Your experience with small to mid-sized firms does sound depressingly typical and I've experienced it too, but I think it's worth mentioning that Amazon specifically won't reject you for not saying a number.
1,089 karma · joined August 9, 2015
As for salary negotiations, the best piece of advice I got was to never say a number. You really don't have to, you can just keep saying some variation of "industry standard", their median salary numbers on Glassdoor, etc.
This is true for Amazon specifically: I never told them a number despite being asked by several different recruiters, and the offer I ended getting was slightly above their average. If you want more than that there may be some other technique involved, but if you're more concerned about being undercompensated, definitely don't get tied to any number.
Few nativists are opposed to the best and the brightest (and the already-wealthy) coming to the US in very, very small numbers, but what they don't realize is that it's pretty much impossible to tell in advance who's going to be a winning lottery ticket.
This is not to say that his patients don't enjoy some subjective benefits, or that diet and exercise and mental stimulation aren't helpful, but Dr. Bredesen cannot have any scientific insight into Alzheimer's until he does an actual study.
This is the kind of self-indulgent thinking that tries certain (usually poor or minority) 12 year olds as adults, while treating certain (usually wealthy and white) adults as children who should be forgiven for "youthful indiscretions." Similarly, it focuses on the comparatively well-off but unhappy while completely effacing the experiences of the genuinely exploited.
People who are being sexually trafficked and child soldiers are in a toxic culture of abuse that they can't escape from. We're talking about an adult with a lower management job at a tech company, not the wretched of the earth.
On the other hand, this sounds pretty grandiose to the point of being delusional:
"Squarespace, you hoped I’d be another black woman in the tech industry who would quietly watch as you grow in power while I wither away. You are mistaken."
Squarespace: a company actively dedicated to the withering of black women in tech. That's a pretty extraordinary claim, so it needs some pretty extraordinary (ie, non-anecdotal, verifiable) evidence. The adjectives used to describe literally every other person in the story are mostly if not completely negative, and this ultimately weakens the writer's claims.
That does not logically follow. If you're offering an explanation for a large dataset which is depicting a trend, the value of that explanation is not undermined by a handful of statistical outliers. If we say that the explanation for women living longer than men is a mixture of biology and cultural factors, a single story about a woman murdering her husband does not speak to the accuracy of a broader explanation at all.
You would need to demonstrate that the counter-examples and the counter-explanation they suggest are statistically significant.
Edit: I'm not engaging in an ad hominem attack here, but I would like to draw attention to previous comments made by this poster to indicate that this is not the first time they've had difficulty parsing how statistics are generally understood to work: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dalke
"What's nice about OAuth is that it allows the end user to control access to information and revoke access as needed."
Users are free to revoke their their permissions at any time, but they won't be able to use an app without the permissions. You could very easily build a UI with user-variable permission scopes on account creation/management with OAuth, but no one bothers, because it would be a pain to manage on the backend for zero economic gain.
It's no more "embedded HTML" than something like $("<p>").text("lolwut").appendTo("body"), just written with a different syntax. Good luck!
At the end of the day, it all has to be valid HTML tags and javascript that runs without crashing. In terms of security, nothing on the front end even registers on the scale. Absolute worst case scenario, it's like solving a Wheel Of Fortune where I have most but not all of the the letters.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the description of a user on their own machine, running their own browser running plugins they chose and installed as a "third party" that's engaging in "tampering."
But if you've got a small team and are making major architecting decisions, the competent, meticulous, anal-retentive jerk can be perfect. A good manager knows how to get the best work out of everyone, and managing different/difficult personalities is an important skill.
Incredibly high barriers to entry and very large established players who have already cornered the market? Following your logic, oil companies must not be very profitable since there aren't very many entrepreneurs buying their own offshore drilling platforms.
"They aren't profitable the way people make them out to be."
Who are these people? What is this way?
What concrete assertion are you refuting? How do you explain the P/E ratios of the biggest medical device companies?
If the cost of regulation is such a drag on profits and innovation, why are medical supply companies that primarily serve the US market so much more profitable in the long term than their counterparts in other countries?
Are you alleging that there's a bubble, or that they're cooking their books, or that they're not one of the most consistently profitable industries?
Do you have any sources for your claim that regulatory compliance is hurting profits beyond a one-off anecdote? Because my experience has been that it's an industry rife with windfall profits.
Also, what's the name of this Indian company, and what's the brand name for the device? If it does what you say it does, you would be pretty foolish not to invest.
I kind of wish people did that for more things: "I am not theologian/windows user/empathetic person, but..."
I've found that most people who have poor communication skills are not good engineers either* and the two might actually be related.
*Except for substack
I've spent quite a bit of time and money working with psychologists, psychiatrists, done sleep studies and kept up with the latest research, and there's nothing I'm aware of that would support your claim.
So, I have a few questions for you:
1) Peer-reviewed sources?
2) Are you concerned that making these kinds of claims non-anonymously without publishing any data to back it up could cause you to lose to your medical license?
Titles like this are against the HN Guidelines, last time I checked.
Very few people say "the present has a number of trade-offs that's arguably not much better or about as bad as the past." That said, I think a lot of the gains are invisible to white professional class heterosexual secular/christian males, which is part of the problem.
As a pure issue of labor, the average work conditions are probably the same or worse than in 1970 and purchasing power is about the same. Both of those are bad things that need to change, but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument.
If you only identify with the historically most privileged group, a lot of the advantages like "not being provided with inferior safety equipment because of your race" or "living in constant fear of your career being destroyed because of your sexuality" don't seem very important. What seems "toxic" to the most privileged group can seem like "acceptable tradeoffs" to other groups, and this also speaks to the attitudes of many immigrants and H1-B employees.
As for the reddit irc bot, that's a genuinely cool and useful project, but that's querying a curated dataset rather than having a coherent conversation or identity, so I think the intentions are fairly different. On the other hand, if you had a bot that only queried the comments made by a longtime user, you could get a pretty life-like effect!
It's an interesting idea, but I would guess we'll have better luck with direct genetic manipulation of embryos and then using the existing species to birth them.
For my money, the most realistic chat bots will be the customer service ones: you have a reason to "talk" to them, they have a fixed identity, the context of your conversation is clear, and you share a common goal.
I had a friend with similar proclivities and eccentricities who was fortunate enough to have a father that worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His studies were directed and safe, he was able to visit the lab on a regular basis, and he ended up going to MIT and becoming a nuclear engineer. It's entirely an issue of access, and a lot of times you literally have to be born into it, which seems like an inefficient system.
Wait, what was your point?