882 karma · joined May 8, 2017
I found that odd about BART, too - initially I thought this was due to crime (BART seems pretty sketchy, and opening up a shop there would be an invitation to robbers and thieves), but then I realized "safer" metros don't have them either.
One of the most attractive features of a death tax is that it applies to everybody. After all, nobody escapes death.
Of course, that doesn't mean it'll be loved universally. Some people just hate taxes. Others don't like the idea of not being able to pass on their life's work to their children.
But most reasonable people understand the need for taxation. It's a lot easier to stomach the tax man dipping into your wallet after you're gone than before.
That doesn't mean increasing the overall tax burden, either - it could be introduced to offset income tax reductions. It seems much "fairer" to me.
The first 24 hours breezed by, but it started getting tough around hour 42. Note this wasn't hunger - I actually wasn't hungry at all. The problem was overall lethargy and feeling foggy/light-headed. I did bounce back after a few hours though, and although I felt very weak around hour 58, mentally I felt fine. Constantly felt very cold, too.
I don't think the lethargy/weakness was due to dehydration (though drinking a lot of water on the second morning helped) or lack of sodium (was ingesting salt regularly). It could be lack of other minerals (potassium/magnesium).
The worst is that it really interferes with my sleep. It takes me hours to get to sleep and then I wake up every couple of hours.
I actually think I'm going to stop fasting for this very reason - it's not like I was doing this for weight loss, I was just experimenting to see how it felt. OMAD/IF will probably give me most of the health benefits of fasting without any of the drawbacks.
I agree that it's confusing at first, but when you step back and look at why Microsoft went down this path, it starts to make a lot of sense.
When .NET was launched in 2002, it was a closed-source, Windows only development framework.
Microsoft was a very different company back then, and Windows was its gravy train. If you were a developer inside the Windows ecosystem, you were showered with (closed-source) love. If you were outside? Well, fuck you, Microsoft will crush you. Everything was oriented towards getting retail/enterprise consumers to buy Windows (and Office etc).
The 180 degree flip to embrace open source is a very recent development. Microsoft realized that desktop OS's were less and less relevant commercially, and that the future was in cloud services.
I haven't looked at the figures, but I assume it's a lot more lucrative to lock in tens of thousands of dollars per month in cloud subscription/support fees than selling Windows direct to consumers.
So with this reorientation, Microsoft needs a strategy to capture the cloud services market (and keep in mind that this is 5-10 years after AWS has been running the shop).
The solution? Open source .NET to accelerate its adoption and entice developers towards Azure.
First, Microsoft won't care if you use their implementation of .NET or Mono - as long as you're using it on Azure, you're fine. Hence .NET Standard - literally, an open-source standard that anyone can code against, and know that their stuff will just run, no matter which implementation is used under the hood.
Second, Microsoft then release their own implementation of this standard - .NET Core.
Third, we come to .NET Framework. For most entrants to the ecosystem, you can consider this to be legacy. This is the evolution of the original (2002) closed-source approach to .NET, and is only sticking around due to Microsoft's long-term commitment to its software releases.
Again, I agree that none of this is clear when you're new to .NET. It makes a lot more sense when you realize the naming evolved from Microsoft shoehorning a legacy platform into a fundamentally new, open-source/SaaS subscription strategy.
They treat paying customers poorly, their facilities are nothing unique and they've overextended themselves on a lot of commercial leases in the same cities, right across the world.
They've survived so far off the back of cheap capital. If/when the tap is turned off and/or vacancies shoot up, they're going to find themselves in a bit of a hole.
I was never a willing customer in the first place (they acquired the office space we were originally working in) and I've put in my notice to vacate. I know a lot of the other tenants are feeling/doing the same.
Everyone I’ve referred to DDG could recall the name instantly a few days later.
That kind of recognition is important.
I’d say Slashdot is sustained purely on inertia. Pretty sure it’s just drifting towards the Sun and destined to blip out of existence eventually.
It’s a shame, but HN has clearly supplanted Slashdot as a place for nerds to congregate.
