phyller

I feel like I understand the author's experience, and his bitterness, I had a very similar situation myself when I was a new engineer, creating an amazing project that was really useful for everyone that got completely shot down for political reasons. For a while after, the more I stuck out with better work the more I was punished.

I learned a lot from this. It was very demotivating, painful, even humiliating, and it took me a long time to get over it (mostly). What I didn't learn is that all the people who were to blame for this were the bad guys. Here's what I did learn:

  - People are people and will do the things that people do, despite your high expectations.
  - You can often not change other people. But you can change yourself. Think of what *you* can do to improve relationships.
  - You'll rarely change someone's thinking by using logic. This, sadly, is not human nature in a political environment.
  - Work is a political environment. Even engineering.
  - You must learn what motivates, frustrates, encourages, shames and honors the people you work with.
  - Protect the people you work with, do not cause them to raise their defenses.
  - If you want something to move forward in a team you must win people over.
  - You don't win people over by making them feel threatened that you will take power from them or make them look bad.
  - If you truly care about something, having another person claim that idea as their own isn't bad, it's a great victory.

If you don't really care what gets done in your organization and are just interested in being the most well respected and successful person, and want to get there in the quickest and not deal with everyone's crap, then do what a lot of others do and just flatter and lie and job-hop around before things catch up to you and you'll be C-level in no time. You can also get there (but not for sure) through long difficult years of doing everything right. Make your choices.

Classic, the sensors whose purpose is to ensure that something doesn't kill you, actually become the things that almost kill you.

Yea, wonder if they felt disappointed or relieved. Regardless, they are part of a very small club of "astronaut's whose rocket broke during launch and are still alive". I wonder who else is in that club?

Shutting down consumer Google+ is the least important part of this post. Hardly anyone used that. The privacy changes they are making for everything else are much more important. More granular control of app permissions is a big deal.

Overall I'm not sure how to feel because I didn't realize how bad it was. How many apps have required access to my contacts for legitimate reasons, and I wasn't aware I was providing access to our interaction data?

> Finding 4: When users grant SMS, Contacts and Phone permissions to Android apps, they do so with certain use cases in mind.

> Action 4: We are limiting apps’ ability to receive Call Log and SMS permissions on Android devices, and are no longer making contact interaction data available via the Android Contacts API.

This is the data that could potentially have been exposed for each person [1]. In their release about shutting down Google+ they made it seem like a lot less.

[1] https://developers.google.com/+/web/api/rest/latest/people

No, it would be unethical to do the things you mentioned. Do you honestly believe that we have a hundreds of elected officials who genuinely don't care at all about the welfare of non-Americans, who are all total monsters?

Really think about it. Is it ethical to start a war that is otherwise meritorious but that you cannot win? If you would be unable to create a good result, going to war would only add more misery to the process of getting to the inevitable bad result. This is not so 2 dimensional. You cannot say, these sets of values are parts of ethical decision making, and these other sets of values, that also impact people's lives, have no part in ethical considerations. The chances of success in a military action are a crucial component of whether it is ethical to even try it.

It is simpler to look at the results. Perhaps if the people in Iraq or Afghanistan are not better off than they would have been otherwise, and the rest of the people of the world are not safer and more prosperous than they would have been otherwise, then there was probably something unethical about the prosecution of the recent wars there.

We are just really bad at predicting the future, and even understanding the present or past. That is another ethical consideration. We should be very careful about using "ends to justify means", meaning that we do something that we know is bad for a good result of greater magnitude. The result will likely be something we did not predict, and therefore we have done a bad thing and gotten possibly a bad result as well.

The challenge would be to find a way to actually do things in the best way possible, while attaining good results. So we should avoid killing people. But if we must kill people, or even if we should kill certain very bad people (who makes those decisions?), you want to only kill the "bad" ones, therefore you should use the most discriminate weapons possible. Is it possible to do so? To achieve your aim can you use a sniper's bullet, a drone which can surveil it's target for days, or would you need to use nuclear weapons?

How would you approach North Korea, which is evil by almost any standard, when any war that lasts longer than 5 minutes results in the death of every inhabitant of Seoul?

I write all this because these are both very important and very difficult decisions. And it feels like we are not even trying. People cling to silly shallow principles and sling them around at each other, preventing the deeper discourse that should be taking place so that we can do better at dealing with horrible situations that remain in the world.

Not sure I follow your logic. So if the US doesn't intervene to stop genocide in the Sudan, it is unethical for them to stop genocide anywhere else?

If the US was to get involved in a war every time they thought something unethical was happening would that be good? If the US made a policy to never intervene anywhere, even if trivial intervention could improve the lives of millions, would that be good?

I find that people have strong opinions about war and are happy to share them, but often don't seem to have thought them through at all. Why should either war everywhere or war nowhere make sense? Is there any room for good judgment, to weigh ethics, ability and consequences, and have a different approach in different situations?

