blitz_skull

There was a great (IMO) article posted here on HN the other day about this very topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37100226

No you don’t. You think you do, but you really don’t. You care about the problem going away.

Sure maybe YOU care about the gasket, but there’s some other technical domain in your life that can sub in and the metaphor stands. No one is technical enough in every arena of life to care about the gasket.

Also to really stretch this metaphor to its limit, it’s exactly as the author said—there ARE countless ways to fix this sink but you care about a select few. And the truly world-class plumber knows that and will gauge your interest in understanding the full solution.

So at the end of the day, it’s STILL not about the gasket it’s about the communication surrounding the gasket and your comment actually reinforces this.

> What we know for sure is that current versions of Terraform are, and will remain, unaffected, so there is no concern for your usage today.

I don’t think anyone has advocated that a single agent/model would.

I’d be so very curious to see how an MoE counsel would handle this meltdown!

It’s a testament to his prolific writing that without questioning I had assumed this was an acoup.blog article.

I mean, to be fair, the article isn't actually advocating that he was "only working a single day per week" despite what the title says. Furthermore, there's a big difference between "working" as defined by your employer, and "working" as defined by your productive contribution to society.

I suppose by the latter, some people never work a day in their lives, eh? ;)

The irony of fast company complaining about Google maps being an eyesore while their mobile website is an ad-ridden hellscape is disgustingly poetic.

WFH is here to stay and I really wish companies like business insider would stop trying to pretend otherwise. The cat is out of the bag.

Small, innovative startups that don’t care about the corporate bullshit will always use it as a strong lever that FAANG may or may not be willing to pull. I’ve now worked at 2 startups over the past 4 years who were remote-first culture, and probably 80% FAANG salary. Easy decision for me.

But I bought a necessity, ended up moving, and didn’t want to sell in the market conditions I was in. So I rented my house out.

You see how the intent is different? I personally know dozens, maybe hundreds of landlords from various geographical regions in my state, and most of their stories are the same.

But even barring that, I don’t understand where the thinking comes from that those with wealth can’t use it to secure more wealth. I’m not advocating for infinite gains here, but I’ve noticed a non-trivial portion of Hacker News seems to believe that gain is inherently immoral. Like wanting a better life or more for your family is inherently an evil thing. Some folks have more, some folks have less. Those with more should strive to help those with less; but I reject the notion that simply having more than someone else is bad.

You say I’m getting wealthier like that’s inherently a bad thing?

But beyond that, I still don’t think banning owning a rental (however that would be enforced anyway) is the solution there. It’s not a realistic suggestion.

Not sure it’s an “occupation” for most. I make less than 5% of my monthly living expenses off my rental property and treat my tenants with the care I’d treat my own family.

I’m not sure a few bad actors taking advantage of people warrants statements like, “Housing should not be an investment ever.”

> Objective moral truth as determined by who, you? I provided my sources, I welcome yours.

I appreciate the good faith interpretation of my comment. Indeed I was not aware of the (seemingly) universal consensus on this topic within the scientific community. However, as I said earlier consensus does not in any way dictate morality.

Indeed I wish objective morality was determined by me, but that is not the case. By definition, it is self-evident and requiring no proof. I'd submit that the source of moral truth would be whatever has created that which is created. Though we may disagree on that, our opinions and disagreement don't change reality. (Ironically, I think we can both agree on that point).

Whether or not morality is universal does not change simply because one denies it. So again I say, the entire world coming together to congratulate itself on its "forward progress" by murdering the unborn, does not make it a good or moral thing.

> This is not the view of the scientific community, 36/50 US states and the vast majority of the international community

Unless you've got sources, I'm going to have to respectfully disbelieve that you somehow speak for the scientific community at large, 36 whole states, and the world.

Despite the morally-devoid echo chamber that many choose to live in, we've seen time and time again that social consensus doesn't mean anything when it comes to morality or truth.

I seem to recall at one point, owning human beings as slaves was both lawful and even considered morally necessary by many US states, and even the international community! Yet we can easily look back and realize that was a bitter mistake that has and will continue to affect generations to come. Not because we somehow "came to a consensus" that slavery was wrong, but because we finally acknowledged what was always true—slavery is wrong. Our consensus was just us coming to our senses.

I'll say it again, consensus means nothing when the subject is murder. The entire world agreeing does not, in any way, shape objective moral truth.

I think I'd consider sending my data packets via smoke signal before ever handing comcast another dime. I have actually planned my geographical location (i.e. buying a house) around whether or not I had alternatives to Comcast.

