Fishkins

I don't have any prior knowledge about Richard Hanania, but the second sentence of that wiki page is

> Between 2008 and the early 2010s Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym Richard Hoste.

That seems much more serious than just being a "partisan commentator"

About 12 years ago someone told me Francis said they would've named IceCube something different if they'd known about the rapper. I can't find any references to that quote now, though.

I'd also guess rural areas have higher birth rates and younger marriages. By the time those kids reach 25, though, a lot of them will have moved to cities. That could still mean HPsquared is correct. I'd need to look up stats to be sure.

> I guess this depends on your threat model. In what cases would your password vault be compromised, but your TOTP vault still be secure?

If Bitwarden is compromised, like LastPass was. Of course the vault should still be encrypted, but I don't want to rely on a single company managing everything correctly. It seems much less likely that two different companies will be compromised at the same time.

This is a survey conducted by JetBrains, whose primary product is a Java/Kotlin IDE. They do support other languages, but their audience is almost certainly skewed toward JVM users.

Have you tried recently? There was a period when I also had WYSIWYG enabled solely because markdown links weren't working for me, but that's been fixed (at least for me) for a while now.

I agree TOTP is much better than MFA prompts or calls/SMS. TOTP does protect against the first two attack methods the article lists.

However, it's not quite as good as a hardware key, because it's still vulnerable to the third method the article lists: "Calling the target, pretending to be part of the company, and telling the target they need to send an MFA request as part of a company process."

I generally consider TOTP "good enough" for a lot of applications, whereas prompts and SMS are not "good enough."

> And then we learned secondhand that most of these non-profits were run by narcissists leaders with worse office politics than regular offices.

I've worked for a tech-focused nonprofit for the last decade, and know people who have worked for other tech nonprofits. My experience (direct and secondhand) does not match what you said here. There are lots of good mission-focused tech companies to work for (both non- and for-profit). If, as a sibling comment suggested, you want to bring clean drinking water to the world, I know people who have worked at charity: water and enjoyed it.

It's true the pay will usually be below market rate for software engineers. It still can be much higher than most people in US[0] will ever make, and not an obstacle to living comfortably (by any definition of "comfortable" I consider reasonable). It's possible it could make it more difficult to buy a nice house in a central location in one of the more expensive cities, but that's true for most people and needs systemic changes to address it.

0: I assume we're talking about the US, since that's where the really high tech salaries are (and it's the place I live and have experience)

John C. Bogle founded Vanguard, which had the first index funds. Simply put, "Boglehead" refers to someone who invests in index fund(s) and leaves the money there long-term, without trying to time the market, buy individual stocks, etc.

I agree most engineers should be doing SOME things beyond code-centric activities. There are things that almost nobody, whether they're an IC or people manager, wants to have take up their whole day. That requires spreading them out across staff.

Problems arise when that work isn't assigned out explicitly, evenly, and thoughtfully. Sometimes there's important work that isn't really assigned to anybody, and it can end up landing with whoever is least willing to ignore it. Over time, that can lead to situations that feel (and/or are) unfair.

One consonant example: CUNY is pronounced with a hard C, but we don't say "New York Kitty"

One of my former coworkers (whom I'll call Doug) had his boss at a previous job more or less do this on his behalf. Doug had been working for a small company that was acquired. The new owner asked the boss of the smaller company what Doug had been making. The old boss reported a number much higher than Doug's actual salary. The new ownership just said "sounds reasonable" and Doug immediately got a massive raise. Doug said he was a little uncomfortable that a lie had been involved, but he didn't feel he could contradict his boss, so he went with it.

I'm not exactly sure why the circumstances didn't involve the new employer from actually checking his previous salary, but based on my interaction with Doug I'm sure the story is true.

My reading is that a formal code review is still focused on a single change, but with a more explicit/required process for review. This sentence in the article backs that up:

> Before any code at Google gets checked in, one owner of the code base must review and approve the change (formal code review and design inspection)

That's clearly referring to a specific change, not a review of the whole codebase.

I used to work for a large company. They have homegrown review software with extensive checklists of criteria the code must meet before it can pass review. The software won't let the code progress unless two reviewers go through and explicitly check off every box to certify it meets their standards. I'd call that formal code review.

I work on a smaller team now. We do consistently perform code reviews, but there's nothing actually preventing someone from merging without a review. We also have a list of things to look for when performing a code review, but nothing forces reviewers to look at the document regularly. That process is closer to an informal code review.

I still find bugs regularly when reviewing code. That's both true of other people's PRs as well as my own. I imagine there's a lot more variability with an informal process than a formal one, but IMO informal review is still useful. Code review of course also provides benefits other than bug detection.

I always review my own PR before passing it to someone else. Another commenter recommended that practice, and I heartily endorse it.

I agree. The Slack thread UX is not ideal, but the flow of conversation is so much better than it was pre-threads. I always end up closing the side bar and navigating to the thread in the "Threads" view. They should make it easier to maximize a thread.

