derivativethrow

I also would like more realistic examples of bureaucracy, because yours are frankly bullshit. Yeah yeah the MTA is bad sure, and I've interacted with unions before that exemplified their stereotypes. But if you really think employees would suddenly not be able to plug in a monitor or move it across the room because there's a union, I think you're completely incorrect.

That was such a good experience, even the tickrt app brought me joy.

It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you.

This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective.

For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :)

Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement:

> You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes.

It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread.

People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.

When one person accuses another of virtue signaling, even implicitly, there are typically only two possibilities:

1. They hold such a cynical worldview that it's reasonable and coherent to criticize someone else for attempting to publicly advocate for what they honestly believe to be right, or

2. They believe the other person is not being honest in their advocacy, and more importantly that they should call the person's integrity into question by opening that up for discussion.

When you label another individual's behavior as virtue signaling, you forcibly shift the focus of discussion on that person's behavior and identity rather than the thing they're advocating. This can have a chilling effect on people voicing their opinions with honesty and authenticity. Likewise if an idea if worth critiquing, it should merit criticism on its own without calling into question its advocates' motives.

I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I'm just calling out the use of the term.

On its own, material and nonpublic information is fine to trade with. Likewise not all insider trading is illegal; most of it is explicitly legal and mundane.

This is to say that it's illegal for congresspeople to trade on material, nonpublic information because there is now a law explicitly governing it. If they (or anyone) develop the material, nonpublic information through original research, it's not illegal.

Don't trust Wikipedia summaries for these things.

Were you able to move past this to read the rest of the article? Because it's a very good article.

- the context that the author already has a very successful career as a well-known developer

- the humility he evidences in most posts on his blog

- the fact that he explicitly highlights the work of others in this post alongside his own

I really don't think Dan is doing this as any form of personal marketing. He has no need of personal marketing, his blog already has several million views per month and frequently shows up on HN as it is, and it isn't really his style.

1. Level IC5 or higher (this is what most would call "senior").

2. Can't have performance less than meets expectations in last two reviews.

3. Permission from team and manager.

Instead a lot of these comments are from people who seem to have an axe to grind against the companies themselves. It's fine to have ethical or practical disagreements with FAANG companies, but it's not relevant to the OP's question about why someone would go as far as receiving an offer and then decline to accept it.

This is still bad news, but I feel it's important to point out that we haven't (for example), lost 60% of all species on the planet.

1. Integrity is redundant with authentication, so really you could say they're ensuring confidentiality + authentication. You can't authenticate a thing without implicitly obtaining assurance of integrity. It's a strictly stronger property.

2. Confidentiality is (usually) insecure and unreliable without authentication. Without authentication you have no PKI for a key exchange to symmetric encryption, so you can't even do TLS in the first place. And if you don't have a carefully applied MAC or a native AEAD mode, your symmetric mode isn't that secure either.

So really what you're asking reduces to the question of why they need the most sophisticated TLS scheme for encrypting their streams. If they want the most secure TLS scheme for confidentiality, TLS 1.3 is the way to do it. They explained one particular facet of why this is the case, re: perfect forward secrecy.

It might be hard to come up with examples on the spot, but in everyday life you will routinely come across things you need to refer to by negation which are relatively uncommon.

What do you call a skyscraper like that if you want to refer to it? They exist, but you can't find them using that search term on Google.