quelltext

> Lists are monads

Isn't it just that you can define monadic interfaces for lists, as you can with (probably all) parametric data types?

Saying "the list monad" wouldn't be correct, right? Although it's pretty common to see that phrase.

I think the original start of this comment thread was about taking on an extra job and then wiggling your way out of it being discovered by saying it was deepfakes, then another poster saying they cannot imagine having several jobs and winging them. Whether that was assumed to be occurring under fake identities wasn't clear.

So, yeah, I'd say maintaining fake identities is hard no matter what and illegal.

But I think even before that folks are wondering how people can maintain several jobs at the same time, regardless of fake identity or not.

> "do you think repeating this across files will be problematic?"

If you write that you clearly think it's problematic but hide it behind an unnatural question. Then either I do what you hint at or you will push / discuss until I agree. I am not the determiner. It sounds like you are schooling me with an awkward back and forth.

Honestly, to me this is beating around the bush and doesn't actually make me confident we can have a real discussion (in the context of that code review).

"Do you perhaps think that doing this <tylically discouraged coding practice> is problematic?" sounds like either you want to passively insult me, or you don't consider me a peer with whom to have an actual discussion on equal footing, or you don't have the guts to share your opinion without contortions.

> Then the industry started figuring out that the virtual DOM was kind of a scam from a performance standpoint

Could you elaborate?

Not a frontend guy but my understanding was that the virtual DOM is what's necessary to enable a simplified model where you can code as if your entire view was rerendered from scratch when there's a change.

Mutating the DOM only where and when you need to in a handcrafted fashion is always going to be faster, it's just not scalable, I guess.

So, in that context the virtual DOM is not really a scam. Not sure in what sense it is? Was it claimed to be performing better than it does?

The best experiences I had were working on products I cared about deeply in a way a PM should AND there actually was a PM involved who did care about them. In fact everybody involved should.

However, in a project there is a bunch of stuff you need to do that's mainly specific to product management. Tracking the feedback, talking to users, coordination with other product teams, covering the nontechnical pieces, etc. Every stakeholder does their thing. The PM in most cases doesn't code, a legal or compliance stakeholder doesn't try to talk to users or come up with product feature roadmaps, the engineers don't create the artwork etc.

The shittiest experience is when you work on a product with a formal PM but you wonder what it even is they are doing, not engaging in shaping the details just signing off, not talking to stakeholders, etc. and you, the engineer, has to fill in. Buuut you also cannot just do whatever because the PM exists and needs to be consulted.

This is basically a chat bot interface.

Google used to have a way to ask for searches via SMS a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J937N9m-XtE

But "tunneling" to me implies some transparent layer allowing you to browse Wikipedia via the same way of interaction.

You need a French address though.

Should I Create a Snarky Website with a Rhetorical Question?

I have seen this for a lot of people where I work and frankly I don't read those. If I offend you in some obscure way, fine tell me and I'll try to avoid it next time. But no I'm not reading your user manual first.

Not for each user's own rules.

There's one set of rules. You don't need to read my own personal rules on some dedicated page before you are entitled to reply to this comment.

So how does a binary search work when the disk blocks are essentially a linked list as the top answer initially says? They just assume that it's possible to jump through a contiguous array of blocks for their later analysis but initially state blocks aren't necessary contiguous.

I guess for the particular use case the simple string hash works. In the worst case you lock a few more likely unrelated users.

However, in some cases you want to enact a specific locking order on some objects that interact, and in particular if locks aren't reentrant, I'd be cautious and at least use a cryptographic hash here to reduce likelihood if collisions.

> Also with regards to fundamental changes to the immune system - this is also true.

As far as I understand (from the wikipedia article) the Hoskins effect (also) applies if you simply got infected once. It's not something specific to the vaccine.

Claiming the "vaccine causes a fundamental change" is a bit misleading. The vaccine OR infective exposure have the described effect, which is normal! And altering the immune system to prepare it for future infections is the point of any vaccine, isn't it?

Now, one might say that it's not good to vaccinate everyone so that there remains a population that can get freshly infected with new variants and build up immunity fresh. But they'd then be altering their immune system by the response to that as well, if they don't die from the infection.

You think a product manager was in any way involved with a function signature. I'm fairly certain this didn't come up in more detail than a requirement: "We need to add a way to call a macro...". And the story as told by the PM would be "...and so the engineers added a way".

I've worked with a bunch of PMs on technical products, APIs, etc. and I've rarely met anyone discussing that level of detail or willing or able to make such a decision.

The engineers chose a way that worked and it's likely the best way supported at the time, given the other comments I've read here on HN.

Why not the free version?

I have a hunch it's the same with Japan (part 1 of this).

House prices in attractive areas (in and around Tokyo) have increased drastically over the last few years.

Meanwhile, houses in the countryside are on the market for almost (and often literally) nothing.

I guess the question is what the data is actually measuring. would still expect the graphs to show an increase if they measure the price of actually sold property.

