twright0

This isn't the nomenclature I'd use. What you describe as a "Technical EM" is what I'd call a "Tech Lead", who doesn't have people management responsibilities (things like 1:1s, recruiting, growth and success of the team, etc) and focuses solely on the technical execution of a team. In my book an EM is always responsible for those people management things, and I'd use "Technical EM" to describe an EM who secondarily takes on some or all Tech Lead responsibilities, directly contributes code, etc.

NYC is about an order of magnitude larger than SF in many different ways - for example, total population (8.6m vs 880k people) and area (302 vs 46 square miles). So comparing absolute number of homeless people between the two cities is not likely to be a useful thing to do. Your link does however demonstrate that NYC has a slightly higher percentage of homeless population than SF - .9% vs .7%. So I tend to agree that there's something else that contributes to it being a larger conversation in SF than NYC beyond just the number/percentage of people.

Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?

Netflix already runs (skippable but autoplaying) ads for its own original content between episodes of other things on its service.

If your go-to example of "mods on power trips" is requiring basic respect for other peoples' personhood and right to their own identity, I'm inclined to agree it's not a particularly large problem.

(I'm a former kinda-good amateur climber who capped out at 5.12 on a (very) good day in my high school years, and who's related to a former national champion climber) (EDIT: 5.12 in a gym, not outdoors)

I won't speak for anyone else, but in my experience: if you hang out with truly world-class climbers, occasionally getting through a 5.12 doesn't feel impressive at all. Nobody's trying to make you feel worse, of course, but watching someone effortlessly nail something I sweated and struggled through permanently puts my opinion of myself in a strongly-caveated place. "Elite amateur" is a label that's very difficult to self-apply because you see the people who are in the tier(s) above you and it's impossible to not make the comparison. It was pretty motivating for a while for me but I think of myself as "just okay" (even at my best) at climbing because I know how high the ceiling is.

> Both parties win with it

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, only five elections have ever been won by someone lacking a plurality of the popular vote. Three of those cases happened before 1900. If we look only at the more modern examples, the Republicans have won the presidency but lost the popular vote twice (2016 and 2000) and the Democrats have never done this. In fact, this is a true statement over all of time, but once you get back more then a century the political parties are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.

That is to say: the Democrats have never had a presidential election that they won without winning the popular vote. I do not love the two party system either, but in this case it doesn't feel fair to say that both parties are currently equally benefitting from the Electoral College.

You only read the stories written by pilots who are good story tellers; nobody shares the rest.

How to Train Your Dragon was released in 2010. They haven't made anything as good since then, but it feels unfair to blame that on a 2016 acquisition.

> you won't get stabbed anywhere in SF (so live in the sketchy area it'll get nicer each year)

This is flatly untrue and bad advice - there are absolutely areas of San Francisco where you run the risk of being the victim of physical violence. Some people will be comfortable living in that kind of environment but many won't, and suggesting that all of San Francisco is uniformly safe is irresponsible.

I believe that sign-in-with-X implementations require actually authenticating with X in that context. So in order to sign in with Google to a website, I need to sign into Google itself in the same browser. So in that sense, you are enabling Google to track you in that browser - but no differently than if you just logged into gmail. You could sign back out of Google immediately afterwards.

But just the fact that an app uses Google authentication doesn't give Google any kind of privileged access to that app's data (beyond purely the data that they're logging in on this browser at this point in time) unless the app is pushing data actively back to Google (which they could do anyway for a gmail-managed email address, I guess) or you believe that Google will then subsequently forge authentication requests to that app and pull data out itself. Both of these things are hypothetical violations of your privacy enabled by using auth-with-Google, but for most use cases are rather unlikely, I would guess.

He was 19 at the time he wrote that. He is 33 now. I'm not sure it's natural or fair to judge someone predominantly on an off-the-cuff comment they made almost half their lives ago. I certainly said things at 19 that I wouldn't want attached to my professional identity and that aren't representative of my beliefs and mindset now. While I don't know you, the same is likely true of you, or will be someday.

How long in the past does something like that need to be before you can start taking other evidence into account?

Both of those articles are discussing the use of Adderall as a study aid, not a party drug. I think folks in this thread are objecting to its depiction as the latter specifically, not the fact that it is heavily used on college campuses in general.

> In college, especially, these drugs are used as study-aid medication to help students stay up all night and cram.

> My friend pulled two blue pills out of tinfoil and handed them to me. An hour later, I was in the basement of the library, hunkered down in the Absolute Quiet Room, in a state of peerless ecstasy.

There may be something to that idea, but the Wikipedia article mentions several studies that cannot be explained that way. For example, the study discussed in "Origins" looked at companies who were adding new board members, and discovered that they were more likely to add a woman if the company had been performing poorly in the preceding months. If the glass cliff phenomenon is simply a result of increasing availability of women in leadership, then you would expect that study to show no difference between companies performing well and companies performing poorly.

Indeed - this is actually a phenomenon with a name: the "glass cliff". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff

This is an interesting approach to request rate limiting - the simplicity and lack of tuning is definitely appealing.

