ExtremePopcorn

Donations won't offset the dev time, but can be significant with a few thousand players. I briefly tried two PBBGs recently (idlescape.com + avabur.com) and could see from the chat that both were bringing in at least thousands a month. The former hasn't been around very long, though, and the latter had microtransactions and somewhat cheap dopamine mechanics.

Context for the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

He wrote a column a couple days before this paper. Linking the response as well.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/we-know-enough-now-to-ac...

I've had my moments during all this too, no worries.

> I should have made clear that I think you have poor judgement if you think this is a good idea to use unverified healthcare data to base any decisions on that could cause people severe harm or the restriction of their rights.

Check out this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-fever-...

> Just last Saturday, Kinsa’s data indicated an unusual rise in fevers in South Florida, even though it was not known to be a Covid-19 epicenter. Within days, testing showed that South Florida had indeed become an epicenter.

You buried the lede a bit on your prior experience (that's significant context!) but I'm not advocating anything more than data collection in the interest of identifying mass trends and hotspots.

I also disagree that the US' current inept response means software engineers have a moral duty not to hand them any complicated information (if I understood you correctly) but am having a harder time phrasing that.

I'm the last to disagree with your assessment of myself, but I'll defend the idea. Aggregating data during a global pandemic isn't a stupid thing to do. Rather - and stay with me here - it's a smart thing.

Edit: Oh you were calling me stupid because you thought researchers wouldn't understand the concept of self-reported medical data. Give them some credit.

The usefulness instantly clicked when I saw this - awesome work, and I wish it were government promoted.

I'm no good at writing copy, but I'd work on the homepage's phrasing. Link to https://healthweather.us/ as well as the NYT article on them, rather than making a reference to Maddow elsewhere (it'd be dumb for someone to be turned away by that, but someone will be.) Explain that CDC data lags three weeks behind historically, and point out all the counties without data. Say all this on the front page, and run A/B tests once you have enough visitors.

Again, great work!

This is inaccurate for internal tools.

That's not how Google works. She mentions in the Gizmodo article that she had ownership over these files, which isn't given out casually. Creating these policy notifications would have been a core part of her work.

ah, also - are you cool with suicide? if so I think your hardline approach is fine, it's really just being forced to live + treated like shit (ref. your post) if you don't enjoy it enjoy it enough that I think is the real issue

Uh no, sorry, it's the argument. You've been on this site for four years now - be honest, have you ever seen someone with a lazy armchair opinion enter a debate, receive strong pushback including scientific citations, and then refuse to change their opinion? It's literally every fifth thread here. Though imo, more fun when it's idiots telling tptacek he's wrong about security than when it's someone a dick to someone with depression (my victim mentality!!)

But sure, let me actually respond to you:

* At no point have you acknowledged or shown any awareness that depression is not "one thing". Like how people discuss "curing cancer" as if that's any sort of meaningful statement. How complex do you think depression is? What point of complexity does something need to reach before you defer to experts? Depression is still more or less a black box (watch the Sapolsky video I linked or look up some starslatecodex articles on ketamine.) Again, no sign of awareness of this on your part, which suggests you haven't done the most basic research.

* Yep, you never said there are no biomarkers. You said:

> Depression is a set of guidelines in a book that ask vague subjective questions about how someone perceives the world. And then if the person decides you have it you have it. If they don't you dont. This has very little to do with the first scenario."

This was your reason for stating that depression wasn't an illness. That it was based on a list of subjective questions. Sadly you didn't respond to the person saying that this was equally true for schizophrenia. Is schizophrenia an illness?

* I said it was an undercurrent, meaning subtext. Do you understand why subtext can't be quoted, and why that's work that you need to do for yourself? (If you somehow can quote subtext, though, immediately switch careers to political journalism, you'll be a wonder.)

* The only really offensive part was when you said "I do also believe that people don't have zero agency in this problem." Like, cool, a few sentences in and you've also added in a complete strawman to make yourself look reasonable. So this was just debate club to you.

The last point, combined with the fact that you're only responding when it might let you feel superior, leads me to believe you're not here in any sort of attempt to learn. How's your own mental health? You're clearly get some need fulfilled by arguing on the internet, which generally isn't the best sign. Watch that video, it's good, and absolutely full of things you do not know.

