Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Substack was down

substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Substack was down

#31

Post by syntheticcorp »

sofixa wrote: post #28
alphabet9000 wrote: post #17

it's a shame substack continues to get more and more visually bloated. I remember when it first launched, thinking the site looked really clean and simple. i figured it was only a matter of time before the simplicity went away, and it became more like Medium.com (in a bad way). it seems like there is a very predictable model for how a site like this devolves: - it starts ultra clean, posts have a title and body, mayb…

> then "reading time indicators" (e.g. "5 min read") are added to the top of every story Many CMSes and static site generators include this and it's genuinely useful (it matters if an article is a short read or something that needs to be saved for later because it requires 30 minutes reading). Is it really "bloat"?

Browsers already include this feature in a coarse grained (but utterly sufficient) manner in the form of a scroll bar.

Re: Substack was down

#32

Post by sofixa »

syntheticcorp wrote: post #31
sofixa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then "reading time indicators" (e.g. "5 min read") are added to the top of every story Many CMSes and static site generators include this and it's genuinely useful (it matters if an article is a short read or something that needs to be saved for later because it requires 30 minutes reading). Is it really "bloat"?

Browsers already include this feature in a coarse grained (but utterly sufficient) manner in the form of a scroll bar.

The scroll bar that some OSes hide and that cannot know if there's a massive picture or a map or 50 of them? Not nearly the same thing.

Re: Substack was down

#33

Post by AlbertCory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #30
AlbertCory wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is better?

Not sure what the economists call it, but if a business spends $8M producing goods they sell for $10M, the money they can potentially spend on research is $2M, not $10M (the revenue).

I was going to answer this, but too many accounting questions:

Is the $8M "cost of goods sold", i.e. variable costs, or does it include the fixed costs (buildings, salaries, utilities, etc.)

Re: Substack was down

#34

Post by BurningFrog »

AlbertCory wrote: post #33
BurningFrog wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the economists call it, but if a business spends $8M producing goods they sell for $10M, the money they can potentially spend on research is $2M, not $10M (the revenue).

I was going to answer this, but too many accounting questions: Is the $8M "cost of goods sold", i.e. variable costs, or does it include the fixed costs (buildings, salaries, utilities, etc.)

Yeah, there is a lot of detail, and I don't have a perfect formula.

My point was that OP equated revenue with profit, which is clearly and substantially wrong.

Re: Substack was down

#35

Post by AlbertCory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #34
AlbertCory wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to answer this, but too many accounting questions: Is the $8M "cost of goods sold", i.e. variable costs, or does it include the fixed costs (buildings, salaries, utilities, etc.)

Yeah, there is a lot of detail, and I don't have a perfect formula. My point was that OP equated revenue with profit, which is clearly and substantially wrong.

OP was me, wasn't it?

I said "It's usually 1-2% of revenue."

Re: Substack was down

#36

Post by BurningFrog »

AlbertCory wrote: post #35
BurningFrog wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there is a lot of detail, and I don't have a perfect formula. My point was that OP equated revenue with profit, which is clearly and substantially wrong.

OP was me, wasn't it? I said "It's usually 1-2% of revenue."

Oh, I didn't realize you're OP :)

Yeah, I read that as "of all the money they could spend these greedy bastards only spend 1-2% on R&D", but in reality their "disposable income" is much less the revenue.

Did I miss your point in some way?

Re: Substack was down

#37

Post by AlbertCory »

BurningFrog wrote: post #36
AlbertCory wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP was me, wasn't it? I said "It's usually 1-2% of revenue."

Oh, I didn't realize you're OP :) Yeah, I read that as "of all the money they could spend these greedy bastards only spend 1-2% on R&D", but in reality their "disposable income" is much less the revenue. Did I miss your point in some way?

I think you read "revenue" as "disposable income."

R&D as a percent of revenue is a pretty common metric in the investment world. It's not perfect, like most accounting metrics. Maybe there are people who measure R&D as a percent of (revenue - COGS) but I haven't seen that.

Re: Substack was down

#38

Post by BurningFrog »

AlbertCory wrote: post #37
BurningFrog wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I didn't realize you're OP :) Yeah, I read that as "of all the money they could spend these greedy bastards only spend 1-2% on R&D", but in reality their "disposable income" is much less the revenue. Did I miss your point in some way?

I think you read "revenue" as "disposable income." R&D as a percent of revenue is a pretty common metric in the investment world. It's not perfect, like most accounting metrics. Maybe there are people who measure R&D as a percent of (revenue - COGS) but I haven't seen that.

That's more than I know, but you're probably right.

Perhaps one day I'll revolutionize accounting with my ideas, but for now I'll accept this :)

Post reply on HN