gervase

The earliest point at which AAPL reached $14 (roughly $3.57 in post-split shares) was Nov. 1999. If they'd purchased 36 (500/14) shares, they would now have 1008 shares, worth roughly $200K.

So, absolute best case and assuming they held until the all-time high, roughly a 400x return. There would be another ~$30K in dividends, assuming no dividend reinvestment.

We had a lot of luck sourcing candidates at career fairs from local universities, actually. They usually will head to the campus career center prior to contacting recruiting companies, but you can get hundreds of candidates (including double-digit good ones) for less than $500-1000. The signal-to-noise ratio we saw was also much, much better than you normally get from online services.

This doesn't scale well for middleware like the parent product, but it's a decent option for companies who are trying to attract talent.

Consider it from an engineering perspective:

Problem: I write some code, but it doesn't work very well.

Solution: Write a lot of code every day for a few years.

The implication is that you learn what kinds of things are good and bad through practical experience, rather than simply re-writing the same implementation/prose every day.

It could be a book of short stories, perhaps. Plus, with self-publishing these days, the bar to publish is probably the lowest it's ever been.

The IEEE recently revised their copyright assignment terms to explicitly permit authors to upload the POST-review publication to Arxiv, along with a few other outlets.[0]

[0]: https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/publish-with-ieee/author-e...

> why shuffle play is the default

I expect it's because A/B testing showed that most users preferred that behavior. This makes sense from their radio/playlist-centric model, which seems to de-emphasize single album listening.

Should probably have a [2016] tag.

> But also because it makes the PhD not much different than working in industry.

I believe this is viewed as a feature, and not a bug. For the most part, academia serves as one of the few reliable ways to emigrate to the U.S., and exploits that fact to generate a large pool of inexpensive labor. In exchange, these students are rewarded with a US visa and a comparatively well-paying job.

Neither party expects these graduates to stay in academia, so the ability to follow orders, work to a deadline, and solve highly-abstract problems provide a much more tangible benefit than inculcating the creativity, communication skills, and bureaucratic know-how that differentiates successful professors.

In many ways, including these reasons, I think the PhD is starting to be viewed by some as a "super-Masters degree" that simply requires more work or takes longer, rather than as requiring a distinct, different skillset.

Note that this is based only on my observations of a top-50 US graduate program; this might be totally different in a top-4 program, for example. However, one data point I found particularly persuasive is that in our program with ~300 PhD students, we have fewer than 30 (and probably fewer than 10) students with US citizenship or green cards.

The first two examples you provided (Kleenex and Disney) have nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with trademarks. If they do not aggressively defend their trademark, even from tiny, rural daycares with 10 kids, then there is a chance they can lose their trademark and it can become generic (see aspirin, cellophane, escalator, etc).

I believe this is a case of a disparity between who they say their products are for (power users), and who they are actually for (people who want to think of themselves as power users).

This would be similar to, for example, many sportswear brands who say they are for professional athletes, but whose primary consumer base is... not.

In both cases, they may still attract the audience they claim to target, but in practice, that niche market makes up only a small fraction of their total sales.

I doubt the downvotes have anything to do with your product itself (which seems superficially similar to that in the linked article?), but more with the fact that self-promotion outside of a [ShowHN] is generally frowned upon.

From the link, it claims that this "gives access to all the logins you've saved in Firefox", but I thought it was common knowledge that in-browser password storage is insecure? [0,1]

If so, then this doesn't really promote much confidence in a product that appears to be a password manager. If they've addressed this issue, then that should probably be explicitly stated, although I understand the difficulties of that from a marketing perspective.

Maybe the reference to 256-bit encryption is a nod to this, with the expectation that those unfamiliar with the problems wouldn't be familiar with the differences between plain-text and encrypted storage?

Regardless, I think it's pretty promising that a browser is addressing this problem head-on, rather than leaving it to third-party companies to solve in a cross-platform way.

[0]: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/03/20/nine-years-on-fi... (If you don't use a master password, which isn't required, I believe?)

[1]: https://www.wired.com/2016/08/browser-password-manager-proba...

I think the implication is that your card issuer won't fight you on the cancellation, whereas the service provider that is trying to make your life difficult has additional, phone-based hoops for you to jump through.

I doubt we will see much research on the potentiation effects of tobacco on nicotine, since broadly it seems as if tobacco is "on the way out", so to speak.

However, there is quite a bit of research available [0, 1] that suggests that an addiction to one substance can prime the brain's neurological pathways to more easily become addicted to a second, unrelated substance.

