Dr_tldr

You have very poor reading comprehension skills, or else you appended your comment to the wrong post. Almost no part of what you're saying corresponds to anything that I said.

PS: Giving some solid advice to public-facing startups looking for funding. Definitely take the autistic high-ground on every issue. Investors don't care about bad PR, they only care about abstract principles of truth as you understand them.

When I put a picture of myself that had the contrast turned up my picture was rated "godlike", when I put in the original picture it was rated "hot", and when I turned down the contrast some it was rated "ok." I'm an unhealthy, almost pasty shade of white with a slightly bulbous nose and a classic fivehead.

Now, this a problem for bigger reasons:

An older picture of Denzel Washington gets an ok: http://imgur.com/Li0gZqH

A recent picture of Howard Stern gets a hot: http://imgur.com/L8hxoVK

Obviously this is just a toy and your algorithm is pretty inexact, but... you need to fix it, or at least note in giant letters that it only works for white people right now and that you're working on your algorithm to make it more universal. Because it only (kinda, sorta?) works for white people right now. If you claim something is universal in your headline then note its specificity in the fine print, you're lying. If you build an algorithm that calls most people who aren't white ugly, you need to think about the buzz-to-backlash factor of demoing it.

It's really not a good look, and you've got a week at most before you get called a "Nazi Dating App" on twitter and your potential VCs get spooked and pull out. I don't think it's intentional on your part, but literally no one cares about what your intentions are when there's an opportunity to create moral indignation clickbait. Just a friendly word of warning!

In what way does that sound dysfunctional? It definitely functioned, it just had very different goals and priorities.

No idea why you got downvoted. The author of the article definitely agrees with the basic thrust of you argument, although maybe not your speculation in the parentheses. If you look at arab militaries as existing in-of and for themselves, they appear to be incredibly inefficient and badly organized and should be reformed. But if you look at them from a political perspective, they're still inefficient and badly organized, but there's a lot of solid political logic as to why.

In the case of many arab regimes, having an ineffectual and divided military isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Yes, yes, and yes, you nailed it. The author of the article seems to have difficulty separating "problems specific to WebSockets" and "specific problems I have."

People who say "REST is dead, AJAX is dead, HTTP headers are dead, all hail the new sockets" are wide-eyed fanatics and this article is a useful corrective to them, but it's definitely not an even-handed analysis.

There are too many problems with the article to do a line-by-line rebuttal, but the one that was most silly for me was "what if a user has multiple tabs open, oh noes!" It's trivial to implement a session id then disconnect the inactive tab(s), and has been for a long time.

On the other hand, his recommendations in the comments are pretty solid, so he's not completely off...

Absolutely, there's always a balance between "voice" and "exit" options when it comes to organizations in need of reform. If you've been there awhile and feel like your voice just isn't being heard, exit is usually right move. And if you can exit gracefully, that's even better!

I appreciate your honesty, but I definitely would not want to work in a company where that was the prevailing attitude, nor would I hire someone who took that as their MO. It's a pragmatic policy for each individual, but it also leads to endless passing of the buck.

"What can I do, I'm just a dev, the team lead should figure it out" turns into:

"what can I do, I'm just team lead, the department head should figure it out" turns into:

"what can I do, I'm just the department head, the CTO/CEO should figure it out" which finally ends with:

"I'm just the CEO, these decisions should be made by the department heads and team leads because they have a better understanding of the problem."

Responsibility gets passed from the bottom to the top back down to the bottom, where the process repeats itself. Taken to its logical conclusion, everyone has a perfect rationalization for why all decisions are either too general or too specific for them to make. The net result is that decisions still get made, but no one questions them or defends them or even knows where they came from, because no one perceives them as a choice they had any influence over.

Good shout on the glassdoor reviews, it's amazing how even the most rudimentary internet searching seems to elude journalists!

Also, can this be our last Theranos thread before the company officially implodes? I get no small amount of freude out of this schade, but it's becoming the new bitcoin in terms of endlessly rehashed HN topics.

What is the weather like on the Planet of the Obscure Language Clients? Is there any way I can book passage there?

Why, if I had a nickel every time I was forced to turn down a client who demanded the project be done in Clojure, Scheme, Haskell, Pogoscript, or Brainfuck... I would have zero cents.

...I think you just came up with an amazing new startup. All we need now are some Iron Man halloween costumes and some disgruntled Lyft drivers.

Yeah, I just re-read your original post and realized you're probably not a native speaker of english (or were writing in a hurry on a phone), my apologies!

Theranos is catching a lot of flak right now because they claim to be a company founded on this awesome new technology, but they seem to be use existing technologies for all the services they currently offer, they won't show people their wonder-device, and the story of the way the company was initially funded and valued keeps getting sketchier.

So your question isn't "what's going on here?" but "why do so many people want to know what's going on here?"

Is Theranos holding open tryouts for their PR department or something?

Yes, when I see NKVD/KGB/FSB officers in full uniform, I think of nothing but good deeds and altruism.

..the criminal underbelly of a society is usually a small-scale reaction to the crimes officially sanctioned by the state.

