_uhtu

Considering that those prices are for 1 million emails a month, I'd say price is so similar between all of them that you should just pick whichever one gives you and your customer the best experience. The hours saved for your employees will easily save more than they cost if you pick the one that saves them the most time.

I had no idea this feature even existed. It was well hidden.

From the article: "Action 1: We are shutting down Google+ for consumers."

They will keep it active as an internal network, but regular old joes won't be able to use Google+ anymore.

Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over.

The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances.

Currently on Facebook the news feed is automatically generated, and the only control you have over it is to subscribe/unsubscribe from particular friends. Given hundreds of acquaintances, this is a pain, and made me give up on Facebook altogether. I wish social networks would trust me to decide what I want to see rather than just let an AI attempt to understand it, which in the end just ended up spamming my feed with clickbait and baby pictures from people I barely know.

You're getting downvoted, but this is exactly what happens with most active managers these days. Seriously, go to a local branch of a big bank, start a managed investment account, they'll give you a 1-1.5% fee portfolio and tell you about how well diversified and well organized it is for your risk level. And it is both those things! But dig into the investments and you'll see... Vanguard, Vanguard, iShares, Vanguard, Vanguard, iShares, Blackrock, Blackrock, iShares, etc.

Sure there are traders on wall street looking to beat the index funds with manual trading, and these guys will always exist. But most active managers these days are just buying index funds and slapping on an useless fee. This is why when I pulled my money out of my bank's managed investment account and into a Vanguard account, I didn't suddenly change a portion of the market from active to passive investing, I just removed an unnecessary 1.25% fee that got me nothing and did nothing positive for the economy.

This is one thing that frustrates me about investing in the stock market. The idea of calling trading "investing" feels so inaccurate. I didn't invest in your fortune 500 company, I bet on the idea that other people down the line would bet on the same company but that they'd bet even harder. I wish investing was more like selling small corporate loans. I'll give Amazon $50 today if they pay me $100 in 10 years. Sounds great to me, take my money, do something with it, and pay me back. That's investing.

I've grown much more comfortable investing in real estate as a result of this. When I invest in something I want to see how that investment was used, how it helped, and get returns based on how successful my ideas were. If I renovate a house or invest in my buddy's business, I get exactly that. It may fail, but at least my money mattered and I saw what it did to help. When I invest in the stock market I get none of this.

Elections were originally on Tuesdays because "Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns."

Why hasn't it changed? Because to change it the party in power would have to vote to massively change voting block, almost certainly swinging several elections. Since the party is in power, they have no interest in this.

Additionally, the people who want it changed are probably the people who can't easily vote on Tuesday. These people already don't vote, so they can't influence their politicians to support changing the day.

What happened? The economics of media we're reshaped entirely by the internet. In print, people buy your content and adds in a giant bundle. You get money upfront AND you sell dozens of ads all at the same time. You can produce diverse content because there's plenty of room in that magazine, so have some in depth thought pieces, some witty stories, and some pretty ads and everyone will be happy.

On the internet there's a ridiculous amount of content available completely for free. You don't ever buy content because why would you? All you have to do is click on what you want to read and it appears in front of you with some ads which you'll ignore 99% of the time.

That 1% is significantly less valuable than what that old print ad space was worth, but it still has value. So the entire game becomes centered around that click. So the company tumbles in value because no one will buy print and no one clicks on headlines which don't indicate something that will absolutely captivate their attention.

So the company is steadily becoming worth less and less, and in order to squeeze out some revenue and stay afloat you have to target those clicks, or should I say, bait those clicks.

I know you probably asked "What happened?" rhetorically, but this is what happened and if you were in the same position running the company, you'd probably make the same decisions or go out of business 6 years ago. I agree that it's unfortunate, and we all need to find a way to support in depth journalism.

I think it's important to recognize every startup is different, some may have dark sides others will be wonderful place to work. Furthermore, people are different, and what might be a dark side to some would be attractive to others.

If you're asking HN, does that mean you feel something bad in your gut? If so, just talk to people who hired you or reach out to existing employees and try to get your questions answered. They'll help a lot more than people on HN who aren't familiar with your exact situation.

Don't try to time the market unless you dont have any cash savings. Have enough cash to last 6-12 months without a job and invest the rest. You'll do better that way than trying to time the market.

In my opinion the cost of setting up a compiler such as typescript ot babel is significantly lower than the benefit and organization that types, modules, and modern language features provide.