Say you have a batch job that performs tasks A–E, and each of those tasks might process thousands of records. At some point, something will go wrong that causes the process to crash, hang, or error over many records. If the code is not idempotent, you need to investigate exactly where things started going wrong and figure out how to resume the process at that point. You don't want to reprocess records and e.g. send out duplicate emails or double-increment some number you're tracking. If the code is idempotent, conversely, you can just start the whole process over again without having to worry about any of that.

Similarly, many systems involve consuming from some message queue. It's basically impossible to guarantee exactly-once delivery in most systems. You either have to risk missing a message, or having it delivered multiple times. If you're running idempotent code, you can always err on the side of redundant delivery without any ill effects.

When I first opened the article in Firefox, I only saw the first two paragraphs (same as the OP). This was true whether it was in reader mode or not. I opened it in Chrome and saw the whole article.

I just tried opening it in Firefox now (a couple hours later) and I see the whole article. If I switch to reader mode I do see it's truncated about halfway through, but I think that's a separate issue from what the OP was seeing.

I'm in Wisconsin and bike all year. I have a hybrid with studded tires (specifically Nokian) and an internal hub. I'd also like to get a fat bike for fresh/powdery snow, but it's rare that's a big deal. There's of course some trade-off between how much traction/stability your tires give you and how much friction & inertia you have to work against when pedaling. Some people have a few different winter options so they can select the bike that will be easiest to propel but still be able to handle the particular day's conditions.

It's good to have warm clothes for your extremities, but your core gets surprisingly warm when you bike with any kind of coat on. I often just wear a think goretex jacket till it's in the single digits fahrenheit. I wear winter boots, warm gloves or mittens (depending on how cold it is), and a balaclava or gaiter. Also ski goggles for really cold/windy weather. If you don't start off feeling somewhat cold, you've overdressed.

1-.095 = .905

.905^4 = .671

1-.671 = .329 = 32.9%

cactus2093 referred to how it was originally intended, not how it currently works. I believe the original intent was for workers to always be paid a decent wage by default, and to get a bonus for exceptional service. Now it's inhumane not to tip because tipping is built into salary expectations, but that's unrelated to the original intent.

But (at least initially) the filters they distributed didn't actually make the water safe to drink

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-skolnik-lead-poisoni...

> The effect of riding bicicle not only severely overstated: it is assumed, that it is linear, where results likely quickly diminish.

It's rough envelope math, but gist of the reasoning is correct. He also explicitly addresses your point on linearity.

> *Obviously, the life-extending benefits of exercise have limits, otherwise we could all live forever just by exercising enough to extend our lives by at least 24 hours each day. If you dig deeper into the linked articles and studies, you’ll find that the limit is somewhere in the 1-2 hours per day range, depending on exercise intensity (cycling is pretty low intensity, so let’s say two hours to max out the benefits). > > I don’t know about you, but even as a retired person with a bike, I still don’t always get 2 hours of exercise every day. For the average modern citizen, the stats tell us that the average level is far, far lower – many people get ZERO exercise beyond walking between the car, office, fridge, and couch. Maybe a visit to the gym or yoga a few times a week. For the average person, getting up to an hour a day will deliver spectacular benefits, and when you rule out “car clown” behavior (using a car for any trips less than 2-3 miles), it happens automatically. > > Your situation might be different, but remember the intent of this blog is to change the behavior of a big swath of smarter-than-average people stuck in average situations. So I stand by the general accuracy of this part of the argument.

Many of these activities involve exercise, which means they'll significantly decrease your risk of premature death compared to a "safe" sedentary activity. Just something to keep in mind when thinking about risks.

Here's a rough analysis for cycling: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-saf...

Neither did I. Does anyone know what to do in this case? I have my Equifax claim code.

countDownfrom(n--) produces infinite recursion, which is arguably why you could call coutDownfrom(--n) clever (you have to understand the subtleties of those operators). I agree that "pointless" or "stupid" are better descriptors, though :)

I really like the Orgzly app for Android. It does everything I think it feasible on a phone interface, and I sync via Dropbox.

I do basically the same thing. Intellij (with the VIM plugin) for Java, Emacs (Evil or Spacemacs) for Org Mode and scripting languages. It works well for me.

I think people in developed countries are reducing their per capita emissions a bit. However, population is still increasing, and people in many countries are increasing their (material) standard of living in a way that increases emissions.

I agree with this, but I also that "Do you expect" is a bad way to start the question. "Expect" can either mean what you think will happen, or what you think should happen. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if different respondents were answering different questions. I'd say "Do you think Google is currently..."

It's an abbreviation of Duck, Duck, Goose. They don't really explain why they chose to name it after that game.

https://duck.co/help/company/name

Is that taking into account the effect of the exercise you're getting while cycling? http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...