BigBubbleButt

> but I'm not going to haggle over whether or not it meets a formal definition

I'm not trying to haggle, but we can't have a meaningful conversation about a term if you aren't going to define it.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

What you just described is an example of imposter syndrome (at least the way I think of it). The comment I was responding to was not.

If the lawyer feels like an imposter in her current role, that's different from feeling like an imposter in a role you don't even have. This is the distinction I'm making, and why I think the label doesn't fit. Should I feel like I have imposter syndrome because I'd be uncomfortable as a professional athlete, something I don't do? Or should I just realize I don't have confidence to do something else? To me those are very different. Recognizing I can't do everything isn't a form of imposter syndrome - if it is it makes the label completely meaningless.

I'm aware it's a psychological condition. We're arguing over something we haven't even defined yet though, so how would you define it?

You can call it whatever you want, but if the description doesn't fit I think it's fair to say it's at best a poor label. And it will always lead to confusion when just trying to communicate something. Why not just call a spade a spade?

That just sounds like a lack of confidence. If you aren't an imposter, why would you call it imposter syndrome?

> Given that, unless they want to commercialise fruit picking or warehouse robots, it seems sensible.

How successful do you think attempts to monetize this will be? Apart from Kiva at Amazon, I'm not even sure most shelf-moving robots are profitable enterprises (GreyOrange, Berkshire Grey, etcetera). I'm very skeptical of more general purpose warehouse robots such as you see from Covariance, Fetch, etcetera. I don't really know too much about fruit-picking other than grokking how hard it would be and how little it would pay.

To be clear, I'm not saying these companies make no money or have no customers. But it's not clear to me that any of them are profitable or likely will be soon, and robots are very expensive. I'm happy to learn why I'm wrong and these companies/technologies are further ahead than I realize.

This is completely unethical and unreasonable. It's like arguing that police don't need more accountability because it makes it harder for them to do their jobs, and most of them aren't bad people, so who cares about a few bad apples?

Yeah it sucks, but it's part of the job. Start thinking about the people you're supposedly serving instead of yourself first. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of facebook users want to hear about tighter privacy protections at facebook, not fewer.

> https://www.bikeexif.com/ducati-sidecarcross

They seem to have accidentally replaced the word 'awesome' with 'obnoxious' - a common mistake.

How many years does it take a team of 10 to get to their 100th hire? If they only replace 1 person a year, ~100 interviews a year sounds pretty normal to me (it actually sounds low compared to where I last worked where I sometimes interviewed multiple people a day).

I know plenty of people in India who trade US stocks and they don't have to put up that much in assets. You've made so many other factually incorrect statements I don't know if you're lying or ignorant but I know for a fact you're wrong.

> Unless you count making money as not enough of a use case.

So then you're agreeing that the only real use case for crypto is speculation, and not something normal people should care about.

> By that standard, majority of Wall Street has no use case either, since much of the money is made entirely on speculation.

I think most educated people would agree that Wall St is a drain on society the same as targeted ads. The world is better without it. Are ads also useful because of how much money they make?

> HN will willfully ignore crypto and miss out not only on life changing money, but one of the few places in tech that is still fun and exciting and hasn’t been “corporatized”.

I really hope you're not so naïve that you don't realize crypto markets are being manipulated by big banks.

The simulated contacts are when Waymo investigates what happens after a driver disengages and concludes they would have had a collision, not the actual contacts measured from simulation.

I know, confusing right?

Are you saying we shouldn't protect consumers?

Doesn't misogyny create hardship for half the human race?

And slavery has been around for the length of humanity and still exists today. That doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Ultimately it's subjective and a value judgment. You do you.

EDIT: I shortened OP's "not entirely inappropriate" to "appropriate"

You might want to reconsider demonizing half the human race. But if not, there's a community for you over at /r/redpill

My God, I had completely forgotten about this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnAa7rqtBM

Well, a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East is at least partially (I'd argue mostly) to blame because of the US.

Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA. I think it's relatively accepted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so that entire invasion/war could be classified as terrorism. There are countless drone strikes with civilian casualties around the world. Whether or not you agree with why we did it, the CIA is credited with Stuxnet (it's terrorism even if you think this is one of the "good" ones).

There are certainly more, but let's not pretend like the US isn't intimately involved in directly inserting itself into international affairs illegitimately.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

What were you using it for? I'll be upfront in saying that my experience with GCP was awful, but I can appreciate that others found it useful and would be curious to learn more.

I second PICO-8

That's certainly part of it. But I think it's also the same reason Kodak invented the digital camera and then ignored it. It was more profitable to keep doing what they were doing, and they were so invested in it.

The automobile industry has invested hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars into R&D for the internal combustion engine.

I'm not sure I buy the premise of your argument that middle managers are to blame for everything wrong at corporations (at least that's how I'm interpreting it).

And I definitely don't buy that no executive ever heard this.

> Just think about how much more accepted homosexuality is today compared to 25 years ago.

Is that because older people willingly changed their views, or older people died and younger people replaced them? I suspect 90% of that change is from generational shifts, not people learning with time. In other words, the old died out and the young replaced them.

In my anecdotal experience, most older people I know aren't any less racist/prejudiced than they used to be - they're just afraid to talk about it more.

> Any problem gradient with a chance of unlocking immortality should be leaned into.

Why? Death is an important, and probably the least appreciated, aspect of evolution. Humanity can't change if the powers-that-be literally never go away. And that's ignoring finite resources on the planet.

Would you rather live forever or have children?

The self-driving cars can act as super surveillance systems by themselves though.

I've always found it odd nobody, specifically Samsung or Sony (since Sony already makes their own high-end CMOS sensors), doesn't ship a phone with a slightly superior sensor?

Yes, I get the unit economics of it (at least I think I do, I've never worked in the phone industry so that could easily be hubris on my part), but if you can spend an extra few dollars or even tens of dollars on your BOM for something that is clearly, objectively a better camera to everything else out there I don't see how Samsung couldn't trivially add a minimum $200 markup just for that.

And you don't even need that. You could add a sensor that's just a few dollars more expensive at scale - it seems the margins are trivially there since that would easily justify a $50 markup. I realize the optics also matter, but at this point it's really the sensors limiting the phones, not the cheap glass.

In an industry where everyone is struggling for an edge, it just seems painfully obvious to do this to me. I look forward to someone more knowledgeable telling me why all my assumptions are wrong though (I mean that literally, no snark intended!).

How often would you say lithium helps and how often would you say it was a net-negative when considering the side effects of patients you've treated?

> USNC not UNSC.

...isn't it USNT (not USNC)?

I've never played Halo though so I just assume I'm missing something.

EDIT: I was just referring to the abbreviation for what GP said, "U"nited "S"tates "N"uclear "T"echnologies

> Quite frankly, the pills work.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I had a seizure because of medication I was put on for a mental illness I didn't believe I had. I wasn't 18 and my parents essentially forced me to take them. The pills didn't do anything for me besides give me a seizure that easily could've killed me (I was hospitalized).

There's also actual research suggesting these pills can increase suicide attempts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353604/

There is enormous money to be made suggesting these pills are useful, so I don't just assume it to be true. I also know many other people who feel anti-depressants ruined their lives. I also know many people who feel anti-depressants saved their lives.

It's not black and white. Personally, I feel the efficacy of pills for mental health are greatly exaggerated - but it's easy to see why I might be biased.

Fair point. Thank you.