I love the react team for what they're doing here, but I have a feeling that the className -> class change would be a huge mistake. It makes it so that the ({ class }) => ... syntax would no longer work since it's a reserved keyword. A simple find and replace is not going to work and a pretty sophisticated code mod would be required, and even then it still means convenient practical uses like the syntax mentioned above would never be possible.

It also brings up significant package compatibility issues, if even a single package I use uses className I can't upgrade React, if a single one uses class I can't upgrade it. I'd rather not deal with a Python 2 -> 3 situation in React.

I see a lot of negativity that technology is going to stagnate in the next few years, often out of the "we were supposed to have flying cars by now" vein. But stuff like this makes me feel we may be in for some of the greatest medical revolutions in generations over the next few years.

CRISPR/CAS9, full genome sequencing, stem cells, we're going to start seeing the real results from these over the next decade, and if that means my Mother can have her parkinson's cured, I'm incredibly optimistic about the future.

Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Hotels cheap out on that stuff all the time.

Sure, and I never said the stock price and innovation are inversely correlated, but I have a feeling that it's a very reasonable idea that optimizing for stock price based on speculation in the free market is an imperfect way to encourage productivity and innovation, and it's worth discussing how the economy could be restructured in a way that did so more perfectly than stock prices.

I don't know what that system would be, and I'm not going to come here and say it's time for a socialist revolution, but perhaps we could make a better free market and we'd all be better off without speculated stock prices being our primary source of motivation.

I've got no stake in this. I don't really care if buybacks are good or bad. But the author makes a point that buybacks, being so tax effective, make companies much more likely to spend their money on stock buyback rather than rainy day funds and investing in research/development/employees.

I think that's an interesting idea, I don't know if it's right or not, but since you just keep saying the argument makes no points while making no points of your own, I have no way knowing why you feel this position is inaccurate. Could you argue against that point instead of dismissing it? I'd like to hear what you think.

I think it's poor form to just refer to the opposing position in an argument as a "meme", then feel as though simply referring to it as a "meme" makes it so you don't need to actually make a counterargument. I see this a lot on the internet lately and I'm not sure why people think that different opinions can just be shrugged off and called "memes". That's not even what a meme is!

The author makes the point that, when companies spend so much on stock buybacks they don't have reserves to keep things running in economic downturns, thus leaving them in grave danger should recession come around, and leaves their employees more exposed than they need to be. I think this is a point worth talking about, especially if you feel it's not true, because by calling it a meme and not countering it, you've given no chance to bat for your own opinion and offering counterpoints.

On the subject of the first quote, I'm no economist, but it seems perfectly feasible that optimizing for shareholder value does not perfectly correlate to optimized productivity. For example, Musk wants to take Tesla private because he feels the quarterly stock review cycle restricts his ability to innovate and think long term. Musk is quite the capitalist, so I think the idea that optimizing for share price being bad for productivity is certainly worth presenting at the table.

Probably because he didn't make it clear that the reason he brought up Medicare for All was because the whole reason contractors are so prevalent is so you don't have to pay for healthcare for them, effectively separating your workers into two classes.

Medicare for All would be beneficial in this example as it would totally remove the burden on company to provide a healthcare plan.

Without that crucial context, it sounds like he's just randomly bringing up hot-button political issues.

If tech was just look at a resume and decide to hire or not people would hate that even more than modern complicated forms of interviewing.

There's flaws in the ways a lot of companies hire, but the process has to be complicated when you get down to the numbers of how many people are for hire and how many are worth hiring.

Wouldn't that assume that every short seller would lose $420 per share? They probably purchased their shorts at like ~$350 per share, so they'd only stand to lose 420-350=$70 per share, correct?

And the market might recover in 2 days and that day trader would lose money for nothing.

In reality, trying to time the market rarely works out, and when it does it can often be attributed to luck. In general, just investing every month is the best strategy.

I don't think he's implying that literally everybody trades passively, of course Zuckerberg is going to actively trade his Facebook shares, I'm going to actively trade my stock options at Public Company X, the guy down the street will still rent his house out instead of selling it and investing passively.

Plus, it's not like passive investing causes securities to never be traded, when I buy into a mutual fund I'm buying stock from someone. That someone is probably retiring and selling their securities.

Lastly, most "active traders" just buy a bunch of Blackrock/Vanguard/SPDR index funds anyway and call it a diversified portfolio that only they could deliver.

