guyzero

What's truly crazy is that I see Facebook groups for home canning regularly suggesting people do unsafe things, like water bath canning of low-acid food, things that are well known to cause botulism. Please, please follow recipes from good sources, like these university centers. You can do a lot of things at home, with modest equipment, but there are a lot of seemingly safe things that are actually very unsafe.

But you have to deal with Samsung's UI in the S23 Ultra. It's still not that great after over a decade of existence.

I was laid off from a FAANG company I won't name on January 20th. I was, however, given the opportunity to look for a new job internally for three months. Some people got cut off hard, a small number got either 3 or 6 months before their final date. Luckily I found an internal position in a different group. There were few choices, I it was just two positions I had to choose between. But I got to see my layoff package - it was good, I have been here a long time, but I have been through the job hunting process too many times before to be very eager to do it again.

I'm sure a lot of HN readers would tell me I should have taken the package and found a new job elsewhere, but I've worked at startup companies before and I don't think the grass is any greener out there. And perhaps unsurprisingly my new team was happy to have me aboard since hiring has been very limited lately compared to my company's historical norms.

I've been flat-out fired before from other jobs, although not with cause, and it never really affected my job searches before. I think most people believe that their interviewing process works and having seen a lot of smart people come and go I don't think getting either fired or laid off necessarily says anything about anyone. It might, but you need more than that one data point.

I don't feel like I've every faced any social stigma around being either fired or laid off. People have always been pretty sympathetic and supportive towards me, for which I'm grateful.

AM radio is a terrible transmission format in many ways but it's good because as you note it's extremely easy to decode into sound!

Yes because the universe will end before most people finish reading it.

The only thing Scott Alexander seems to not tolerate is an editor.

They're still frequently made out of paper.

Cheaper tea bags are made out of paper and they work just fine. Tetley, for instance.

I admire the dedication to single-page sites.

IMO Amazon returns are easier than ever. You don't even need to box it up, just drop the item off at Whole Foods. I feel like my local Whole Foods is at least 20% an Amazon returns depot these days.

I suspect this is the case of a retailer prisoners dilemma - if one retailer offered no-questions-asked returns and one did not then the one offering returns would get a lot more business. If neither of them offered unlimited returns they'd both be better off, but as soon as one offer it (defects) then they both have to do so.

He's not viral because of charity, he's charitable because he was already a highly viral video creator. It's not a comment on his videos, it's a comment on the NY Times framing.

I used neither the words "good" nor "bad" so I think you're responding to something that I didn't write.

It's a flywheel with exactly one input: YouTube. If YT changes their rules or payout schedule tomorrow, it all goes away. But sure, for the time being he's hit the infinite charity glitch.

I sleep soundly knowing Mr Beast gives less than zero shits about my opinion.

It's better than an energy drink line I suppose.

"Do you think he could actually get a law changed and help more people than he already did?"

The most popular YT video creator could probably start a fairly large lobbying effort although yes, the multi-trillion dollar US for-profit health insurance industry could probably do better.

"Why wouldn't a "Mr Beast goes to Washington" style video get as many views as his direct support videos got?"

It might, there's only one way to know.

"Mr. Beast built his channel by taking all profits from each video and plying it into the next video"

To me this seems like a semi-obvious minmaxing solution to making popular videos: make essentially zero profit, regardless of revenue. At some point you get so much revenue that you can't spend it all so the next logical step is to simply give it away as part of the video. And in this case it's a virtuous cycle - apparently giving away money generates more revenue so it just keeps going. But this doesn't strike me as being done out of any noble purpose - all he wants is YT view and charity is just a side-effect of that.

"How can you watch the video where he pays for the blindness surgery for all those people and say that that was anything other than an amazing win for all those nice people?"

My criticism would be that it's local change vs trying for structural change. Why don't those people already have access to surgery? The counter-argument to this would be that structural change is somewhere between very hard and impossible, so just spend the money locally. A more cynical take is that lobbying for restructuring the US health care system doesn't generate YT revenue, so he's incentivized to fund the most clickbaity charity projects.

He just wants to design products without caring how they make money?

That's how money-losing products get designed.

But it's growing really well!

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/google-pixel-sees-hu...

In mid-2022: "...Canalys had Google up 380 percent year over year, and this quarter, the company is up 230 percent."

Same price as Samsung Fold 4.

Common Core was as much about the "common" as it was about the "core." It's not the previous standards were bad (or even different from current standards) but that there were 50 of them instead of one nationwide.

There are people who drink raw milk without any ill effects but certainly it's not recommended!

Or they're incredibly highly leveraged. They bought one home, fixed it up, rented it out, worked up to 20% equity and then immediately went out and got another mortgage and then another, etc. Many of them are one mistake or rate change away from the collapse of their "empire".

Many of Google's products were second, or later, to market. Google does not care.

I think I still have a plush Duke I bought at JavaOne one year.

Sunnyvale Goodwill is the best for this. I don't know why but I always get a kick out of seeing mugs for things like NASA projects from the 90s or some Intel internal milestone award where the mug is just covered with acronyms that mean absolutely nothing to outsiders. Absolutely the best store shelf in the whole city.

For San Jose's sake I hope it's not completely abandoned. But the combination of the failure of RTO and interest rates rising above zero is going to be pretty hard on commercial real estate developers for quite a while.

Considering people still go to Bing just to type "Google" I think the answer is no.

Yes it does and yes it's wild. A few years back you could have gotten a million-dollar 30-year fixed mortgage loan at like 2% interest. Nowhere else can you get that sort of long-term locked in borrowing rate.

Serious question, isn't think just rebuilding the same thing that commercial cloud pubsub offerings already provide?