Okay, my mistake for getting dragged into the archetypal HN argument. It's clear you cannot be convinced. Your original point - that depression has no biomarkers and is extremely subjective - has been proven wrong by a couple others and you've shown no gratitude or interest in this information. Only replying where you think there's an argument to be won.

Maybe you, some random person on Hacker News, are not in fact smarter than the medical consensus?

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

> I'm not trying to trivialize depression.

As someone who has been catatonically depressed for a couple years now, I'm not so sure about this! People with chronic pain also often can't identify any physical source, but obviously you would never start posting "is this really an illness though?" or "aren't we distracting and misleading people??" in a thread about that.

The undercurrent of your post is that depressed people need to snap out of it, and falling back on the "illness" label reduces personal responsibility. Trust me, many people feel like imposters claiming they have depression, despite being completely non-functional. Thanks but no thanks to this proposed contribution to the discourse.

Are you really here to understand, or is it just to judge? Want some MRIs and EKGs of depressed brains?

are you drinking enough water?

just kidding, same. it's hell.

Don't be baffled! No one thinks this. Everyone has seen a variation of this comment a million times by now, and everyone knows it, but companies will never be able to admit it. It's all about putting stress on the lie. If a corp won't solve its issues and employees quit because of it, "well duh of course they're gonna protect stakeholders' interest" isn't really helpful or new.

disclaimer: employee

"Google is pretty bad at creating products so no one is willing to pay for them"

doesn't track when facebook switched to gmail after giving up on microsoft exchange.

edit: also I work in ads, but won't bother responding to the "google just wants to manipulate dumb people" point. if you're starting from the assumption of malice I don't think the discussion would lead anywhere. and probably don't want to say more anyway, will delegate that to PR.

> DJB’s custom search engine

I can't find anything on this, does anyone have more info?

Sure, these salaries are not available at every company. I just wanted to outline a path for a competent (but not amazing) programmer to make >$200k outside the Valley without moving to a management role.

Are you just talking about salaries? Total compensation has been on the rise lately. Google and Facebook pay between $150-200k to new grads, and a senior programmer at either of these companies can get double that.

I interviewed with Etsy for an internship position last year. After the on-site was finished, our group of interns was told we'd hear back within a few days (but likely the very next day.) After two weeks of silence, I emailed them asking if they had an update or a new timeline and was told they'd get back to me in a week or so. This happened two or three more times over the next couple months, until I eventually gave up. Like you, I was more confused than anything. Either way, I can't really say I recommend interviewing with them.

I think this is likely just some angel investor's portfolio, with some other companies sprinkled in. A few alarm bells are going off:

* Explicitly filters for people who do not want a work life balance. If a job applicant says they found your company via this list, you don't have to ask, "Will you regularly work more than 40 hours a week for free?" They just told you.

* No information on why these companies in particular are special (everyone has a strong market/team/growth)

* No disclaimers regarding conflicts of interest

* Trying to establish a brand for some reason

* Published anonymously

Hopefully I'm not being too cynical. Just seems very financially motivated.

That'd be great! If you search for "sophomore studying computer science at UW Madison", you should find my email.

Do you give rejections to people who apply? I emailed careers@matasano.com asking about an internship in October and never heard back. I took that as a sign that you weren't interested, but I'm now thinking I should double check on that in case you missed the email.

Psychological pricing - don't tell me that your product is $9.95; say $10.

Just yesterday there was a similar thread on AskReddit: "What is the coolest thing I can buy on the internet for under $20?" (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cqr6x/what_is_the...)

Personally, my vote goes to the TV-B-Gone. It's a small device that runs through all the common IR codes for turning TVs off when you press a button. ThinkGeek sells them for $20, but the "hacker" version (http://www.adafruit.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&...) runs for 50 cents less ;).

Dan Ariely gives a related TED talk: "Are we in control of our own decisions?"

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_o...

Look around 11:30 for a few examples of how comparing options affects us more than looking at each individually.

On a side note, it also seems inexpensive because it's $499 and not $500! Psychological pricing is one of my larger pet peeves...