I agree that passive investing works, but the real story, I think, is that the economy is guaranteed to grow on average if the population keeps increasing and innovation keeps happening.

If the population grows 3%, we have to produce roughly 3% more, so revenues go up roughly 3%, number of employed goes up roughly 3%, so the economy grows 3%.

If I invent a steel manufacturing process that makes steel 3% cheaper, expenses go down 3%, profits go up, supply goes up, prices go down, the economy grows.

If all you do is passively invest, then over large periods of time you should on average see returns of, roughly, population growth + innovation. Even if everyone is passively investing, it's the same thing. If you actively invest, but still invest in the whole market (as any diversified investor does), you get the same thing, minus ~1% towards. If everyone was actively investing before, and the market grew ~8% per year, and now they passively invested, why would the market not gain the same?

This is great, and a strategy I used a lot in my last code base. If you do this for statically typed JS though, you'll get either error messages or bad typing with lots of `any`s and weak type checks.

Here's a great strategy to do the same thing with strong static types, like in flow and typescript:

  setTextField = (name: 'name' | 'email' | 'phone') => (event: InputEvent) => {
    this.setState({ user: { ...this.state.user, [name]: event.target.value } });
  }
  
  setBooleanField = (name: 'isCool') => (event: InputEvent) => {
    this.setState({ user: { ...this.state.user, [name]: event.target.checked } });
  }
  
  render() {
    <div>
    	<input type="text" onChange={ this.setTextField('email')} placeholder="Email" value={this.state.user.email} />
    	<input type="checkbox" onChange={ this.setBooleanField('isCool')} checked={this.state.user.isCool} />
    </div>
  }

More verbose than the non-typed version, but simpler than declaring a function for every field with all the goodness of strong static typing.

Thanks! I'm glad to have contributed to a conversation worth having.

If there's one thing I've learned from reading about a lot of conspiracy theories for fun, it's that circumstantial evidence can seem right when presented in the right way, even if it's completely wrong.

I think everyone should take a look at the Wikipedia article for theories of who actually wrote the works penned to name "Shakespeare" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_questio...) and scroll down to the "Alternative Candidates" section. When you read one, the circumstantial evidence looks perfect. Then you read another candidate and you say "gee that sounds really valid too...". Obviously they can't both be right, but each one presents circumstantial evidence that seems to connect perfectly.

After you've red the alternative candidates, read the "Case for Shakespeare's authorship", which is the case that it really was Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon that wrote the plays. There's some hard evidence (though not enough to be 100% conclusive, it's probably 90% conclusive, and enough convince most scholars) that makes the rest of the theories seem totally unfounded.

I went on a bit of a rant here, but hopefully my point comes across, that circumstantial evidence is really quite far from real hard evidence. Unless some guy comes forward with those bills with the correct serial numbers or someone finds a body, it's going to remain an unsolved mystery.

Also, if you hard reload Slack (ctrl-shift-r) the icons on the far left don't load.

This is called a strawman, you're suggesting people use 3 different versions of webpack and another bundler at the same time?

Real talk, this is the modern stack:

If you want to write a simple animation or calculation on a: Javascript. Nothing else.

You have several behaviors on your page and and to use modern code practices: Babel. That's it.

You want a complicated Web app with Rich functionality on several pages: React, Webpack, Babel. That's it.

Typescript can replace Babel, if you like strong typing.

You can still write simple apps by just putting in a script tag, that never stopped working. However, if you want to write a complicated app, then you've already accepted that you need complexity and thus you should be taking the time to evaluate different build systems, pick the right one, and settle on it. Like I said, there are multiple mature solutions to do that.

The fundemental problem is that you are either trying to write Hello Worlds with enterprise-grade build tools or that you're trying to write web apps with single script tags. Your hello world with React + Babel + Webpack is going to be big. That's the point, you're importing an library that is built to make extremely large complex web apps simple to make, therefore by definition that library has to be big and complex. But the joy is that you can then build out an entire web page with significant reactive functionality in a matter of hours.

I get that looking at a lot of options makes things look scary, but you only need to look at those options once you're ready to build something big. And big is going to be scary regardless. Until then, you will have no issues just importing a script into your web page for the little things.

I never called him an idiot, I just called him out for not researching at all before posting. His understanding of Javascript has not been updated in at least 3 years based on the fact that he called ES6 ESNext, even though ES6 has been released for almost 3 yars.

There's also two different compilers for C, but it's not considered complicated to get started running a C program.