There is an entire field of philosophy and ethics around this that has been developed in the Western world and continues to be researched and debated, called just warfare. It is actually used, at least in the US, to inform decisions about rules of engagement and legal or illegal tools and tactics. In fact it is required learning for future officers in the US military, at least in the Air Force.

If that statement was actually part of the test, that poor guy had a very dangerous job. "Might as well put the new guys in there, if they get killed we don't lose someone more valuable."

> And I consider war to be unethical profiteering

Do you mean all war? Or something more limited, like conflicts involving the US over the past 20 years. Or, only for the initiators of conflict. I find that line of thinking hard to justify after the most basic application to actual historical events.

Like when Finland was defending itself against Russia, was Finland attempting unethical profiteering? What should they have done instead?

Wow, the Obama administration knew this was happening, even before it happened, and did nothing to stop it?

If I'm a white male, but I have the brain scan of a Latino grandmother, does that count as diversity in the workplace?

That's not true, if a piece of economic information would be damaging to Trump it would likely get even more coverage.

Wow you can see the individual tire tracks

Just FYI, but when you hedge with puts your holding period to realize long term gains instead of short term gains gets reset immediately, then you have to wait another year after you close the put position before you can sell as long term gains. Just something to keep in mind.

The best, and possibly only way of preventing the theft of personal data is to not have it.

The amount of surface area a large organization needs to always protect its just too large, we can just assume at some point all that info will be taken.

I think he meant figuratively, like he took credit for his work or something. Not an actual stabbing with a knife.

I upvoted you, because while I don't come to the same conclusions I think it's an honest point and logical chain of thought, and a truthful representation of Christianity.

I think many people on HN would agree that the point of prison is not revenge, but a mixture of punishment and rehabilitation that will hopefully deter the crimes of others and prevent future crimes by the convicted. We can't see into people's hearts and minds, so we must have standardized penalties. If we could really see into people's hearts and minds, and were sure we couldn't be deceived, we wouldn't let them out of prison until they were no longer the wicked person who would commit crimes, and we wouldn't keep them in prison once they had really changed.

In that case, the person who committed the crime is gone, and a law abiding, contributing citizen is there instead. We can't change the past, we can only change the future. This person is better in society than in prison. I think if we had the ability to successfully enact this system we would do it and it would be better than what we have now.

So the idea is God can really see into people's hearts, and doesn't want to just punish evil. He wants to redeem it, make what was evil good instead. So the story of Jesus is the story of how God made it possible for evil people to actually become really good, and once they have done so they can be in God's presence. And while they are still living on Earth, they will do good not because they are trying hard to follow the rules, but because they just want to.

One of the parts you are thinking of is Matthew 7:13-23 [1]. The interesting thing about that is that people who are trying to do the things that Christians do are the ones that are not accepted. So yes, you literally cannot do things good enough, those guys performing miracles weren't good enough.

The only way to do things good enough is to, for lack of a better term, seek after Jesus. And then he works in your life, and that's the only way to "do the will of the Father". There are specific verses for all that, but to keep it short (and encouraging), just look up a few verses to Matthew 7:7-8 [2] "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find"

One of my favorite things about Christianity is that even in this time with all of our knowledge and access to everything it is so widely misunderstood, in almost all of its principles people have almost the opposite conclusion from what was intended. It's fun to explain it, if I can assume I understood it correctly ;)

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/7/13/s_936013 [2] https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/mat/7/7/s_936013

We get both the Jewish and Christian Sabbaths off each week. We have more leisure and chance to reflect then ever before. It's our fault if we burn it up playing video games, watching tv, or working.

I've found that since I've started in software engineering I have much more trouble calming my mind down and thinking deeply. I'm trying getting up early in the morning, getting some exercise, food, and reading the Bible, which tends to get me into a more contemplative state. I just started, it's brightened my outlook and made me feel like I have more time in the day, though I can't tell if my work is benefiting yet.

Yea but TSMC's "7nm" is definitely smaller than Intel's "14nm"(+++), which is what Intel is actually on right now, and will be for at least another year.

Also, I'm really into cryptocurrencies now. Please pay me in bitcoin.

These days, the Chinese and Russians can get whatever they want from companies like Equifax without leaving the comfort of their own homes or dealing with messy human interactions. Either one of them can, and most likely did, hack Equifax at will.

I would be surprised if a large company with very good security practices could resist them indefinitely, Equifax wasn't going to hold them off.

The difference between state actors and regular thieves is the state actors don't want anyone to know about it. Sony got wrecked by North Korea because they wanted them to feel the pain. That could happen at almost any company, just the state actors want a long-term strategic advantage not a short-term one.

The ubiquity of technology in all aspects of our society makes us extremely vulnerable to losing a digital war. We have so much more to lose, and so much more surface area vulnerable to attack. Seriously, North Korea was able to assert their will on us just to (successfully) keep a movie from being released to theaters.