By reducing the use of addictive substances overall, it might produce some decrease in addictions to more damaging substances (i.e. meth, heroin, etc).

Of course, the same argument could be said about alcohol or caffeine, and I don't think we're likely to see those go away any time soon. However, I think that's a false dilemma fallacy, as we're much closer (in % of population, at least) to reducing the use of nicotine than either of those.

[0]: https://harvardmagazine.com/2000/03/deep-cravings.html [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1578

Given the existing socioeconomic patterns of smoking [0], I think this is the most likely scenario. Given a Venn diagram of people who smoke (low socioeconomic status) and people who "Juul" (high socioeconomic status [1]), the overlap in users is likely quite small.

It doesn't seem like they're cannibalizing an existing market, as much as they are forging a new one.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22092035 [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/the-promise-of...

I'm happy to share my thoughts. I developed on Macs for 8 years, then switched to Windows 10 for 2 years (inclusive of Insider builds).

In some ways, the transition was pretty painless. I mainly use JetBrains products, so there was very little pain in the switch there. I expected that, which is one of the reasons why I decided to switch in the first place.

However, what I hadn't predicted was how few of the quality-of-life tweaks I was using had equivalents on Windows. For example, I was using the clipboard history feature extensively on Alfred when I was using Mac, and Ditto is barely a replacement for Windows. Recording screencasts with Screenflow on Mac is painless, and Windows (at the time) didn't have a comparable equivalent. The built-in functionality for window management in Windows is not bad, but it doesn't compare to Spectacle for flexibility.

Those are just a few examples, but collectively, these ended up adding a surprisingly painful amount of friction to my development process, even when the IDE was exactly the same. I finally ended up admitting defeat and switching back to MacOS.

I might conclude that if you're using the out-of-the-box, platform default environment, Visual Studio and Windows 10 are probably going to give a better experience than XCode + vanilla MacOS. Then again, if you're the kind of person whose .vimrc has decades of tweaks, you'll probably be happier in Linux. Basically, my view is to just let everyone do what they want and what they feel comfortable with, coexist with them, and don't try to convert/proselytize in general, which I believe is a pretty non-controversial stance.

I don't think it would be a huge issue for the most part, simply because the parallax from your head movement is minimal due to the relatively long distance involved from the plane to the ground. Most of the parallax you'd experience in a plane would come from the plane's movement, which would be replicated due to the cameras' relative movement as well.

I ended up getting nearly twice as much from CarMax as I was offered from any dealers. However, I suspect this was because there was a serious problem with the steering column that CarMax missed in their inspection that the dealers did not.

Either way, the process was painless enough that I don't think it can hurt getting an additional valuation.

I applaud these steps, and I hope they include concrete plans for addressing the good-evil hiring gap in their next diversity report. Perhaps a community outreach program to get middle schoolers more interested in becoming evildoers?

Not enough companies are addressing this issue!

Of course it's possible that there are competent data scientists without graduate degrees; the parent was simply suggesting possible reasons why you might have been passed over for those positions, such as positioning your previous positions as more engineering-focused and less research-focused. I doubt the intent was to "gatekeep" you, but to give you suggestions on how to improve your search in the future.

This is a grossly defensive overreaction to the parent reply.

Another comment in this thread indicated that "large scale" was any business in which 5 employees or more had access to the data in the course of normal business operations.

Not exactly an ironclad source, but better than nothing, hopefully.

Up to about a yard, divisibility for imperial distances is pretty good, but you're absolutely right that past yards, it doesn't make much sense. However, for most day-to-day, hands-on tasks (with the major exception of driving), those shorter distances are sufficient.

I find this same principle is perhaps better exemplified by weights/volumes commonly used in cooking. Since many sizes (1 cup = 8 fl.oz, 1 pound = 16 oz, 1 gallon = 128 fl.oz, 1 fl.oz = 2 tablespoons, etc) are powers of 2, scaling recipes up or down on the fly is extremely easy.

On the other hand, given an accurate metric scale, all recipes can be converted to weights, allowing scalar conversions. However, I suspect the proliferation of accurate scales in home kitchens is a relatively recent (nascent?) phenomena.

This article reads as more of a "My idealized view of how to constructively review a research paper", rather than a concrete foundation to evaluate papers.

From the reviews my publications have received, it's quite clear that almost every reviewer (including myself!) has constructed their own ad-hoc mental criteria of what they're looking for in a paper. This encourages the evolution of highly-specialized, ultra-niche subdomains and conferences, where one wrong word can disqualify you as a "bad venue fit", and when you're writing your paper, you're trying to predict what the reviewers will think more than about the technical information you're presenting.

