emotional impact of media. It's distracting.

No different than poor jpg quality images or bad movie rips.


Yeah what a load of garbage, only 20 subjects and bitrates 112kbps and lower.

Clickbait title and garbage content.


I guess that covers posting articles from the economist too?


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

Search: