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

That would require AWS to actually be down a lot, and it’s not. Betting your business on AWS being flakier than whatever alternative provider you use is probably not a good idea.

It’s fine. I used up my weekly quota four days ago anyway.

Because they are better in almost every way.

Physical books burn - just ask the Library of Alexandria. Ebooks have so many more ways to be preserved and replicated.

ebooks already dont have a great track record when it comes to preservation. (https://old.reddit.com/r/kindle/comments/18csl9d/all_books_g...) At least Amazon can't break into my house to steal the copy of 1984 I paid for, when somehow they're allowed to remote into my device and delete my purchases whenever they feel like it. Bitrot is real too. Paper books can last a pretty long time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Cuthbert_Gospel)

There are downsides to both formats, but with paper there's no company keeping track of the date/time I open the books on my selves, or how often I open them, or how long I spend on each page, or how long I take to read the whole thing. I also don't have to worry about the books on my shelves being remotely and silently censored or edited. I don't have to worry about ads being inserted into them and I can freely read them and sell/loan them to others long after they've been banned.


Everything you said after "with paper" applies to ebooks, provided you get them without DRM. Your objections are to DRM, not to ebooks in general.

Random an combative

The be fair the parent said "almost." I see this more as a backup of the physical book. Other than search, the experience of physical books is superior, I think, for most people for most uses. You can come up with counterexamples like certain aspects of studying textbooks, etc., but I think this is true in general.

Can most people get physical books? Ebooks are made freely accessible by projects like Anna's Archive. An ebook can be more easily used as a printing source, can be more easily cited in research, and can be better preserved.

The one advantage of physical books is the reading experience itself, but even that is debatable. A Kindle lets you adjust brightness, change fonts—there are fonts that help dyslexic people, for example—and it's lighter than books. Did I mention dark mode?


First, let me step on my own foot for the sake of accuracy: people retain information slightly better when they read paper than screens, so textbooks definitely aren't an example I'd go with. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8715975/

That said, I can come up with far more than a few counterexamples for why ebooks are good, besides combustability:

- Paper books are dense. This adds difficulty to moving and maintaining large collections.

- Paper books take up space. Bookstores and libraries must necessarily remove books to make space for new ones. With ebooks, there's basically no need to remove old ones.

- Paper books are dense and take up space, so when travelling, the reader must carefully select one or two to carry. With ebooks, I can carry my entire ebook library in my pocket.

- Paper books require more effort to duplicate. My e-library is replicated across many devices, including two different offsites. If I spill sauce on a paper book, I need to buy another copy (assuming it's still available).

- Paper books have accessibility issues. As I get older and my vision deteriorates, I will need specialized optical hardware to read small print. On my e-reader, I can just turn up the font size.

In spite of all this, I would never say that ebooks are objectively superior; both are good. I just take issue with all of the people who assume that physical books are so obviously inherently superior, without ever saying why. (See your own post for example.)


Yeah, there’s also a particularly American version of Catholicism that hates the Church and its teachings, who include among their adherents the Vice President and at least one Supreme Court Justice if not several. While one would hope they would learn the lessons of history, the particular details of the theocracy they envision probably won’t break down along the same lines as past conflicts.

This sucks but is not surprising at all. Anthropic has more demand than it could ever fulfill, and looking into support tickets asking for refunds is never going to get anyone’s attention. If you actually want the money back, assuming you live in the US, this is what small-claims court is for.

The fact that denizens of HN think that taking a company to small-claims court is a reasonable approach to getting refunds :: SMH

The limits are smaller now, is how.

Then why not update their chart to at least say that? The numbers (shading, actually) on the chart are not absolute numbers, they're relative, so just make it look as if I spent a lot of time on it. If they're gonna change their limits without being clear about it, at least go all the way. Right now, I can go, "See, you're actually saying I didn't use that much compared to the limits."

Which is fine, but the way they're tightening the screws, and not saying until they announce the results of their A/B tests is very frustrating.

Ironic that this sketchy project hosts itself on GitHub, then.

Yes, and they are in control of Claude Code, so they are fine with that. If it causes problems they can tweak it. If OpenClaw causes problems they can’t.

Because some implementers will need or want to use it.

Which component is the bombardier?

That’s Finance. They don't fly the plane; they just wait for the right moment to drop the bill for those premium tokens.

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

Search: