logicalmonster

I think Breitbart might be what is referenced here. And this may or may not be the best decision for the quality of HN, but I think it would (and should) raise an eyebrow and bring up concerns about bias if there's a pattern about which media outlets get blocked.

But forget hot-button politics for a second and lets talk about commerce. Big money makes people do dumb things. YCombinator as we all know dabbles in a lot of big businesses. How do we know that somebody here is not putting their thumb on the scale of discourse and harming their competitors? Transparency here would be great to more fully trust that the businesses that do or don't get attention here aren't getting it through bad practices.

I don't know the practical realities and complex legalities of this field too well, but when I was paying cash for common medical procedures for a few years, the biggest problem I had was finding out the prices of procedures.

Trying to call a medical office and get a price for anything was often a frustrating exercise. The staff would say things like "The doctor has to examine you first and then tell you how much it costs" or even "We won't know the full price until after the procedure".

Trying to comparison shop was very difficult, even for relatively common tasks.

This is a straw man argument. The issue isn't the potential presence of moderation, but the potential lack of transparency and the problems that could bring.

Good systems are designed to work by taking into account human weaknesses. The current HN system doesn't do this.

1) A fair price in a marketplace is whatever 2 sides agree on. Nobody makes a trade unless they value what they receive more than what they give up.

2) If OP needs money and has free time, it's in his interest to spend a few minutes researching how to sell a domain name.

3) Other people might have the same issue and want to see experienced people contributing good answers. Your response isn't really that helpful here.

4) Personally, I doubt that OP is going to get the financial return he wants or that GoDaddy claimed as Printive is an good-but-not-exceptional-name, but getting some cash from this might be very helpful for his life.

* I'm sure Airpods are phenomenal for what they are, but I haven't ever found an earbud I can comfortably walk in without having them slip out very quickly, let alone run in. They're a class of product that just doesn't work for me.

* A nearby observer might be able to hear a bone-conducting headphone if you blast the volume, but the main point is that it doesn't reach a disturbing volume for anybody in the surrounding environment, unlike some other potential solutions.

* The audio quality isn't phenomenal, but is acceptable for the use case where you're out in public and still wanting to focus on the surrounding environment. I wouldn't use those kinds of headphones for general home use, but they're good enough for the intended purpose.

I'm a big fan of so-called "bone-conduction headphones". Being able to be in public with audio while not disturbing others makes a big impact on life enjoyment while not limiting your safety as you can still hear the surrounding environment.

For such a simple logo that can be easily made in plain CSS, is there any practical advantage to actually making it an SVG or image file rather than a few lines of CSS?

There doesn't seem to be anything near 9 interviews. For what it's worth, most of the steps listed on that page are their own company's internal actions that an applicant doesn't have to interview for.

Just a small bit of constructive criticism based on my opinion. Asking for a city/state/zipcode is completely reasonable, but an initial job application for any decent software engineering job should definitely NOT ask for an applicant's full address right off the bat before you connect with a human. There's too many scams and data-collection operations out there to make this a trustworthy practice that decent companies engage in.

Why do you require a citation for what's clearly presented as an opinion?

For your reference, their stated organizational focuses (the only objective facts about them brought up in this thread) are confirmed here by them. https://counterhate.com/our-work/

Everything else stated about them is clearly a subjective opinion, and asking for evidence of an opinion feels like a rather counterproductive and bad-faith argumentation technique.

Not a huge fan of this.

The really dangerous drivers in New York aren't dangerous because they're speeding.

They're really dangerous because they weave in and out of tightly packed traffic trying to find a minuscule gap to wedge themselves into to try and go around everybody.

If anything, being unable to go fast is going to psychologically compel impatient people to take even more risks to make up for time they'll be perceiving themselves as losing due to being limited in speed. Additionally, limiting their car's speed is going to make this process even more dangerous for bystanders because they're not going to have the power available to actually perform these maneuvers.

If you want to focus on public safety, figure out a way to get slow-pokes out of the passing lane who camp there next to a truck for an hour and clump up traffic, and get cops to focus on drivers who wildly weave from lane to lane with no signals.

You didn't provide enough details about the problem you're trying to solve in order to give an informed suggestion.

What is your use-case? Are you building a CRUD application? A real-time game? A search engine? Where is your anticipated performance bottleneck? In some cases the database is the blocker and no programming language choice is going to really matter.

If you do have any legitimate performance concerns, can you solve them in some clever way? Perhaps with caching, pre-computing answers to problems, or reorganizing your UI to perform computation in the background?

Opposing hate is an extremely laudable goal (even though genuinely well-intentioned people can reasonably disagree with defining hateful conduct and figuring out what's a proper response to hate) but I agree with your opinion. To me, this organization's activity looks to be a fairly thin veneer of "anti-hate" over a thick layer of ideologically driven political activism. To me, their focus on things like "Anti-vaxx misinformation" and "climate change misinformation" is bizarre if they were really genuine in their stated purpose.