If a more objective, standardized review process (as implied by the article title) could be created, even if it was only applied at the meta-review level, I think this could provide some benefits.

Of course, that would require everyone to throw away their own mental models and learn a new system, so I think it's highly unlikely. But it's nice to imagine, isn't it?

It seems to me (from a brief scan of the spec) that they actually are using 802.15.4 to establish the mesh at low-rate speeds, then switching to a different high-rate standard once the handshaking is complete.

Given the rate limitations of Thread (I'm assuming they're similar to the limitations of the underlying 802.15.4 standard), then it really isn't solving the same problem as this new specification, but are actually complementary.

Perhaps GP meant that existing high-rate mesh implementations are vendor-specific?

Partially, this is based on a disconnect between engineering and hiring. For example, the people who are writing the job descriptions got a 1-line email, "We need to expand the engineering team; could you take care of it? Thanks!", and so they're basically having to come up with all this on their own.

Their first stop is probably a Google search: "example job description software engineering"

Then, they replace the buzzwords with their own buzzwords, which they probably already know, and they're done. This takes much less time than scheduling time with the engineering team, and since they'll be doing the interviews anyway, what's the harm? Their part of the job is already done.

The second part is that companies are doing the same thing that applicants are doing with their resumes; they don't want to put any red flags out there, in order to keep their possible pool of matches as large as possible. There's a chance they can persuade you to ignore a red flag if they talk to you; if they list it in the job description, there's a 0% chance.

Examples of information that might be excluded:

> where is this?

- It's in the suburbs outside Reno, NV.

> exactly what is the work I’m supposed to be doing here?

- You'll be maintaining our undocumented, 12-year old legacy backend.

> What’s the team? 4 beginners? 4000 experienced devs?

- I literally have no idea, I was just given a budget and a number of slots to fill.

> What tech is used

- Something you've never heard of, running on top of PHP 4.

> what is it about my skill set that makes me a good fit?

- We will literally take anyone who can FizzBuzz.

Finally, there are some dog-whistle/shibboleth phrasing that seems perfectly clear to the person who wrote the description, but might not be clear to you. Examples:

> “You’ll work with the core of our digital strategy”

- You'll be working on our product that is the closest to making money (or actually makes some! who knows).

> “You’ll work close to the systems”

- You'll be doing some DevOps as well.

> “You’ll have a central role”

- We have a small team.

And so on.

Probably "Computer Science", I'm guessing? Most schools (as far as I'm aware) treat AI as a part of computer science.

> you're being fairly pretentious as if you're too busy to pick up the phone

I don't think this is a good argument. The same idea, applied to other domains, sounds outlandish: - you're too busy to drive to the store to buy something [using Amazon] - you're too busy to pick up a pen and write a letter [using email] - you're too busy to pick up the phone [using SMS]

The progress of technology is literally about removing friction from tasks which previously took longer amounts of time, and (except at the beginning, maybe?) this is rarely interpreted as pretentiousness.

Of the non-technical people that I've spoken to about Duplex (only 4, admittedly), they were universally excited by the demo.

As far as the proliferation of scammers, I think you're absolutely correct. I think it's plausible that human callers will incorporate challenge-response questions to check for things like this ("Who is Batman's sidekick?", "If I were unfairly comparing two fruits, what would they be?", etc).

Then again, who's to say that Google will make their tech available outside the company? The accuracy of the demos probably largely stems from the massive dataset that Google has amassed, which won't be available to scammers.

It isn't clear to me from this press release what "leaning into GeForce" means. Will partners need to include the GeForce name as part of their product names, in addition to the product numbers?

Anyway, I'm a little surprised that Nvidia didn't ride out the complaints and press their current GPU advantage, but I assume they're working with a more complete picture of the landscape than I am.

> Do you prefer not having it in a conversation view?

I strongly prefer to disable conversation view, because the time (recency) and time interval (frequency) are obscured, at least from the inbox view of most readers.

There is a big difference to me between a thread with 10 emails in one morning, versus one with 9 emails over a week, followed by one this morning.

This isn't unique to technology, but can easily be seen in politics, sports, religion, etc. It's just not labelled fanboyism in other domains.

My background is not in psychology, but I suspect is boils down to something like "I've made my decision, don't wish to admit I am wrong, and will therefore vociferously defend my position against all comers, as well as attack those who disagree with me."