Exactly.

There are configurable settings for each account, which might be automatically or manually set—I'm not sure–, that control the initial position of a comment in threads, and how long it stays there. There might be a reward system, where comments from high-karma accounts are prioritized over others, and accounts with "strikes", e.g. direct warnings from moderators, are penalized.

The difference in upvotes that account ultimately receives, and thus the impact on the discussion, is quite stark. The more visible a comment is, i.e. the more at the top it is, the more upvotes it can collect, which in turn makes it stay at the top, and so on.

It's safe to assume that certain accounts, such as those of YC staff, mods, or alumni, or tech celebrities like simonw, are given the highest priority.

I've noticed this on my own account. Before being warned for an IMO bullshit reason, my comments started to appear near the middle, and quickly float down to the bottom, whereas before they would usually be at the top for a few minutes. The quality of what I say hasn't changed, though the account's standing, and certainly the community itself, has.

I don't mind, nor particularly care about an arbitrary number. This is a proprietary platform run by a VC firm. It would be silly to expect that they've cracked the code of online discourse, or that their goal is to keep it balanced. The discussions here are better on average than elsewhere because of the community, although that also has been declining over the years.

I still find it jarring that most people would vote on a comment depending on if they agree with it or not, instead of engaging with it intellectually, which often pushes interesting comments to the bottom. This is an unsolved problem here, as much as it is on other platforms.

Hypothetically my ISP will sell me unmetered 10 Gb service but I wonder if they would actually make good on their word ...

The issue you'll actually run into is that most residential housing isn't wired for more than ~2kW per room.

It's a bit like any legalization question -- the black market exists anyway, so a regulatory framework could bring at least some of it into the sunlight.

To summarize, they rejected Nvidia's offer because they didn't want one outsized investor who could sway decisions. And "the company was also able to turn down Nvidia due to its stable finances. Hugging Face operates a 'freemium' business model. Three per cent of customers, usually large corporations, pay for additional features such as more storage space and the ability to set up private repositories."

> but not quite anti-consumer either!

All of them are public companies, which means that their default state is anti-consumer and pro-shareholder. By law they are required to do whatever they can to maximize profits. History teaches that shareholders can demand whatever they want, with the respective companies following orders, since nobody ever really has to suffer consequences and any and all potential fines are already priced in, in advance, anyway.

Conversely, this is why Valve is such a great company. Valve is probably one of the only few actual pro-consumer companies out there.

Fun Fact! Rarely is it ever mentioned anywhere, but Valve is not a public company! Valve is a private company! That's why they can operate the way they do! If Valve was a public company, then greedy, crooked billionaire shareholders would have managed to get rid of Gabe a long time ago.

Most people will not choose Metal if they're picking between the two moats. CUDA is far-and-away the better hardware architecture, not to mention better-supported by the community.