gingerrr

It might be an overblown solution to the issues raised here, but org-matrixed companies don't tend to suffer from the same "title matches but responsibilities wildly differ" problems internally. At least not to the same degree!

Same problems still exist comparing to peers in the industry though and I'm not sure what the solution looks like beyond a more role-detailed, less purchaseable GlassDoor clone.

I don't know if many people can answer this question, bc nearly all folks I've seen using old. also use adblock so we don't see them anyway :P

Should ask this person: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36331276

One major difference is that with standard lines of credit it's a transaction between the bank loaning funds and the borrower only. With letters of credit, the payee is also a signatory to the contract.

edit: and I guess the payee's receiving financial institution is also a signatory if those are different entities from the payee! Or at least can be, I'm running into Dunning Kruger so I'll tap out now.

Ironic that reddit self-sabotaged the one popular place to converse with verified experts in their field so hard (AMAs) as that was probably the most trustworthy input source on the site considering participant vetting

The difference between a line of credit and a letter, afaik, is you can't regenerate available credit with a letter by paying back. The letter of credit is a one-time sum, so you can't pay down partway through to extend the lifetime loan amount.

I'm not a financial analyst so take with grain of salt, that's just how I'd heard it discussed in banking.

Oh, got it! Thank you for scrounging that up I was specifically looking for mention of that site, no wonder I didn't find it. Makes a ton of sense in general and it's lame we no longer get a special exception to their wall.

Oof, I don't lurk here during work nearly as much as I used to - missed the memo about it being a banned source, do you have a link for that? In the past that source has unpaywalled articles specifically for HN readers so I'm saddened (but not really surprised) they decided to go for the full cashgrab.

Not really sure what you want here - the evidence of those programs being affiliated with YC has been scrubbed from the public web, do you not believe in Occam's Razor or are you waiting to find a quote delivered straight from Garry Tan's mouth on the question before you accept the likely conclusion from all evidence?

edit: either way, I don't have a second source - that article from theinformation is the only active story I've found that specifically names the partners leaving.

Sorry - the link in that thread is to a tweet, not the article the tweet links, which is what I wanted to link - that article indicates the partners leading the fund (and program) left YC.

Also, the continuity program page (provided info for all 3 programs) is completely gone: https://www.ycombinator.com/continuity

I haven't heard specifics about those programs but with the partners leading gone it seems difficult to imagine them continuing - fair point though, no solid news.

Yes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35142261

Too bad SVB's CEO lobbied so hard for those stress tests to no longer apply to them when Trump relaxed Dodd-Frank.

"Prompt artist" / "prompt engineer" is already a "title" I've seen people use in the wild.

Gross.

Got it! Ignore my "correction" then, makes sense and definitely paints the point well.

Not to derail, but I think you're conflating "right to work" with "at-will employment" here - you're describing at-will, where the employee/employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time for any reason.

"Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union.

Just wanted to correct a common mistake I see made often in these discussions.

Determining something as progressive requires a more historical perspective - for an alarmingly high percentage of our history as social creatures, eugenics were accepted as science (or divine judgment). It's only in the last century that we have started to unpick those ideas as repugnant, and it's not a universal opinion.

If a progressive movement started advocating eugenics, they would be advocating a return to previous social mores - that's conservatism in a nutshell. Just because that movement also happens to hold "woke" ideas doesn't change the direction they want to carry progress.

This isn't a moral gotcha for anyone who has more historical memory than a goldfish - the problem is that most people don't seem to care to, so they come up with contrived examples like yours bc they can't keep the thread of human history for longer than a generation.

> So it was conservative to worry about the rise of Trump and the Alt Right?

No, because as we saw in the 1930 and 40s this strain of virulent fascism is not new, but sadly quite traditional - this was the conservatism bubbling through in reaction to modern liberalism.

> It's conservative to wish Roe had remained on the books?

If Roe had been an office worker they wouldn't have even qualified for early retirement, that's how briefly those rights existed - then reactionary conservatism struck to return us to the good old days.

If to make a "point" about history you have to limit your discussion to things that changed only in the last 30-50 years, you might have an alternate agenda.

Because the definition of the word conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change".

