lackbeard

This comment is super weird to me. I've been here since the beginning and I think comments have gotten more hostile since then.

Also, I'm not aware of an at-large "HN stereotype". No one outside of HN that I interact with discusses HN, and if there's ever discussion of this stereotype here, I've missed it.

From what I understand, advertisers aren't paying the users of Brave. Brave is paying the users.

Advertisers pay Brave (just as they would pay any other ad network, I guess?) Brave then slices that money up giving a % to the content publisher, a % to the user, and keeping a % for themselves.

Either way, it's orthogonal to the point I'm trying to make.

> What would the argument for this being OK be?

It's saddening that this is even a question in anyone's mind.

Is it okay to use Lynx? curl? Is it okay to save what I downloaded with curl?

Aren't they paying users a cut of the ad revenue?

That's not how the internet works. If they make something accessible over http, I'm free to consume it however I can.

FWIW, I read both of his Medium posts and the tweets Meredith made about his behavior at the Founders Fund event and I think you're being dishonest.

>Similarly, most programmers just want a good job with a good paycheck. But stating this in an interview is a mistake.

Just like everyone only hires the best, they only hire people who are "passionate" about <blub>.

I haven't really thought about it deeply, but I'm pretty sure this isn't true. It seems like mathematicians are often coming up with new proofs and formal systems and only later noticing that they're applicable to some real-world problem.

Did you ever play 4? Was the best one, IMO.

I wonder why every CouchDB-related post to Hacker News has someone in the comments derailing things by bringing up Couchbase...

The removal of wiki-formatting from Confluence was a huge blunder. Every programmer who comes into contact with the Atlassian suite is now going to do their best to avoid it in the future.

Thanks for the response.

> People have been grinding on what the definition of a set should be for a century, trying to build the best possible abstraction, and they have all of the same problems coders have. You assume to much, it's not very general. Don't assume enough, there's nothing interesting to say that's unilaterally true.

This is a great point.

I don't think math is the study of abstraction. It seems to me it's proving truths about formal systems. Abstraction has the same purpose in math as it does in programming, a tool to more effectively communicate ideas.

> you could for example have no poverty and perfect social mobility, and still have great economic inequality.

I get the impression, reading a lot of the responses to pg's essays on this topic that this is like dividing by zero according to most people's model of the world.

TIS-100: http://www.zachtronics.com/tis-100/

Untrusted: https://alexnisnevich.github.io/untrusted/

Yes. It's bizarre to see everyone responding to something that wasn't actually said.

This, and Ron's original version, and most of the "my response to Paul Graham's essay" esssays I've seen aren't actually responses to Paul Graham's essay.

Here's what I see happened: pg said, "Income inequality is a consequence of freedom and technology. If you want to reduce income inequality, be careful you don't wind up just making everyone less free and more poor."

And then a lot of people said: "Paul, you asshole! Rich people can buy political power!" which is totally unrelated, and pg agrees is a bad thing...

They don't want to just organize. The city has laws which protect employees from being fired for attempting to unionize, but those laws don't apply to contractors. They want the law to be changed to cover contractors so they can have that protection.

That's my understanding of the situation, which is tenuous. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's mind-blowing, the amount of words written about this, yet there is no clear explanation of what exactly is going on.

UPDATE: Can log in now. Cleared browser cookies, but have no idea if that's a coincidence or not.

I seem to have hit some kind of bug signing up:

1. Filled out signup form, hit enter.

  > Page reloaded, sign-up form empty. No other feedback.

2. Filled out signup form again, hit enter.

  > Told username and email address taken.

3. Check email.

  > no new email.

4. Filled out login form using info entered in step 1.

  > Page reloaded, not logged in.

I read jenshoop to mean: when recruiting, describe in some technical depth, the difficult, unique problems your company is solving to build its product(s).

I'd be curious to hear about the inverse. Have you found there are skills/disciplines that companies are highly interested in but no candidates are?

This is interesting data.

I liked what Joel Spolsky said a long time ago. Basically that companies should want two types of engineers. 1. You want a few who are experts in the company's tech stack. 2. The bar for everyone else is just that they're smart and they get things done.

I guess the core problem is that we don't have a good objective measure of the latter. (Maybe an IQ test for smarts, if that wasn't political incorrect, but I don't know how you'd show definitively that you "get things done" in an interview.)

At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.

Isn't coupling both A and B to the global func(A, B) just as bad as coupling B to A in A::func(B) or A to B B::func(A)?

The thing you're trying to avoid with coupling is that when the dependency changes you might have to change the thing that depends on it, right? Isn't global func going to change with the same likelihood as A::func or B::func?

I'm not sure if this is a relevant or not, (but since it relates to your post,) I do often find myself wishing I had multiple dispatch and/or some way to extend interfaces to existing types when programming in a language without those features.

I thought "relation" meant table, the author seems to use the word as if it means foreign key.

Great brain drain? Meaning software engineers are leaving banks in large numbers?

What if you relocated YC to somewhere that was both a nice place to live and had sane urban planning? Does YC have enough momentum of its own now to turn that place into a startup hub?

I don't know if such a place exists though. Seems like everywhere nice to live is rife with NIMBYism.

Letting people choose to not vaccinate their children will self correct. We'll lose herd immunity, a lot of people will die, and then everyone will know how awesome vaccines are, just like they did in the 60s. Then the cycle will begin anew.

I lean toward valuing individual rights over all else, but this scenario does present a serious challenge to that worldview.

Another contributor to the problem is that people trust science a lot less today than 2 generations ago. They've seen the negative results of a lot of fraud that has been perpetuated under the banner of "science". (E.g. "scientific socialism", the food pyramid, most of psychology, etc...)

The Reddit PR blitz is on!