IggleSniggle

You never had a job like this I guess. They hire someone with a particular set of skills because it makes some metric somewhere look right, and then they use you for something that uses none of those skills, at all. The weird part is that they even put the real job in the listing.

It was about an hour for me, although I admittedly read it while fixing and munching on my lunch. It was very relatable, and so I felt motivated to see the protagonist to the end, whatever their fate- see if they derived alternate insights than the ones I had arrived at.

I've spent longer reading documentation late at night that ultimately would turn out to be useless to me. This actually had some plausibility of real life utility, but requires "experiencing" to derive useful benefit from.

I think I just punched myself in the stomach again.

You tell yourself it's a well intentioned effort and that it works well, brining in people you otherwise would have missed. And then you later say "mission accomplished," the program ran its course, no longer doing the job it was made to do, pat yourself on the back both times for your good decision making. It might even be true both times! And you can't know it wasn't, so it's possible to believe it.

In the grim darkness of the far future is the heat death of the universe. We are just a candle burning slower than a sun, powered by tidal forces and radiant energy, slowly conspiring to become a star.

Sure, and those chickens exist because we like their meat and eggs. But there's also plenty of life that is simply inconsequential to us.

That's like saying a panda might pose a threat to modern humanity. Like, maybe in some fun horror story, sure, but really they just want to eat bamboo, and occasionally make more pandas; in the world of superintelligent AI, humans are Mostly Harmless, posing as much "potential benefit" as "potential risk," ie, so slow moving that any risk would be easy to mitigate.

I have 100% same process, including the adding of comments at the end to tag commands for future fzf searchability (although in practice I find the need for this pretty rare).

Of course it does also presume keeping an appropriately long history, which from some of the comments in the article make me believe that I have long since forgotten that I needed to change that setting.

I've been playing a city builder game in mixed reality called Spacefolk City recently, and having experienced moving around little interactive pieces in that context, I think they only reason this isn't common is because having mixed reality devices on hand isn't common. Feels totally natural, way better than a shared TV or something: better a board game, but honestly for MANY games they would be better in a mixed reality setup where the computer can do all the calculations and setup for you. Many great games just have too much setup time.

Thank you for that context. I had a feeling something like that would be the case. I suppose it would be more correct to be talking about the "idea" of Japan as it is seen by the US. There is probably a similar charm to NYC or Montana cattle-land or whatever as it is perceived abroad. Not exactly incorrect, but also not really an accurate representative of the whole, even if narrowed to "just NYC" or "just Montana cattle-country" parts of it.

My friends and family like to joke about "anywhere USA." There are places all across the US where the same design language, chain restaurants, etc are all the same. There will be some differences in local business and in political/religious signage, but otherwise, they are cookie cutter, somehow feeling basically the same from Anchorage AK to Tampa FL. Importantly, these are all connected by car line.

I think there are a few things that make Japan fascinating to anyone who lives in a car-oriented culture, and a very important aspect is that even the small, out of the way, rural towns are still connected via passenger train, which changes the relationship of the small town to the central hub in important ways like what's described in the article here. Getting off the train in a small town is very different than getting out of your car in a small town.

You can find this same dynamic in the US, btw. You'll find that old rural towns, that grow up connected to the central hubs by either boat or by passenger train, have a lot of the same charm and feel. But if things are developed along roads, there's no presumption about walkability: they are designed for people to get in their cars and go from one parking lot to another.

Anyway, I'm actually totally clueless about this and speculating with very little informed knowledge outside my lived experience. I should probably delete this comment.

Oh they have. It's been a big problem for my company. I assume Apple must work on this from their end, but any success would seem to undermine the privacy guarantee of the service.

"Bad guys" using Private Relay is one reason these IPs get blocked: one abuser can cause an entire block of people to get flagged as a single malicious user; and a big enough group of users can also look like a single malicious user to many blocklisting strategies, because they all share the same IP.

I don't use or actually even like Sublime, but I have the exact same experience of it. Quick loads and lack of "extras" that cause even portions of lag in the experience; there's an immediacy to Sublime.

But those things that introduce clunkiness are often very useful. They take away from the aesthetic feel of writing code, but give advantages that are too useful to give up, imho.

This one's easy. Because you value your people more than the parties they can throw. The cost/benefit are not just monetary. If they were, the event would have no reason to happen under any circumstance.

You fire someone because they are hurting the company? That feels like a company that cares about doing well. Event seems more okay, and there's no reason to question the financial cost if the org seems to be doing well. You layoff someone off because you're tight on cash? Tell everyone you only hire top performers but had to let a top performer go because of budgetary reasons? Feels gross to throw more money away when you're already making "hard" decisions about letting quality people go.

Suddenly I'm connecting the relationship between "budget based economics" and "agile" as commonly implemented. It's trying to fit creativity into a budget. In the places that do it well, it's like "We're supposed to make some really great art, here's the crayons we can afford, sorry if it's not exactly right but it's what we could manage, do whatever you can, we will take it!" In places that do it poorly, it's like "we need you to make the Uber of the Mona Lisa, I'm gonna need you to find a way to make that work, but we can totally be flexible on this, which crayons do you need."