If you're worried about society changing, there is no definition of the word "progressive" you fulfill unless it's your tax bracket. Words have meaning, even in the mouths of sophists.

....being worried about societal change is definitionally conservatism, did you mean something else by that?

"Reuse" in the context of the 3Rs means "give new life beyond initial purpose", not "have it sit around to wait for other garbage to join it before we throw it out after a single use". Neither of your examples actually reuse the bag, just make it wait for the buddy system before sending to the landfill.

Don't hurt yourself bearing that cross of "doing good" though.

"Nothing matters" is a usually cheerful statement coming from a true nihilist, because it's leaving off the implicit "nothing matters [in an objective external sense so meaning is subjectively determined]". They're both halves of the same statement, it's just that edgelords who don't bother to grasp the ethics of nihilism stop understanding at the first 2 words.

As a consumer that's exactly what I'm waiting for, I don't need yet another streaming service. Would rather save my money and let those niche streams starve

And, they're the ones who created a situation where PD had to come in to remove a noncomplying passenger in the first place. It wasn't until they decided to revoke a seated passenger's right to fly (in favor of their own employee, on a flight that we've since learned was not actually overbooked as United tried to claim) that that passenger became a trespasser and thus were police even required to be involved.

Alternate editorial spelling: burying the lede.

> totalitarian approach

I'm guessing you didn't know that roughly 70% of US cities also have a youth curfew in effect? (http://www.usmayors.org/publications/curfew.htm, from a 1995 study)

> The reason I react negatively so strongly to stuff like this is that I fear it...gives people an idea that there is probably something really out of their control that's causing them to gain weight.

I totally get this. But to me, even if you accept completely that your digestive microbial environment can change how you lose/gain weight, that doesn't take it out of your control - after all, that particular bacterial milieu is a direct result of what the individual is putting into their body. There have been tons of studies already about this particular area, that digestive choices have a direct impact on digestive biome.

I do think it makes it more complicated, but I think obesity really is that complicated - our choices have effects we don't yet understand, and some of that may have to do with being poor stewards of our gut bacteria.

> Meditation (among other things) seems to have had a significant positive impact on my digestive system

Same, as well as other areas of my life. It's why the mind/body feedback loop fascinates me so much!

Great chat, thanks much. Have a good 2017!

I see - I think we disagree less than I originally thought.

However, I am not sure there is no gain to be had from a change in digestive bacteria in terms of caloric intake, because chemical changes in the digestive process could conceivably alter the efficiency of energy extraction.

In the case study linked above, the woman who received fecal transplant and gained weight was placed on a medically supervised liquid diet and exercise program, and still kept gaining. She had never been obese prior, so it's not as likely that she had the kind of dietary habits that would predispose her to obesity. Also strange: her weight gain closely tracked the weight gain experienced over the same time by the fecal donor, despite dietary and exercise differences between the two. It was enough of an effect that the researchers who presented the case study have since ensured they only use fecal donations from healthy-weight donors.

That all being said, I do think you're right that psychology of obesity is a very important aspect to consider, especially that of food addiction. I hope this is solved in our lifetimes, because it will be interesting to discover just how much gut influences brain and vice versa.

Perhaps I should have said geocultural slur then, I agree that it's still meant to denigrate a particular group of people.

Despite it mainly being associated with white people, I don't think it's equivalent to something like "white trash" which explicitly targets a race - "redneck" to me seems more akin to just "trashy", which is why I think it's more class-targeted as you mention.

Ok.

Neither "redneck" nor "midwestern" is a racial slur. At worst it's a geocultural insult.

Not that I think GP's comment was useful or constructive, but overreaction helps nobody.

Your claim about obesity being psychologically caused ignores the growing amount of research indicating that gut flora may very well impact decisionmaking, stress response and anxiety/depression [1]. Gut bacteria can even create and dispatch their own neurotransmitters [2].

You're firmly claiming causal direction on something the current research no longer supports. Psychology may be a result of digestive biome (or at least influenced by), rather than the seminal cause as you seem to think.

Edit: none of the above is to claim causality in the other direction, but to point out that the absolute nature of the claims you are making is not necessarily borne out by the prevailing research.

--

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/16050

[2] http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-39...