ralmeida

I’ve never been to China, but it appears numbers are chosen over letters for ease of memorization, and are not always random digits: https://gizmodo.com/why-do-chinese-urls-use-numbers-not-lett...

What’s the general “hit rate” of date commitments? Do 100% of announcements go live by the specified date?

Nice touch that deleting letters descends chromatically. Letters typed appear unrelated to notes generated, you can type the same letter and it will keep generating different notes.

Also, it seems it will never resolve to the root, no matter what you type :(

Froost or Notion? Froost's homepage says "subscribe for early access".

Regarding statement freshness, derefr already answered. Regarding username/password, in Brazil at least yes (sort of) - you log in with account number and a password, but it's sort of a "read-only password" - you can see statements and stuff with it, but if you want to actually move the money, a different password is required.

Trivia: this is used by a Mint-like company in Brazil called GuiaBolso - you give them just the "read-only password".

Yes, but a DB of "transaction notifications" your bank sent you could still be useful so you can reconcile/debug if needed, much like the actual bank statement.

I do agree that the DB could be removed from the system, adding the transaction directly from the SES-triggered event, and that would work for most cases.

It does, but it also keeps YNAB more in sync with your bank account, since transactions will typically take a couple days to show up in the statement.

Not OP, but there's not much to do about them - best way is to enter manually in the app at the time of purchase or write them down in a notebook and enter them in batch once in a couple days or per week.

If your cash spending is sufficiently small that you don't care much to tracking each cash transaction individually, you can just track money as a category instead of an account - just record an outflow transaction in your bank account when you withdraw.

Of course OP was being rethorical, but I disagree that public outcry was necessarily the most likely cause. It could have had less influence than the massive amount of private paying customers feedback they undoubtedly received.

No - OP meant computationally expensive, not cognitively expensive. Two nested for-loops can be O(nˆ2) but can have a cyclomatic complexity as low as 1.

What’s the practical difference between having an internal microservice which handles subscriptions/charging and using Stripe, for example?

When this happens, it’s usually meant as a RPC endpoint, yes. However, it can be an abstraction, especially if you call it “POST /my-account/charges”, in plural form: you’re sending a new object to the “charges” resource (this architectural technique is usually called reification)

Why exactly should we trust you?

I don't mean to read minds here, but the only way I was able to parse your message is that "something" refers to suffering, and it seems you're implying that suffering exists and is common, but is not necessarily an important topic?

Or did I misunderstand something?

I’m not sure I follow - what do you mean?

I believe parent comment meant that if all humans were to somehow stop existing at once, there would be no humans suffering.

It's a good thing you are reconsidering the approach, but I don't see how this is related to this "title subthread". At the time this subthread started, the title was "Gitlab mandating third-party telemetry, locks out user access until accepted" and these things were, in fact, true at that time. The fact that telemetry had not yet implemented did not change the fact that it was being mandated.

I would like to also note that my stance that the non-original title (at the time) was fine does not have anything to do with that title "looking bad" for GitLab. For example, the title now is "Gitlab ‘rethinking’ third-party telemetry", which is also not the original title, looks somewhat good for GitLab and I think it's fine.

It's a non-original title, but Wiktionary for example lists "presenting an opinion as fact" as a necessary requirement to call something "editorialized": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/editorialize#English

Well, I guess that would be open to interpretation - I don't get from the sentence that the "very specific circumstances" refer exclusively to the paragraphs above. Otherwise, they would have written "outside the circumstances mentioned above" or omitted the brackets entirely, IMO.

I believe they phrased it this way so some discretion can be exercised if the original title doesn't give the full context. Another example is the recent Tesla story - original title is "Q3 2019 Update", story title is "Tesla Q3 Financial Results". The HN story for when MS bought GitHub is "Microsoft acquires GitHub", while original title was "Microsoft + GitHub = Empowering Developers".

If there wasn't such a leeway, most acquisition stories would be titled "Our incredible journey".

I totally get where you're coming from, but the full sentence is:

> Otherwise [outside a set of very specific circumstances], please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

I'm not sure what would count as "specific circumstances". One could argue though that the original title was "editorialized", since GitLab has an incentive to soften the blow of the news, especially since the original title doesn't tell much about the news itself (what is the important update)?

Not sure this would be fully editorializing, since the updated title (currently "Gitlab mandating third-party telemetry, locks out user access until accepted") is objectively factual and true.

Absolutely. If A and B are significantly correlated, either A causes B, or B causes A or X causes both.

The article itself, citing the study, presents some possible mechanisms through which such a reduction could be explained.

Strider (strider.ag), where I work at, is a segment leader in Latin America, and FarmShots (YC alumn) (farmshots.com) and Cropio (about.cropio.com) are some other examples.

To be fair, the cited displacement of 8 ft (average for non-earthquake situations is 0 to 10cm) is within the typical margin of error of a GPS. That is, the coordinate change is small enough not to matter for “election” purposes.

Yes - another way to look at it is that liquid cash in company's bank accounts is an asset of the company and the company valuation "includes" it.

After you're set on the general product you are building, that's fine. But consider you're trying to decide whether to build product A or B for deadline X. Which one has the largest probablity of finishing on time?

I'm not advocating having engineers estimate the completion date of their daily tasks, I'm just saying estimates aren't totally useless.

For another viewpoint that's not just mine, consider point 6 of the Joel Test, or the methodology of Evidence-Based Scheduling, also by Joel Spolsky (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/10/26/evidence-based-sch...).

This sometimes works for games, but not for everything. Consider, for example:

* Tax-reporting software

* Adding a coupon system to your ecommerce software in time for Black Friday

* etc

That's absolutely fine and a good way to work. However, I do still believe that plain old estimation has its place. Consider that you are part of a bunch of executives deciding in January whether to build a product A, which would have to be done by Black Friday, or product B, which would have to be done by Christmas.

Even after such a high-level decision is made, a broad scope estimate must also sometimes be made. For example: "would we have time to add a chatbot to this product?". If so, you could need to hire people with the relevant experience and have them ramp up. But if you have an estimate in the spirit of "well, must-haves A, B and C are probably going to take no less than X months, and the chatbot would take just as long if not more, so it's better to drop the chatbot idea and invest its budget elsewhere".

I understand that sometimes a project 'takes as long as it takes', but how does one deal with extrinsic deadlines then? For example, software that needs to be 'on the shelves' by the next Black Friday, or the next tax reporting season.

Estimates can't predict the future, of course, but good management will know that 'make the deadline, no matter how' is not the only option - changing scope is another popular option, for example.

Nowhere in the post says the streamer was suicidal. It says they were depressed.

Even if it did, the suicidal person themselves thinking suicide is selfish is a totally different thing than someone else saying it to them, especially in a moment of crisis.