291–300 of 545 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writing a mapping abstraction layer is tricky - mostly because Google Maps does things differently than other providers. Can you share any details?
No need to write it yourself - the article mentions using Leaflet https://leafletjs.com/ for just such a purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: if these startups need a giant subsidized mapping product for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable . I mean, there's a real cry-me-a-river aspect here. No one has a Google-granted fundamental right to mapping. It's a free product Google released to drive traffic to their own offerings, and which they happen to make available for free for a lot of purposes. As it turns out, y…
If a startup needs a giant system of subsidized roads for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable. You see where this argument leads to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If players with the resources of Apple and Microsoft are lagging here, it's not because Google "made it hard", it's because it's a hard problem. Yet they are competing, and that's a good thing. Google is just better. And you want it for free. And thus we get back to the cry-me-a-river bit.
Companies with deep pockets trying and failing to gain a meaningful share in a market is more proof of a monopoly or other anti-competitive behavior, not less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: if these startups need a giant subsidized mapping product for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable . I mean, there's a real cry-me-a-river aspect here. No one has a Google-granted fundamental right to mapping. It's a free product Google released to drive traffic to their own offerings, and which they happen to make available for free for a lot of purposes. As it turns out, y…
If a startup needs a giant system of subsidized roads for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable. You see where this argument leads to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not actually a lawyer, I am random dude on the internet, that was the point, there is absolutely no need for the disclaimer. I can literally claim to be be a lawyer, recommend extremely terrible advise and not have to worry. "Iamnal" is something that needs to die.
Well, that's cool for you. But you are a relative newcomer here, at least your handle is (yes, pot, meet kettle -- but I've been here 9 years and quite a few people know that) and reputation, merit of the info, etc matters to quite a lot of the members here. It matters in part because truth matters to a lot of people here. Actual reality matters to a lot of people here. It's a bunch of pedants. And if you want to mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's cool for you. But you are a relative newcomer here, at least your handle is (yes, pot, meet kettle -- but I've been here 9 years and quite a few people know that) and reputation, merit of the info, etc matters to quite a lot of the members here. It matters in part because truth matters to a lot of people here. Actual reality matters to a lot of people here. It's a bunch of pedants. And if you want to mak…
There is literally no reason to ever us Imanal. Ever. It's a stupid unnecessary disclaimer that dates back to the 90s. My point was I can literally give terrible legal advice, claim to be a lawyer and their will be zero issues. The disclaimer isn't necessary
But most people here aren't likely to agree with you.
"Sudden change of policy by Google, which is directed specifically at startups (as smaller web sites should largely remain below even the new lower thresholds), is surely an unpleasant surprise for us and does not create much trust in Google as a vendor. In the future we would therefore keep our distance from Google Cloud and avoid deep integration with any Google services on which it can pull a similar trick. For ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not actually a lawyer, I am random dude on the internet, that was the point, there is absolutely no need for the disclaimer. I can literally claim to be be a lawyer, recommend extremely terrible advise and not have to worry. "Iamnal" is something that needs to die.
Well, that's cool for you. But you are a relative newcomer here, at least your handle is (yes, pot, meet kettle -- but I've been here 9 years and quite a few people know that) and reputation, merit of the info, etc matters to quite a lot of the members here. It matters in part because truth matters to a lot of people here. Actual reality matters to a lot of people here. It's a bunch of pedants. And if you want to mak…
This culture, while nice, cannot scale. At some point or another, an online community becomes an image of the wider social community it serves, regardless of the intentions of the founders or ephemeral royalty.
Just like Facebook or Reddit (d)evolved, HN cannot forever maintain a 70s hacker ethos and mannerisms. At some point or another the current reality of today's Silicon Valley tech bros and gold rush mentality will come to dominate, as it indeed has.
So I believe paulie has a point, IANAL is superfluous on any internet forum, this one included. And yes, that's solid legal advice I can give with full professional authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tile generation wasn't THAT bad. We only cover Colorado and Wyoming, and generating the tiles for those at the zoom levels 5-18 takes around 7 hours to pre-render (using "render_list_geo.pl"). The end result is around 25GB of rendered meta-tiles. Much better than the NAIP aerial imagery, which takes around 3TB for the source data, 280GB for the resulting tiles, and around a full day to generate.
Oh, and we are using the mapbox.js viewer rather than leaflet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is literally no reason to ever us Imanal. Ever. It's a stupid unnecessary disclaimer that dates back to the 90s. My point was I can literally give terrible legal advice, claim to be a lawyer and their will be zero issues. The disclaimer isn't necessary
That's your opinion. What I am telling you is that it isn't consistent with cultural norms here. If you don't wish to use the disclaimer "IANAL" (I am not a lawyer) -- which I am spelling out because your comment says Imanal , which looks like gibberish to me -- then you are free to not use it. But most people here aren't likely to agree with you.