It's a lot easier to accept rejection when you give up on the idea that you're a rock star. I think I do good work and so do my coworkers. Knowing that is enough for me. It's OK if I get rejected by the big boys.
Of course we deserve to be OK. Every species* deserves to be OK and every species fights to be OK. We have a lot of work to do to make sure we don't ruin our "host," but the fact that we are aware of the problem already--to me--says a lot about our desire to give up some comforts for a greater good. I think as a species we're always just doing the best we think we (collectively) can do at any given time. Some individuals will do better than others, but I think on average we are improving.
Not sure. I’m no expert. I guess this is part of your pre-marriage research that you should be doing. And of course a frank discussion with your soon-to-be spouse about expectations is a good idea.
This actually is a broken part IMO. I’ve read that it actually just hurts both parties because a judge still must try to maintain an equivalent QOL but since alimony is paid from post-tax income now they cannot afford as much so less is taken. Likewise, even though it is tax-free for the recipient, since less is taken they often end up with less.
I can’t remember where I read this but I’ll see if I can track down a source.
On the one hand you say spouses should not be responsible for maintaining a standard of living but on the other you say people should know what they’re getting into with marriage. This cuts both ways. If you don’t want to be solely responsible for someone else’s standard of living then maybe make sure they plan to be self-sufficient BEFORE you get married. Or sign a prenup. Alimony is no secret.
This becomes even more unrealistic when you introduce the concept of a “homemaker.” Usually that involves kids but it doesn’t necessarily have to. If a couple decides to have one get an education and a paying job and the other has responsibilities around the home then that is how they’ve chosen to divide their labor. You can’t just maintain a balance for your marriage but come divorce time say “oh well, they can take care of themself.” The working spouse has a massive head start and the non-working spouse has (possibly unwillingly) had a massive downgrade in QOL forced on them.
Alimony seeks to create equality. Either equality in success or equality in hardship. It probably isn’t a perfect system and I’ve seen instances where it is massively abused but I don’t think the concept or execution is overly flawed. Perhaps too many adults are jumping into marriage without fully understanding what it means and how it might end.
It seems so. I get their emails on a regular basis and I'm just no longer interested. When I bought in at over $100 I was hesitant because of the expected 2-3 year wait for release but I liked their goal. 7 years later and it now just feels like vaporware. I know they've released playable content, but it was nowhere near what was promised and now I've just lost interest.
I think this is a really cool analogy, but I feel it falls flat when it comes to true wealth. There’s a big difference between not needing to worry about money to live a normal life and having so much money that your life is a series of experiences that would be considered life-altering to most of the world.
It feels like a big challenge. In particular having to be compliant with common core for states that don't allow you to simply "wing it." That said, it feels like a big enough market that it would be a perfect candidate for crowd-sourcing courses.
Khan is awesome. And if we end up building our own curriculum we will likely be using it for math. It doesn't seem like the one-stop shop we would like though.
Interesting! From their website it looks like you must become a "school" (about $4000 USD) and that gives you access to the material? I guess theoretically you can be a school of one for teaching a single child.
I haven't seen Oak Meadow (I'll check with my wife... she has looked at a lot more). K12 seems to have a lot of negative reviews (primarily for their online offering, but also their homeschool courses). While I'm sure it ends up being sufficient I'd really like to see someone of the quality that I see in the non-secular courses.
While I respect your right to not give "military contractors" your business, I just don't see how you can use it as justification. The military is a resource and isn't inherently good or bad.
Is there ever a time when an outbreak would seem less suspicious? I'm also not sure the vape "panic" was a moral one. Was there not a clear link to certain vaping products and death?
Even just traffic analysis makes any kind of communication potentially leaky. Encryption matters, but it doesn't protect against everything. Even the lack of communication leaks information.
It’s not. But 3 across is obviously important because your vehicle selection goes down significantly once you need to expand to a third row to grow your capacity.
I've installed it and will try it out for a while. My immediate reaction is that it looks nice. Very nice in VS Code, but oddly it has some funky issues in Visual Studio 2019 (particularly with lowercase 'a') at 100% zoom and font size 11 on my monitor. Not sure if it's an aliasing or TrueType issue.
No. The games are just the common ground between the streamer and the audience. Remove the common ground and it's not as much fun. Sure, the streamer's personality might be sufficient for a video by itself, but I suspect both sides want the game there to serve as a vehicle for progressing the social interaction.
I think it was Planet Money that had an episode about wealth tax where someone had an interesting solution to the problem of the manpower involved in enforcing it: simply let the owners claim the value of their assets, but let the government reserve the right to purchase the item at whatever value is claimed. Theoretically this would lead to owners being as accurate as possible.
I know there are probably a lot of gotchas with that approach, but I really appreciate the elegance.
Don't forget, this is HN. I'm with you: where I live it's very typical for a software developer to cap in the mid-$100k range. I would wager that the eye-watering numbers you see from FAANG developers is atypical for _most_ software developers in the country. And that's totally fine.
That is really interesting. Seems crazy, especially given that a lot of people use Executive with added benefits with $0 extra cost (essentially, via reimbursement). I typically get a check each year that more than covers the total membership costs.
ZUI huh? Thanks for introducing me to that term. I didn't know there was a name for a type of interface I've created in WPF a number of times. We've always called it a "semantic zooming" interface. WPF makes this super easy, but turns out it's a little harder in the web, but we've almost matched the UX!
I feel like an "Architect" should not be a standalone role. The architect for a project should be an engineer working on the project that can make decisions about the underlying architecture when a decision is needed.
If it is I imagine you do what you can to help offset it at work, but ultimately if there's nothing you can do officially I guess you just have to offer your support in whatever way they will accept.
I said I was done but I have to respond to this. Reddit prides itself on tangents and bickering and jokes. It’s great. I love Reddit. But I come to HN for focused technical discussion. I don’t believe one is inherently better than the other. Therefore, I believe it is not mutually exclusive.