It means everything for YC's model.

YC does not care about the software.

They care about the founders.

YC's model and ecosystem is explicitly designed to be a who's who club of interconnected founders that are very, very encouraged to """rely""" on each other when building their companies.

YC uses a lot of double speak regarding this ecosystem, but if you explained the concept to a layman on the street they'd tell you exactly what this concept is in just a very few, very blunt words.

Elite-class founders and lots of cheap, imported, or "passionate" labor.

Let's get real here folks.

Y Combinator as a concept, and all of its "children" are rotten to the core.

Every single company is "evil" in some form, and not in the usual "private companies are big baddies" kind of way. They grossly and recklessly violate laws and ethical boundaries day in and day out.

The sooner people are even willing to entertain this, the sooner we can have actual conversation around these issues.

The report is not premature and it's not premature to comment on them.

Can you clearly and explicitly state why you feel like the report or the commentary is premature?

This is an expected and understood result given the hardware and software involved.

You will not get past these issues without a RADICAL improvement in camera technology paired with specialized, dedicated processing hardware matched against several (and I mean several several) "common" environment profiles.

FSD is a scam. It's not safe. It is not technically sound.

The fact that there aren't many more accidents with the system is a by product of consistent and well thought out road standards, car standards, other safety systems present on cars, and driver education.

Being factual is really problematic on this site, ain't it?

Exciting stuff!

The government has historically, routinely, consistently, solved problems more complex than cloud computing.

The only way you'd think otherwise is if you had some other motivation to pretend otherwise... some sort of ideology.

Trying to masquerade your motivations with words that mean something is a trick as old as time, but this one is pretty blatant ;).

If you're capable of doing it, take a step back and reevaluate yourself. But something tells me you're not.

No you didn't, because it's not factual lol.

I know it's within HN's nature to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian but this is absurd.

>If I go by my experience

That would be the very definition of a bubble.

It's not really debatable. Git flow came about because of SVN / CVS practices and was the first and for many still is THE branching model they use.

>Yet all of us have been using Git for ages

You say "all of us" but then you completely ignore the primary branching model the vast, vast majority of people use on Git.

Just for the record, this isn't being stated in support of git-flow it's just a historical fact that's not really debatable.

It was because Git showed up in the era of SVN / CVS where those branching models were created because of the uh... let's just call it technical mishaps of those source control systems.

Git did not have the hang ups of SVN / CVS / etc but people stuck with what was familiar.

Also O365 just sucks. We can do better. We've had better. Please stop using MS products and technology stacks.