Seriously, fuck that company.

I disagree, it is not trivial to delineate the difference between direct death and related death. It's an important distinction. For example, the deaths in World War 2 jumps from ~53 million, up to ~80 million if we include "related" deaths (famine, etc). So, it is definitively not quibbling.

Also, I'm not sure why a million deaths makes this "some of the most important events in recent history".

If we're going by this mindset, then we have to agree that Roe v Wade is perhaps the one of the worst events in all of American history—contributing to more than 64 million American deaths (and still rising). I might highlight that's more than all of the deaths in World War 1 (~40 million), and more than all of the directly-related causes of death in World War 2 (~53 million).

IMO, COVID was _a deal_, but we've much bigger deals afoot and COVID is basically gone now.

> Covid-19 killed a million Americans

Covid _related_ deaths. Big difference.

> The root problem is that the American population is, at large, too incompetent to keep up with the rapid changes in modern life

Too incompetent by what definition? That presupposes that there's some level of competency that's mandated at-large. If you're dumb enough to believe drinking bleach will cure cancer, especially with the internet at your fingertips, you kinda deserve whatever consequences come from that. It's not yours, mine, or the government's job to prevent that.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of thinking builds laws and societies catering to the lowest common denominator which is a preposterous suggestion. You hit the nail on the head in the sentence right before—there is no perfect system. But one that caters to the lowest possible subset of mental cognition is definitely not a step in the right direction.

The people do not need to be told what to believe.

Don’t forget: cutesy!

The Pareto Principle would beg to differ. I highly doubt you’re getting the same value out of the remaining 10% that you got out of the first 90%.

Or maybe I have it backwards and the 10% is 80% of the value? But no, that makes me uncomfortable considering my pattern of unfinished projects so I’m going to go with my first theory.

Yo. Thanks for Netlify. It’s legit and I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

All jesting aside it’s easily one of the most pleasant developer experiences you can have as a modern web dev in 2023. Everything just works and failures are loud, obvious, and usually dead simple to fix.

Well done, says I.

Your comment doesn’t refute the idea that JAMStack isn’t modern web development. All you did was pull up the over-used statistic of “80% of the web is PHP” which I’ve heard for well over a decade. It may have been true at one point, but I highly doubt it is now. (Citation needed)

Netlify has done nothing but innovate and push the needle forward for front-end devs. I’ll be there until there’s a VERY strong reason not to be.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I’ve only worked in startups and consistently I’ve worked with “senior”-titled engineers who were absolutely brilliant. Typically with less than a decade of experience.

But yeah there’s definitely no cruising at the wheel when you’re in a small, fast-moving organization. In my experience it’s helped me level up very quickly.

> whereas everyone else would call that person [with 5 years experience] a junior engineer

I’ve met people with 3 years experience who I’d consider more senior than myself (8 years). Some folks just learn really fast and/or don’t do much else other than work.

Not sure time is relevant to your skills or title after about 2-3 years.

For the average joe, sure. He ain’t that guy, pal.

Pretty sure download statistics don’t reflect usage. And are we even sure those are unique downloads?

At any rate, 100M downloads across the lifetime of the app isn’t much to write home about when considering the billions (plural) that use Google products. Furthermore, there’s an entire class of people that think Chrome IS the internet. It’s wildly more common than the average HN would think.

He very specifically called out that this advice is if you’d like stand out from the crowd. I think there’s nothing wrong with unconscious bias and him simply calling this out.

That being said, I see no reason this advice wouldn’t work on hiring managers with less experience blogging.

Flexing my “no” muscles has nothing to do with hurting the business. It has to do with getting comfortable with the most important word you can learn for personal boundaries. It’s a word most people a phenomenally uncomfortable with.

Yeah to be clear, I tip my bartenders and waiters even though I'd much rather they just get paid a normal, living wage. But when you're working at a counter just plugging my order into an iPad, and I have to go up and grab my food—I'm certainly not tipping then.

Jocko Willink recently talked about this very topic on his podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nU2qkRUk5o

In fact, it kinda reads like someone just took the podcast and wrote a blog post on it. Not a critique, just an observation.

git has been around since 2005. It's ubiquitous. And yes, I think it's a short-sighted and not-great decision to build your own version control system. Whether you're the lead developer of the unix kernel or just some guy writing your own scripts, it's not a good decision. Your title doesn't have much to do with that.