imsofuture

It's accidental. The problem with fentanyl is that it's so ridiculously strong.

So you're selling heroin and figure "hey, I'll cut it and make more money". You add something inert and then add a tiny bit of a fentanyl and oops you added too much, now it's poisonous for users to take a "normal" dose.

Sure I agree with your general point, but other remote companies WILL pay more.

I've worked for 3 companies remotely over the past 6 years. Every single one of them, including being employee #8 or so at a seed-round startup paid more than the max Gitlab would pay me for a backend role. Like, in 2012, as employee #10 at a bootstrapped startup, I was paid more. Gitlab pays crazy under market, end of story.

I suppose that's inarguable, even if by definition.

These are remarkably dishonest and bad reasons.

1. This is meaningless.

2. This is FAR more a factor of lifestyle choices than CoL. I've lived in extremely high and extremely low CoL places and there is not a big difference. I have a $1500 mortgage instead of a $1700 lease. Maybe apples are 20c cheaper a pound?

3. "It's better if we pay you less, really!" PS Other remote employers pay significantly more than you.

4. Pay people competitively for the role instead.

5. Pay people competitively for the role instead.

IMO a better advantage is that you can hire talent from anywhere, without the caveat that they have to uproot their life to join your team. Paying local market rate is shitty (generally) and reduces your competitiveness against other remote employers that don't try to squeeze 10-40% off employee salaries (which is most of them, FWIW). Not to mention, how could you possibly make 10m rev/employee but with a straight face worry about them making 20k 'too much' because they live in Iowa or something!?

I wouldn't even bother applying at Gitlab because I know they won't pay me competitively. Pass!

TLDR: "can pay local market rates" only works if you're the only company to ever offer remote work, and you have to compete only with other local market offers. Which is a fantasy in 2018.

Truly the End of History which even Fukuyama has walked back a bit.

You can definitely put liquid LSD in your eye.

Every in-office job I've had has been the same way. Not that we didn't ever talk in person, but so much of the normal communication happened over text, even if we were in the same room.

Overall, I agree with your point, but it's definitely a fallacy that if you do bad things it nullifies good things that you do.

If (for example) you thought that eating vegan was better ethically or environmentally, eating vegan only one day a week would still be "better" than not eating vegan at all. Eating non-vegan some of the time is not hypocritical, nor does it nullify the "good" you're doing.

Absolutely though, companies should be shamed (and not patronized) for their bad behavior and bad associations.

Yeah, exactly this. Managers make a huge impact when they're needed, but rarely is that in the day to day. My best managers have always set clear objectives, and moved mountains for our team in the larger organization, but when it comes to executing they've always known it's best to get out of the way (obviously barring situations where things go wrong, or they do need to help).

Sorry, how did he cause several deaths?

Works for banks alright.

Yeah, Boise is already exploding hence I didn't mention it (not familiar with the tech scene there, but I think it's one of the fastest growing cities in the country).

The entire Mountain West. Bozeman has a pretty decent, and growing tech scene. Missoula is okay (shoutout Submittable and a few others).

Google decided to rename the street that I live on (and get rid of my actual address) a few years ago. It took about 2 years for my correction to be approved.

It was really fun directing people "oh it's really easy to get here but don't use google maps".

So the big difference between 100 years ago and now is people have less knowledge and less willpower?

Completely agree. Calories in/out is a gross oversimplification. It's not wrong, it's just not particularly relevant.

One thing I thought Taubes did a good job of was illustrating the relationship between calories in and calories out: your body will burn more calories when it has them, and less when it doesn't. You will be hungrier when you burn more calories, and less hungry when you don't. Calories in isn't just a knob you can adjust without consequence, your body is complicated.

Great point. When did you last have sex and with who? Can you post your picture and theirs for us?

Ahh, yes, capitalism, where we funnel all of our resources to the top and hope the benevolent billionaires will reach down to help those of us in poverty.

You're of course correct that industrialization has an outsize positive impact initially. But it's pretty silly to ignore the eventuality of "and then Bill Gates donates money to make the world better!"

Yep. Some of the best people I know either didn't graduate, or graduated in fields more or less entirely unrelated to what they do.

This is a pretty narrow Instagram experience. I follow my actual friends who post random things from their life, and then people from a few different hobbies.

Except for watch people, none of it is carefully curated 'look at me' experiences. Watch people are another stripe though.... $20k on the wrist, $200k steering wheel.

They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government that militarily intervenes across the world?

I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.

Right, I said it was off the cuff and rough. Point still stands, even if it's just within and order of magnitude of the actual idiotic half-assed platforms.

The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this (rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture:

guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR anti-immigration

VS

anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration

Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and vote for that party...

For some time you could steal AOL usernames by registering i.e. 'obar' or 'oobar', and using client side hacks could switch the registration to the already registered username 'foobar' which would then belong to you.

This only worked if 'obar' or 'oobar' was unregistered, but it was a pretty nifty way to steal single word usernames, and speaks to some strange validation/truncation somewhere in the code.

Exactly. It's not a hype new thing anymore, it's just what people are using. For all the warts of specific implementations, the wins of using containers are pretty solid across a huge domain of problems.

Yep, SA obviously has a brand of humor, but the discourse on a huge variety of things is absolutely top-notch. Active moderation keeps the riff-raff out.

Signal works pretty well for me. I mostly use it on my phone, but occasionally on my desktop, but never had sync issues.

Matrix.org + Riot.im are a pretty solid combination. Plus, you can bridge to IRC.

Writing "hug" won't get you banned from a technical community. Grow up and realize that context is important.

"Keep politics out of tech" is extremely disingenuous.

This CoC can be summarized as "don't be a jerk to other people". I can't even fathom how that's a controversial or political statement, but yet, here we are.