Just checked OECD data and to me it looks like prices are rising in similar ways in Germany and the US since 2015. Japan does in fact seem less steep but it's still rising, not flat as the graphs on TFA would suggest: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6ztU

Uber Lyft AirBnB

IMO these acronyms have reached the point where they don't really serve a purpose.

> Now it’s electrical stoves and central heating in many places.

What's "central heating"? I believe Germany already uses central heating in most places. The question is what powers it. Can it be efficiently replaced by renewable-energy (!) electric heating vs. fossil? Other commenters have posited "no".

The way I see it, investing in nuclear should have been part of the plan, instead of replacing it with renewables (vs. doing so for those uses of fossil where renewables make sense). The fear of nuclear energy in Germany is just ridiculous IMO, and arguably has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. With nuclear power on its way out know how and effort to research and to maintain existing plants and investment in it are at a minimum making continued operation now a liability.

That really depends on the programming language.

For example {| might be paired with |} as special quotation syntax, at any rate some form of bracket. See, Fira Code has a ligature for those.

But in Ruby you'd see one of them in one liner blocks, e.g.: list.map {|x| x*x}

Here {| is not a thing that should be combined. It would look really confusing as you'd search in vain for a corresponding closing special bracket. { and } denote the block and | and | the argument(s).

How symbols are combined to form meaningful units depends on the syntax of a language and this issue cannot be avoided. So your milage may vary.

I'd be on board more if ligatures were applied in a language specific way, aware of the meaning of tokens in context, e.g. to leave <= in string literals alone, render it ⇐ when used as an arrow (maybe in a language that has left arrows), and something like ≦ when used in a comparison context.

But the same thing being rendered in different ways may be very confusing (unless there's an easy on/off toggle).

Is that really the previous design, though? I remember being presented with this button before and ended up on an extremely bare bones version of Gmail (like something built for 2G feature phone browsers) that didn't have support for changing mail settings, etc.

What do you mean?

That just sounds like a fixed version, I presume to continue the study, where the researcher is transparent about their identity and intention.

Why would they just let you in because of your family history? I presume your ancestors once left Germany to find a new country to live in and became successful there.

Not saying that Germany shouldn't "let you back in" if you want to immigrate back, but the mere fact that your ancestors were German should not qualify you more (safe for certain exceptional populations in recent war history) than others whose ancestors might for instance come from the UK.

Why are you still their customer?

> the majority of candidates will not want their existing employer to be contacted for a reference until they have accepted the offer.

That's even more of an issue, no? You accept the offer but don't yet resign (as others have said one should) until final confirmation, they tell your employer that you are joining, then rescind the offer, and now what?

> For example, tasks at Facebook have SLAs and I saw plenty of games played to avoid dealing with tasks. Examples: changing priority to increase or remove the SLA, silently closing tasks, passing tasks back months later to the reporter asking "is this still an issue?", etc.

What kind of tasks are you referring to in the context of on call here? Tasks to remedy the root cause of repeated alarms paging folks?

> result in the recipient learning two things about the sender (name and phone number, both of which are configurable at transaction time)

The recipient of Japanese bank transfers only gets the name. The phone number is only for the sending bank's side to reach out to the sender in case the transfer failed. Particularly of importance when you make transfers without owning an account at the sending bank (not sure how common that feature is outside Japan).

Also of note, the Zengin system actually allows additional metadata in so-called EDI messages. However it's somewhat rare to see this offered by interfaces, and so likely not generally suitable. Here's one example: https://faq-chibabank.dga.jp/faq_detail.html?id=31

> The Single Europe Payment Area (SEPA) offers free, instant transactions between European banks. They’re pull based

There are also push based SEPA transfers. Not that the article claims there aren't, just seems incomplete to present only the push based version for Japan (and not furikae and its challenges) and only the pull based version for Europe.

Wikipedia on NVC states that critics say:

The method requires a substantial amount of effort (time) to learn and apply, and assumes a certain level of education.

Not that I know or could tell that the critics are right, but is it really just that easy to teach and learn?

I feel like there's always something odd about some of these taught communication techniques, where I feel like there's a reason these communication styles don't come naturally to us, and there is a bit of a manipulative aspect to them.

This applies to peer feedback as well. Every few months we have to choose peers to evaluate us (not anonymously) and vice versa and the official peer feedback forms always ask for feedback on how the peer could improve. Real feedback isn't provided. You always have to come up with both positive and negative feedback. And obviously nobody wants to be an ass, so the negative feedback is extremely muted or some fake ideas for development are provided. I just want to tell someone and their manager how good a job they did, or in some rare cases help identify issues.

It seems like a farce, really. I also had quarters in which I got glowing peer reviews where folks declined to fill in the development piece, and my very off hands manager came up with some made up generic negative feedback for me that did not come up before.

It is a good way to ask the question but I don't think the explanation is on point. These are different questions after all.

Someone who needs to save face when asked if content made sense will have not understood the talk. It's doubtfull they'll have anything to add to make your explanation clearer if asked for that, not without again losing face and admitting they didn't understand a certain part.

However I do think the rephrased question will invite more feedback from those who already understood the content and themselves are aware of the more bumpy pieces and want to point them out. Those folks are indeed more ready to now provide feedback.