That being said, I agree that performance might actually be integral to your product. Quake 3, for example, probably would have bombed if everyone was playing sub-10fps.
Either way, the priority is "figure out who wants your product and why." That helps determine when and where to focus your optimization efforts.
Amazing ML-derived language with all the benefits of the .NET ecosystem. Highly suggest everyone dip their toe in.
Kudos to the team - they might have been able to raise money to keep plugging away, but they've seen the writing on the wall.
I know nothing about their company or their team, but I do know that product-market fit is something you have, or you don't. There's no real middle ground, so if you don't have it, you need to madly iterate/pivot until you do, or cut your losses and move onto the next project.
Perfect example.
You're not making games, you're selling entertainment. Focus on the latter first, and optimize accordingly.
I see this time and time again - beautifully architected and performant platforms that completely bomb because noone actually wants it.
Yesterday I broke a 40-hour fast at lunch, then exercised around 6 hours later.
I definitely didn't feel strong/energetic - but my numbers didn't actually suffer.
That being said, it was a relatively short fast that started when I was glycogen-saturated. A longer fast that starts in ketosis might be different - which is what I'm planning to do next week (60 hours after 5 days of < 20g carbs).
It depends.
With certain projects, the overriding risk is that you're building something that nobody wants. In this case, Agile makes a lot of sense, and specifications are a waste of time until you've validated customer demand.
For other projects, you're very confident that demand exists for the product you're building, and specifications start to make a lot of sense.
Big caveat though - you can get this assessment very very wrong. "Demand" can be a very open-ended concept (e.g. in the entertainment industry), but that doesn't necessarily translate to user satisfaction. No Man's Sky, for example, probably should have been put in front of players a lot earlier. That means building to a looser spec in shorter cycles with more iteration (more "Agile", for want of a better term).
This is why product managers are so important - they need to make this judgment. It's a difficult balancing act to juggle "minimum features and user testing", "grand product vision" and "efficient and manageable development cycles".
Worth remembering these little snippets of history next time someone pooh-poohs your idea.
Generally, every capital letter indicates another hierarchical relationship from left-to-right. Usually these are implementation details that shouldn't be publicly exposed, or at least could be separated out/encapsulated better in a different object/function structure.
Obviously it's a rule-of-thumb and there are exceptions, but I've found this works pretty well.
I was made aware of the Smollet case via reddit frontpage. I recall the majority of comments from the get-go were very skeptical of the story.
Make of that what you will.
Microsoft seems to be a lot more grounded in the dollars and cents of running a business. I doubt a few squeaky wheels distract them.
Google seems to still attract many idealists who feel they’re creating a better world (ironically, through advertising). They seem to operate with a flatter management structure that gives engineers freeer reign.
Also, the nature of the projects seem to be fundamentally different.
Very cool, but a bit concerning at the same time. I have vivid memories of Flash exploitations and all the malware that came with it. I know we've moved on since then, but I still don't see any reason to allow dynamic content in a page layout format.
There are some fantastic themes/UI components here. Great job.
Could be wrong.
Second, I didn't hear anything unreasonable in that meeting. SW has a reputation for ego, but honestly this particular extract just sounds like frustration with buggy/messy documentation. I mean, the fact that the CEO is personally going through documentation is telling in itself.
As far as I can tell, it's intended to classify each paragraph as one of "facts", "pleas", "grounds", etc. On its own, this doesn't seem particularly useful. I assume it feeds into the broader Doctrine platform (litigation search and case summaries perhaps?). I jumped to their website but couldn't say for sure as I don't speak French.
My hands are occupied so I can't hold anything, and it's completely brainless work so I'm free to focus.
I pop in a foreign language podcast and suddenly the time flies by.
That’s something on which I have never actually settled my opinion. One month I conclude “nope, unit testing takes too long and offers no net benefit”. The next, I switch - “unit testing is glorious and helps push errors down significantly”.
Part of the reason why my answer to most questions is “I don’t know” or “It depends”.