Did you do anything to mitigate the scenario where multiple users are behind the same IP address? With this approach I would worry about locking out all users in a NAT when a single user misbehaves.

It's also scary to me to process something "last" - under high enough load you might never get back to the (potentially briefly) abusive user? Did you attempt to guarantee some minimum passthrough rate even for misbehaving users?

free() doesn't know what portion of the memory you allocated actually got written to. So for the model where a large, page-spanning buffer is allocated and only a small portion used, this approach causes many unnecessary page faults at free () time as it tries to zero out lots of memory that was never used or paged in at all.

As long as we're sharing anecdotes, I've been watching Pixar movies since I was quite young - Toy Story was the first movie I saw in the theaters, at the age of four - and I have consistently loved them. Toy Story was my favorite movie for years as a child.

There are some mildly scary or tense scenes in many Pixar movies but I think children are more receptive to that kind of experience than you think they are. There is definitely a question of age appropriateness / maturity that you would want to think about before showing one to a very young child, but that's the responsibility of you as the adult, not Pixar. Kids movies aren't one size fits all. And it certainly doesn't feel like a valid criticism of the quality of the storytelling to say that some children are scared by them; tension and investment in the outcome by the viewer are hallmarks of good storytelling, not bad.

You can be on call without ever getting paged. As long as the expectation exists that you're available, it doesn't matter whether you actually get paged or not - you're already shifting your plans so you stay within reach of a laptop, with cell signal, etc.

Being paged is the least bad part of being on call. The restrictions on your life outside of work are what really grate.

I'll also point out that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes (2%), which makes it really stretch the imagination to even call it a "near-landslide".

Can you explain what each of those types are and how they map to the three machines discussed in this post? It's pretty non-obvious to me.

I can definitely believe that you, as an individual, have driven tens of thousands of dollars in sales Apple's way over the last decade. But even if we assume that there are tens of thousands of people doing the same thing as you (as effectively as you) for the same reasons, that adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars, which is three orders of magnitude below Apple's sales per year, and your impact is stretched out over a decade. Hard to see that loss as more than a rounding error on any Apple projection.

What I'm asking after, I suppose, is evidence that there are "gazillions" of former "Unix converts" driving significantly more money than I'm estimating here. I still continue to feel like this whole "software developers are influencers" line of argumentation when it comes to Apple products is just wishful thinking crossed with extrapolating from very limited personal anecdotes.

> But here’s the problem: sitting in this niche of excluded users are some of Apple’s strongest supporters, the influencers that create word of mouth...

I see this point made a lot, especially on Hacker News whenever this general topic comes up. I'm just curious: what evidence is there to support this point of view?

I'm as frustrated as the next software engineer that the new Macbook Pros aren't targeted at me or users like me (and that there hasn't been a new Mac Pro in a long time), and my next primary machine may well not be an Apple product when my current Macbook Pro ages out. But I don't really see an argument that draws a line between that fact and a future perception issue for Apple - and that seems to be accepted as gospel whenever the topic of Apple comes up in developer circles. Who are these "influencers" whose opinions purportedly closely align with software engineers' and why do consumers care about them?

In principle, that's definitely an issue. In practice, we don't have that problem at all (certainly not since Facebook fired their "trending" editorial department). Maybe we should try to optimize for solving the problem we have (fake news) and worry about the barriers to entry / rule-imposition by gatekeepers when they actually arise?

In general, any process that allows an individual to verify their vote after the fact will enable coercion over voting. For example, in your proposal, an unscrupulous boss could make a demand before the election: "You must tell me the one-time ID you're voting with. If you choose not to, or if that ID doesn't show up in the registry having cast a vote for <candidate>, you're fired." I think that, no matter what the process is, if I can check how I voted I can also be made to check how I voted while someone watches over my shoulder and threatens consequences.

It might be a good idea with comments like this to disclose that you're professionally involved with ESOFund - most people won't click through to your profile to discover that.

Except no matter what, no engineer functions in a vacuum. In your compression hypothetical, how do you measure the contribution of the engineers who did the code reviews? Who maintain the build environment and test suite that let the "100X" engineer quickly and confidently develop? Who wrote the initial code such that it was possible to add this compression after the fact at all? Who spend their time fixing bugs so the "100X" engineer had bandwidth for this compression project at all? Without those people, the "100X" engineer would have taken longer and made more mistakes, or never even attempted it at all. So it seems unreasonable (and even potentially demoralizing to the rest of the eng team) to call that one engineer a "100X engineer".

Things are accomplished by teams, not individuals.

The American team made it to the semi-finals. They had one bad loss to Argentina but it's pretty inaccurate to characterize their performance as "getting crushed".

They might be aware of the dangers of radiation in the abstract, but they might not be able to read our current marking systems to learn that there is a specific threat from radiation at that specific location. 10,000 years is a very long time to try to preserve information across.

But you said "everything else being equal", so I'm confused why you're highlighting the extreme negative examples. If you interview a math major and a CS major and they both do equally well on those simple analytical problems - would you still rather hire the math major?