Every "language comparison" between dominant ones and less popular ones (even implicitly) ends up being a little contrived, which is unfortunate because in general Clojure is the real deal.

But until Wes told them, they had no evidence that Wes was accessing the data! Or are you saying that they did have evidence, but chose to take a "wait and see" approach to someone gaining control of their entire platform?

Let's take a step back here: Facebook threatened to have a security analyst arrested for demonstrating and promptly disclosing the full extent of a serious exploit in a non-destructive manner. Whatever other behavior he engaged in that was unnecessary or ineligible for the bug bounty program, that's incredibly unethical on your part. Especially so, because you clearly didn't believe he was going to do any damage to your system or you would've actually called the FBI instead of someone he worked with.

So, you just wanted to cause him reputational damage and personal problems as an act of petty retaliation. You're right on some of the technical issues here, but in terms of ethics, your behavior has been far worse than his. I don't think you realize how much long-term damage you're doing to your relationship with the wider security community by threatening to jail people who were at no point acting maliciously and at no point caused any damage.

Most people who imagine themselves to be surrounded by sociopaths ironically end up exhibiting the selfsame tendencies of rationalization, misrepresentation, exploitation of others, lack of empathy, paranoia, and self-righteousness.

This guy is just an overconfident scam-artist who made the mistake of believing his own bullshit.

The real question is "would it be wise?" The idea that you can "no platform" your opponents indefinitely without ever engaging their arguments usually ends badly. If one side is opportunistically throwing together every single grievance (both legitimate and imaginary) and the other is totally ignorant of what they're saying and refuses to even talk to them, the side that runs away from discussion grows weaker while the other side grows stronger.

If you want extremist views to have free reign, then keep avoid them until they form a broad enough coalition of the ignored and disaffected to take power, I guess.

Sure, but that's not an advantage unique to netlify, is it? I mean, one could run the express server on Amazon CloudFront and have the same situation and a more competitive pricing structure. Or is there something else they do that I'm missing?

Exactly, the solution for this problem is to be really determined to make recruiters and investors think you're more naturally talented than you are:

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

John Carmack doesn't constantly tweet/complain about how many hours he puts in and how hard he's working, so people think it comes easily to him. When you're talking to a non-technical person, the most important thing is projecting a casual air of competence, not trying to impress them by how much you suffered for your craft.

Some serious questions:

1. Why not just use fs.writeFile to create all the site info as json files as either a one off or a chron job, then run a gulp task to either use something like jade or else roll your own rendering to put the JSON in the right place on the page, then output the result as html to a public folder, set up an express static server and have a catch-all splat after it for 404s? What am I missing here?

2. If your site is fairly static like WeWork's, why not just have it as a SPWA, set all the links to retrieve a JSON file from the static server and process them on the front end? You could even use history.pushState and checking window.url to make sure that history works and links would load the right thing.

3. When someone logs in, are you doing a DB lookup then serving their dashboard page statically (somehow, for some reason...), or does this static build only apply to part of your page and not others?

4. Could everything Roots does be replaced by one 6 line gulp task? Not trying to be mean, just wondering if its target userbase knows what gulp is.

This is part of the larger tech hiring culture of "it's better to miss hiring someone good than to hire someone who might be bad." The guy in the story is hit especially hard by this, but HR's paradigm of fear/incompetence/inability to manage people after they're hired is a big piece of it.

It's not ever easy for someone classified as an ex-con to get a job, but tech discriminates more than most other professions.

Well I'm sure Lyft it shocked, absolutely shocked to discover that there's spamming going on here.

It's not like they could develop basic accountability tools or read the thousands of complaints consumers have sent to them directly or do a google search. All of those things are impossible to do with present technology, which is why Lyft is the real victim here.

This is unlikely to see widespread adoption. Boooom!

This is a pretty embarrassing paper, even by the low standards of the Harvard Business Review. A toxic worker is defined as anyone who takes too many pens, or someone who embezzles huge sums of money, or a sexual harasser, or a physically violent person, or a jerk, or... anyone retroactively deemed toxic by the manager who fired them.

All this time we thought Wal-Mart was firing people who were trying to unionize, turns out it was just far-sighted managers keeping a deadly contagion at bay. The Harvard Business Review inches ever-closer to the methodology of soviet psychiatry.

I realize picking up on sarcasm on the internet is tricky, but it's also a bad sign for society when a ridiculous circular statement is close enough to many people's genuine beliefs that it's taken seriously.

I for one will be downvote this link into oblivion, because it's scientifically proven that information like this can have a negative effect on women and minorities in tech.

This is all but a sponsored post for Bumble that's basically just a long form advertisement masquerading as a think-piece.

Based just on what we know from OkCupid's excellent analytics blog back in the day, there's nothing about their business model that suggests they'll be successful. The founders are non-technical, the business model isn't data-driven, and there are lots of questionable design decisions throughout.

They're getting a large amount of positive press from people who share their apparent ideology, but there's no actual information being put out. They're closed source, privately held, and don't publish any meaningful usage statistics, so what do we know about them other than they have good PR people?

In other words, someone found exactly what you said didn't exist, and now you're moving the goalposts?