I'm not sure if that horse could ever be put back in the barn, but I think my mindset for using C would probably feel a lot different if somehow it could be made a strict subset of C++.

Forget about technology for a second and think about how bureaucracy works in a big corporation. Getting all of their teams onboard, and then convincing the business people to go ahead and pay for something that in their eyes already works in an era of cost-cutting isn't a trivial thing, and isn't going to be accomplished right away unless they made it a big company priority.

Functional Programming (FP) can be extremely elegant, and you should do your best to at least get familiar with it to see how using it can improve your code quality. There's a lot of theoretical reasons why this paradigm might be particularly great in a future where all devices seem to be adding lots of processing cores. For instance, without a function having side-effects, the potential for conflicts between threads or processes could be completely eliminated, so FP can potentially have some real-world benefits beyond just more elegant code.

That said, you should also think in terms of "What does JavaScript have that functional programming doesn't?". As a working-stiff programmer, most of the time the problems you're going to encounter are going to be a lot easier and faster to solve if mutating state is available as an option.

You might end up coincidentally liking some parts of these software design methodologies like Kanban, but they generally aren't intentionally implemented to maximize developer happiness. For me, even the name "sprint" just instantly pressures me to feel rushed in my work and I hate everything about this religion.

These methodologies are designed to be a "good enough" default way for non-technical managers to organize and manage projects in a domain they don't really understand.

Imagine how confusing going to the mechanic is when you don't really understand cars. You're constantly left wondering if he's bull-shitting you about the cost and effort involved in a repair and if any progress is being made and work is actually being performed. So I get why this needs to exist, but I understand that it's not about benefiting the developer.

I did examine the article, and to me there's a few holes and question marks in what data was presented.

> For instance, they claimed that "Last year’s 8th-grade Algebra I students had similar pass rates as those in years prior" but the word "similar" is subjective. How about showing all of the stratified data in chronological order to make that determination for oneself? Did pass rates for the state test go from say 99% and reduce due to this? They don't mention the White race pass rates before and after this change, for example.

> The racial groups listed are Black, Hispanic, White, and Other. What is other? Are they Asians? That seems like the only place they'd fit, but the participation of "Other" before and after this change seems low for that group.

> This data tells us nothing about how the teachers are approaching teaching their courses in light of this change. Do they stop going over valuable material solely to focus teaching kids how to pass a state test so their metrics look good? (Is that what matters for their funding, by the way?) Are class sizes increasing or decreasing to make this change logistically work?

> Additionally, as I am not an educator from Texas, I don't know for certain, but the test itself seems rather dumbed down if a large portion of kids are passing it, but aren't meeting their grade level. Doesn't it raise an eyebrow that 91% of Black kids are passing the test, but only 65% of them are meeting their grade level?

> The article doesn't clarify if all Texas students take this test or just honors students, but it would be illuminating to see pass rates of this test in that school district from different groups before and after that change. If 95% of Hispanic students in this honors program are passing that test in this district after this change, what was the pass rate of Hispanics before that change?

Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad program. It might be quite a good idea to really raise educational standards and force kids into tougher math programs. But the focus solely on "racial participation" makes this very suspect to me.

> The move has dramatically increased participation among traditionally marginalized children

This program may or may not be a fantastic idea, but "participation" is about the worst possible metric for measuring the overall impact of a mandatory program.

Are these children having better overall life and educational outcomes from this? Are they taking time and energy away from classes they want to pursue to struggle in math courses they might not be truly passionate about?

And what about its impact on the non-marginalized kids? Because "everybody" is now participating, are honors courses now slowed and dumbed down so actual high-achievers will be less prepared for their future?

1) I am focusing on making money and producing value for the world in any form I can. Whatever challenges that future weather patterns bring, it is only wealthy and stable societies that have a chance to adapt and adjust to them.

2) I am strongly advocating continued nuclear energy development. That is one thing that everybody should be able to agree on regardless of their stance on climate change. It's mystifying to me that the people who vocally care about climate change the most seem to resist this the hardest.

I think the reason for Firefox lagging behind in market share can be explained with an overarching theme of "bad management", which may have contributed to some of these problems which chipped away at their chance for success.

> At a crucial stage years ago when IE was clearly dying and many people were considering different web browsers, Firefox's UI and overall performance felt extraordinarily slow in comparison to alternatives. Additionally, as a developer, the experience of building Chrome extensions was much more pleasant there than in Firefox which really soured me on them. It's not like Mozilla has bad developers, but they might have been trying to work on too many projects at once with the financial resources they had available. Even if Firefox has subsequently caught up, peoples' perceptions might take a while to change.

