masterzora

If the person receiving the resume doesn't know what LaTeX is, they still have a relatively portable format and you expended less effort getting it to them. Win/Win.

[Full-disclosure: I'm friends with a good number of Yelp engineers who I expect would leave rather than take part in these such things, but I don't know any more about their codebase than any other non-Yelper.]

More seriously, though, I'd love to talk to anybody who's changed their mind on this front, one way or the other. If you actually believe that giving up your own rights is a good price to maybe protect against rare events, what can make you change your mind? Related question: how many people changed their mind because they used to think "I have nothing to hide; I'm not doing anything wrong" and are now considered to be "doing something wrong"?

The only bit of this I usually ever mention: the bit where I've been programming since I was 6. And I don't say that as a form of bragging or a form of indicating my skill; it is merely the first sentence in response to the question "how did you get into programming?"

The main reason for this, though, is that I'm embarrassed by the fact. I feel like, if I've been programming for so long I should be better at it than I am. There seems to be an expectation that just because I taught myself how to program using little more than the source to BASIC games that I should be a super-rockstar or something and I'm not.

Point is, I don't mention it because the fact I've been programming so long doesn't really mean shit.

[EDIT: I also know a number of people who never touched code until college and got really damn good before they graduated, let alone after that.]

Amusing fact that I think actually helps to drive your point in further: those commercials are ostensibly about their line of body washes, not deodorants. In fact, Old Spice body wash sales have dropped since those commercials started while sales of their products on the whole has nearly doubled.

No, never. They all fascinate me, instead.

Try this: next time you're in a rush somewhere stop for a minute and look at the people around you. Try to figure out their stories: who are their families or friends, why are they out right now and where are they going, what do they do for a living or in their spare time? You'll rarely, if ever, guess correctly, but it really helps to remind you of the human factor of everyone around you.

We RUSH and STRESS to go to places for 40 hours we hate, to work on stuff we don't like, with people we don't care about.

This seems to be the case with far too many people, but it doesn't have to be.

In some respects, that's like expecting someone whose "life is languages" to be able to speak every language on the planet fluently. Math is definitely a coherent whole with the different subfields like algebra and analysis being a part of it but, at the same time, there are enough differences between them and enough depth in each that we're not going to see anyone remotely close to the level at which Eppes is portrayed.

I always hate this argument. I honestly don't give a flying fuck what most people are using it for if there exists a nontrivial contingent of people who are using it for legitimate purposes and, trust me, there are a fair number of people using anonymity and pseudonymity for legitimate purposes.

This entire issue is incredibly sticky and, while I find it hard to disagree with Google's position in the short term, it does have me worried in a number of ways in the long term.

This is a response to something nobody's saying.

Obviously if they write it they get to choose pretty much everything about it. Nobody is disputing such a thing.

However, if one of the goals in releasing this is to be maximally useful, isn't the fact that raw Javascript is more readily understandable to more people a good thing to point out? Especially since it's highly likely that the team actually has the ability to do normal JS just as easily.

If they disagree with such a goal, though, they can feel free to do whatever they want.

Did we read the same fable? Sour grapes is about something you don't have, which does not imply winners or losers.

I still don't understand how this is supposed to make anything okay. The experiment was set up to see how people dealt with a system inherently fueled by some combination of altruism and curiosity. I personally assume this means that, among other things, it is looking at some measure of morality. Thing of it is, you can't really construct an experiment about morality or something like it without making immorality (or something like it) within the bounds. (Or, more accurately, you could attempt to but then you'd also be dealing with a measure of how people respond to authority and similar which complicates things.)

Secondly, I think I could say just as easily that being an asshole is well within the bounds of US law. Yet, people tend to respond negatively to people being assholes. What is allowed and what is "right" or "good" or whatever are two entirely different topics.

Do you?

But this is not the case. If the car is quickly moving through a blind spot as they should be and the truck hits them, that's one thing. If the car is hanging out in the blind spot longer than is necessary they are also usually found to be partially at fault. You are at least partially responsible for your own unsafe driving, even if it is technically legal.

There's an entire industry of ambulance chasers profiting off the truck driver's absolute fault, and a phonebook size book of underhanded procedures the trucking companies try to use to duck that absolute fault.

That industry profits off of absolute faults when people are safely regarding the blind spots and the trucks hit them anyway and off of the primary, although not absolute, fault of the truck when the car is not safely regarding the blind spots. It is unfortunately true that there are trucking companies using underhanded procedures and, although I have no clue how many that is, I also know it's not absolutely universal and that ambulance chasers aren't exactly innocent of underhanded procedures themselves.

That statement is correct on its face, and doesn't raise any argument at all.

Then in what way is hanging out in a truck's blind spot or blocking their trailer's swing out path (which, by the way, often is the fault of cars who move into said path after the truck has initiated its turn) not the wrong place to be, even if the car were 0% at fault?