I'm not sure about that. The US still consumes a lot more than it produces. It might be the largest oil producer by a little, but it is the largest oil consumer by a lot. Looks like, net of exports, US production needs to rise several million barrels a day more to be really capable of meeting its own supply. Unless you are thinking of other Western countries that have enough surplus to cover the difference for the rest?

Relevant data: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur....

I partially agree with your analysis, though I think our system is definitely better, just by reasoning about human nature.

An oligarchy is efficient but can be oppressive. Also, the ancient Greeks figured that an oligarchy naturally evolved into an even more efficient government, a dictatorship (see Xi's purges of rivals, and preparing the stage to retain power indefinitely). And a dictatorship eventually always ends up in the hands of an incapable, uncaring, or downright cruel person, leading to misery for everyone.

My understanding is that was why we put so many checks and balances in the US government, we'd rather do things our own complicated way than submit to a tyrant.

The only problem would be if the US system becomes so weak that it was vulnerable to being conquered by a tyrannical system that was at the height of its power.

I thought I had this experience years ago, I'm surprised this is only happening now.

I use an email app (just regular Mail on the mac) to access my Gmail. Your email is stored and synced locally so it is accessible offline, and you don't get these shenanigans. Also I use Firefox.

But let's be honest, even if you aren't logged in, and aren't using Chrome, at this point if Google is not recognizing you it is only because they are pretending not to. I'd bet they have a pretty good record of my internet activity.

Yea, well that is the result of our more socialized system. My better health care plan was canceled when the affordable care act was implemented, and I had to get a worse one. These government healthcare systems (which, long story, I happen to be on now, I don't pay a cent) are even worse. You want to see someone, you need to get permission. First, get in line to get permission, then get in line to actually get the specialist. And there is no option to do it any other way. So I don't see how the European systems solve these problems. At least in the US, in some places, we still have choice.

Good to know. In the US, your employer pays half of the social security, that's around 7% of your income, plus some medicare taxes that are a lot less.

My point around the healthcare was that, yes it's an issue, no it's not really an issue for the HN crowd. If you are some sort of programmer/engineer, and want good healthcare, you can get it. And you will avoid making foolish decisions around it, and don't need people to make all your choices for you.

I ran my own small business, provided great healthcare for myself and a couple of employees, and managed to have good healthcare after I shut the company down and was unemployed for a while. I had to do a little research and make a couple good decisions, then it wasn't an issue. And that was before the Affordable Care Act, which provides free healthcare in many states for people who can't afford it.

The one thing is, if you are not working for a decent company, yes, you have to think about it and prepare for it before hand, it isn't all taken care for you without you doing anything. So I say, for the vast majority of people on HN it's not that bad.

And worst comes to worst, you are being irresponsible or have fallen through the cracks, and you get into a car accident, the hospital is going to take care of you anyway.

The healthcare issues in the US can be a little overblown. People in good careers get good healthcare insurance provided by the company. You often have to pay a copay to ensure you don't abuse the medical system, but seeing someone for a scraped elbow vs. brain surgery are basically the same nominal fee for the best health insurance. And you get to see the doctors you choose, when you want, often very quickly.

If you can't afford healthcare at all, they will bill you but you don't have to pay and they can't turn you away from a hospital emergency room. So basically government mandated free healthcare provided by private companies.

The problem is the lower and middle class, if you don't have insurance but do have something to lose, or if you have minimal insurance and a large medical issue, you can lose all your assets paying for healthcare.

What you said that's really interesting to me is that the high tax rate is paid in full by your company and not counted in your salary. Is that true all over Europe, like France for instance? I am always amazed by the really low salaries but if every bit of it is what you actually keep, it's not so bad. I didn't know it worked that way.

It's really encouraging to see this comment. I wonder about this, not being a woman myself. In my workplace (east coast USA) there are plenty of women in technical roles, definitely a minority but still significant. I don't think it was done on purpose, it just happened as far as I can tell. And I would like to think their experiences haven't been like the author's, where it seems many coworkers are basically enemies to be overcome. But I've definitely seen a coworker or two do some stupid things. No, you are not respecting your female coworker by hitting on her and telling her how good she looks today (that guy got fired, but unfortunately for different reasons). There might be a lot more subtle things going on that I am not sensitive to, but I can't imagine porn actually being up in the office, that's just unprofessional even with all guys, and I would be asking those awkward questions about it myself (not that I am doubting that it happened to the author).

It was very difficult for me to adjust as a new engineer, including with code reviews and all that, and I wonder if I had an outsider identity how tempting it would be to blame my problems on that. Never being sure if the difficulty was because of prejudice or not. Probably one of the worst effects of discrimination, causing you to have suspicion and doubt all the time because it might really be warranted.

Anyway, a lot of these tips are just in general pretty good advice, even for a guy. And an environment that is friendly to women and that makes her advice unnecessary is better environment for everyone to work in.