> Whether or not you agree with this, there was a growing perception that Mozilla was moving in a "woke" political direction that seemed to be at conflict with the overall drive towards an open web that many people initially supported them for. Even if the intent of articles like "WE NEED MORE THAN DEPLATFORMING" was genuinely good, their messaging was "pants-on-head regarded" given that many influential tech people supported Mozilla specifically to keep the open web alive. If Mozilla did anything to put that perception of their support at risk, they poisoned their brand for a lot of tech people who tell their friends and family what browser they can be using. Many of these people moved on to browsers such as Brave that seem to be much firmer in at least trying to give a very clear and consistent messaging about what they're all about.

Some of these made up labels are a bit cringe (Metamates at Meta), but at the end of the day it's a small attempt to add a bit of fun and create a closer team, so the intent isn't bad.

The only term that really bugs me is when companies seriously use the word "resources" to refer to people. It feels so damn dehumanizing every time I hear that.

I recently had a bad experience with an interview project with CodeClimate. I put real effort into their assignment and submitted it to them. I wrongly assumed that as a technical company, they'd have a reasonably respectful process in place for developers. I can accept that my solution somehow might not have been the absolute best implementation the world has ever seen, or they decided not to proceed with me for any reason, but about a month later I got a really impersonal generic rejection message with no indication that anybody even looked at my submission and no response to my very polite and professional followup.

The worst though is that some companies are allegedly (cough, Clipboard Health, cough) using job applications for free labor according to Glassdoor reviews.

I don't know much about debating competitions, but I was floored when I saw this video when researching this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

If this is real and not a parody, it seems like whatever scoring system they use incentivizes the wrong behavior even before you get into idealogical debates.

> The late CEO of OceanGate told David Pogue last fall, “at some point, safety is just pure waste.”

In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement?

I think a lot of normal people are going to smugly harp on that statement, but in and of itself it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that there's a diminishing return to safety measures for anything at some point.

The issue with this sub thing seems to be that they made some really bad choices, including apparently having glass that wasn't rated for the actual depth they were going to, choosing a gaming controller that apparently had a history of wireless issues, and other dumb issues with the design of the sub.

I don't get why this is a thing. Anybody who wants to avoid transaction fees can just start using physical cash.

> Taxes and employment laws are really not an issue, there are plenty of ways around it, especially if you are a small startup.

Of course there's legal ways for a company to employ somebody not in the US. But many employees at companies don't want to deal with that headache and create any extra work for themselves.

As proof of that, look at how many jobs ask for remote US workers in a list of XYZ random states. They can legally employ anybody they want to in the US, but they don't want to deal with taking the time out figuring out how to deal with hiring somebody from say Alabama or South Dakota if they've never done that before.

Don't try and explicitly rule out humanity. That's sort of impossible because some humans are smart and can strategically lie to emulate a machine's expected behavior. If you ask a suspected AI those woke diversity questions to try and prove its an AI, smart humans will fool it by answering in the way they'd expect a corporate AI to be programmed in.

Instead, give it a task machines excel at, namely doing math fast, that nobody but some weird "Rain Man" savant can even come close to doing.

Give it a list of numbers to perform some easily understandable mathematical operation on. A human would have a hard time providing the answer of say 100 square roots and multiplying each of those values by the digits of PI sequentially in under 10 seconds or some such contrived example, but that seems pretty doable for a machine. Even a world-class expert programmer answering this question would have a hard time writing a custom script to solve this in some extremely short amount of time.

The hard part might be distinguishing between unintelligent bots/scripts and actual AI, so you might need to combine a few tests to both prove some form of intelligence, as well as prove that it's an AI rather than a script.

You might also want to continuously test the AI by possibly doing something like providing a short lived JWT token and repeatedly challenging it over time to stay onboard. A smart human might be able to arrange to fool even a very hard test once, but can't sit around the clock continuously solving repeated challenges to stay on your service over time. Some smart human might manage to fool you once, but will not be able to solve repeated tests over time without slipping up at some point.

>It's a little unclear where the distinction lies between the two. "White nationalist" overlaps with and kinda implies "white supremacist".

I don't think this distinction is unclear.

In and of itself, a racial nationalist's beliefs might be something close to "I prefer to live in a country with my own people."

In and of itself, a racial supremacist's beliefs might be something close to "My people are inherently superior and should rule over others."

Anyway, I'm mainly just interested in this person's starting point and the effect that his trip had on him, as well as calling out the media for not being precise about these issues. Nationalist and Supremacist are not synonyms: that's lazy click-baiting journalism.

Was Brendan a white nationalist or white supremacist? The article cited him as being the leader of a white nationalist group, but then used the phrase "white supremacist" throughout the article, so it's a little unclear what his original starting point was.