hack_edu

Your local Cataloging Librarian, brought to you by the above bullet points.

Actually, the points are about push/pull doors and the choice of fixtures placed as affordances to suggest the appropriate action by the user.

When on the shakier side of a heated discussion of anything Apple, you can always fall back upon the nebulous "user experience" argument.

It would be especially interesting to compare by gender the amount of interest, frequency of landing an interview, and rate of success of landing an interview. I'd be very curious to see if biases shift depending on the phase of hiring process.

Want to see this in action? Create near-identical profiles on any job site frequented by recruiters, one profile male and another female. Your male account, fictional or not, will get a measurable amount more attention and see more outreach.

You would hope, but sadly not much as changed. There have been numerous experiments lately where someone created identical mid-career LinkedIn profiles one posing as a man and another as a woman.

The male profile always gets far more views and recruiter messages.

And currently the only means of sharing in a matter that can claim to deliver anything close to anonymity and security.

Can anyone speak to the quality of the stream?

From the number of conversations I've had with folks, Barrett Brown has never garnered much respect from any party. Anons in particular view him as a hack that is, at best, only semi-informed on the topics he takes on. He's known as a borderline-schizophrenic, self destructive drama queen that was bound to get partyvan'd eventually.

Guy was still fighting for what he believed in, and most certainly doesn't deserve even 1/10th of the sentence he's being threatened with.

Because they're small programs that aren't missed by most. And the rule of thumb that humanities and social science programs subsidize sciences seems a bit misleading. There are an enormous amount of other funding sources within the American system (federal government, industry, military) that patronize science programs. There isn't a comparable system on the other pillar of the academy.

Those "[choose "minority" group] Studies" programs were en vogue far more in the 80's and 90's, the subject of this piece, than they are now. They're also ridiculously cheap to provide, along with being the first to go when budget cuts get serious.

And if you think that the vast majority of people would be willing to pay a little bit more for STEM kids to go to school... I don't even. Very few people out there care what you study in school, and considering some sort of social ROI for undergrad majors is about the last thing on most peoples' minds. Even if there is concrete proof that its better for the whole of us in the first place.

Lots of folks would be debt-free too if they were on the hook for just half of tuition. Most I know from good public universities worked full-time and still couldn't pull it off without five figure debt four years later.

And what would be left, of the HN we already have? No idealizing the past...

How is the latency and quality? Any skips?

Cost =/= Benefit

Costs of war: Death.

Costs of spin-off technology: Cash and the Cult of the Founder

Though to the point, the IPs of all exit nodes are publicly available and presented by the Tor project itself.

Interesting. I see you analogy. I read that assuming you meant the next Hollywood in the sense that its the nexus of where people move to make it big and be cool in their industry, regardless of futility. Funny how it can be read both ways.

Its not already?

Would you consider spending half of it on a 2 week vacation somewhere exotic? :)

If it makes you happy and energized after, it might be even more helpful than the infusion of cash...

Rockridge is far, far more crunchy than any part of Berkeley these days...

Whoa-whoa-whoa hold up. The spiraling cost of rent 'threatens the well-being of our industry?' I say this as an engineer who's worked in the local industry during both booms and as a native-born "local." Sure, perhaps but only just like it does for every other industry besides fancy restaurants and cafes. Rent is too damn high and no one wants to pay it, and we seem to be the only ones who can. But lets get some perspective here. I'm willing to posit that the relative high rent prices has give our industry to greatest boost of all in town [quick edit: for clarification if everyone is pushed out and only tech workers can move in, does that not just create room for more founders? Not at all arguing that wasted money is good].

This city is still the Gold Rush, always has been. People move here with the dream to make a ton of money and have a good time, most likely moving away after <10 years when they get serious about family. This city is fueled by alcohol and general hedonism, which is fun! San Francisco is an awesome place to live, and people want to live in it. Tech workers move in to town and push everyone out, blah, blah, blah -- but its true, for better or for worse. Top talent not only wants to work in the Bay Area, but are also so often willing to throw away everything to live in San Francisco. The Valley down south has been there for half a century, attracting the best and brightest in the world.

Its only now, with this Second Boom's influx of new businesses into the City Proper and the realization company-provided motorcoaches to bust the commute, that the tech workers are really pouring into SF. We're the only ones who can afford to live, so we stay here, working more and founding more businesses. If the price continues to go up (mark my words, no more than 30% above now), rather than be threatened, the industry will slowly spread out to the periphery. What is startup-rich Soma was urban blight during the 90's, the periphery.

I'd be the first to argue that urban development is good, especially when done effectively (not the conversion of existing rental space into high-HOA condos), and quickly (unlike commercial real estate development in Soma and South Beach). Just realize that we are the kings of this age of this city, and we are the last ones who would be at threat, especially when you can just move East or South and ride the comfy bus in to work.

tl;dr Nothing threatens tech but the drying up of capital to be invested in new business. Rent and/or supply is far, far down on the list of even those potential threats to the SF tech industry.

Marchitecture and Marketeering are my newest two "favourites."

Explain how Google Now is any more spyware than what goes on with browser tracking throughout the industry. That's no excuse for spyware, but there's little warrant in singling out Google here. In fact, Google Now seems to really just be the use of the data that's been tracked (by all parties discussed in this subcomment thread) for years into a package that's user facing and easier to digest.

And let's not fool ourselves that Apple isn't tracking in such a "spyware" fashion just the same.

Roll out a new revamped set of TF2 Unusuals and, boom!, cash enough to hire another entire product team.

This is such a lie.

And too many opioids cause... nevermind.

Its worth noting that charges can be credited to cancelled cards under certain circumstances. Happened to me and the bank said it happens regularly. True, its usually a painless process; but its not that simple.

I won't admit to being an expert, but public policy is a balancing act that doesn't seem to be keeping pace with the residential and business demographic shifts. Giuliani did an impecable job at it in New York, but its hard to see how his plans could be applied in such a different city and context.

Article has great points, but I must remind everyone of the unbelievably rapid pace the city is already being developed. Business in SOMA, let alone its status as an extension of the Valley itself, practically didn't exist 15 years ago; the real estate boom saw a huge number of affordable(ish) apartments turned into crazy-expensive condos that can sit vacant for months before a purchase, and the real estate bubble never popped on single-family homes in the more appealing neighborhoods. This has a nearly immeasurable effect on its demographics and tax base that the city can hardly keep up with. It also wouldn't hurt if resources were allocated for construction projects to be much more accelerated. I don't understand why large-building construction takes 3x as long in this city as others (and no, its not just permits/redtape).

Is more, and rapid, development critical today? Sure, maybe. Do I support it? Yes.

But its complicated...