The key differences being that in one case there's well defined constraints on resources but open ended results, and in the other the resource constraints are poorly defined but the end result is much more fixed.

I taught at a private school for several years, and what I saw there convinced me that they are up against many of the same things that public schools are except they need a marketing budget and all the parents have financial resources (although few had the resource of time).

I guess I think it's hard to make real generalities about public v private schools, and good data is hard to come by since stats can be juiced in various ways for various reasons.

Very cool interactive, nice work! I think your progression probably works well on desktop, just turn off the "auto scroll to next activity" on mobile devices where it's impossible to see the message without scrolling back up to it... and maybe stick the message right below the last place the user clicked.

Also, I didn't really understand this one, where the phrase in question is "I wish to opt out of receiving exclusive promotional offers and updates about products I might be interested in." How does unchecking this result in an opt out? I can't figure out how to read this to make "[x]" mean anything other than "opt me out of offers and updates."

>

What this means:

When checked: They will send you marketing emails. Uncheck to stop promotional emails.

How it tricks you: They use 'opt out' and 'wish' to create a double negative - saying no to opting out means saying yes to emails

Edit: oh I see. I got confused by the triple negative! The "correct" answer is indeed to keep it checked, but the instructional aspect of the page as a whole implies that you need to uncheck the box to have succeeded (aligning with the mistake). I think starting with the box unchecked might be a little more clear for the purposes of demonstrating.

I really take issue with the position that parents have zero influence. Our children attend a "mediocre" public school in our US city. We simply talk to the teachers and administrators, and you would not believe the results. I always go into it thinking that we are whiny parents talking to an overworked staff, and the results are incredible.

For anyone who is considering homeschooling but isn't sure, there is a real middle ground: actually engage with your huge staff at the public school who are hungry for parent involvement because it seems like the parents don't care and the kids are just there for the babysitting.

Public schools work great, but you do have to remain engaged and be ready to problem solve. It's like homeschooling but you get a whole publicly funded (somewhat overworked but enthusiastic) support staff to accomplish educational goals for your child.

Yes of course schools vary but if approach ANYONE with a combative attitude they are likely to fight back, even if you're on the same side. Approach with sympathy, open communication, and the occasional set of hands in the classroom, and you can get the best for your child.

I'm going to hazard a guess with zero grounding in data to attempt to answer that, caveat emptor. Please also note that even though these are my guesses, these assertions do not really reflect where I personally land on this. I'm not really sure what the breakdown is, but I think I can understand how someone gets to this point of view.

--

In order for parents to choose homeschooling, some (but not all) must be present in the parents:

- a conviction that the herd choice of sending a child to school is wrong, and not just a little bit - the belief that you know education better than expert educators with many years of hard earned experience - relatedly, the belief that you are fully qualified to teach anything of importance, and that anything you can't teach is not of important - the ability to forgo the opportunity cost of an in-home full time tutor

Add these up and you will skew towards parents who either have extremely strong convictions (faith related or otherwise) and a mentality that presupposes that the parent is "right."

In the best case scenario, this is an extremely well educated/informed parent who knows enough to keep their pride at check and can handle their emotions well in the face of at times extremely frustrating circumstances, all well being under more financial strain than they would be if they weren't showing up every day to school. These people definitely exist, and I think most parents strive to be this for their children regardless of how they educate their child.

But the "average" human is not well informed, often makes rash and/or emotional decisions, and is struggling to make ends meet. Thus, the "average" parent that chooses homeschooling skews towards dogmatic thinking and/or a presumption of "I'm right and you're wrong" that over a period of a childhood easily leads to abuse, especially if the parents are struggling to make ends meet.

I guess there is a counter argument that people who choose to homeschool can "afford" to do so and thus are well resourced enough (financially or socially) to have a good shot of success, but even among the top 10% of earners you will be hard pressed to find parents that believe they can afford homeschooling.

It's an interesting example, because the fact that it is js makes it trivial for most developers to make modifications to it by opening the Chrome DevTools. Even if you're not a js dev, you probably occasionally write some js.

I'm arguing that it's successful because any of its users can trivially hack something on top of it and distribute it, including things the original devs never intended or think is a good idea. In that way, its success mirrors Excel.

Typia kinda does this, but currently only has a Typescript -> Typescript compiler.

I mean, snake still has a lot of appeal.

I agree, but as someone with kids, the problem is that it has to compete with the entire environment. It's not just screens, although that's the biggest distraction factor.

There's a million more toys of every variety that are dirt cheap and that they will be given as gifts, or their friends will be given as gifts. And there's just such a huge amount of _actually great_ media to consume that's much more available, ie graphic novels and age appropriate books, way more higher quality kids show, etc etc. I'm not complaining, but a terminal environment is going to take a lot of careful planning in order to compete with an embarrassment of riches.

I still think PICO-8 did a pretty good job of capturing this; given their licensing, though, I wish they had released an actual console in addition to the fantasy console. It runs fine on a Pi Zero.

Maybe IP correlation?

Totally sounded like embezzlement to me too. Somebody at Synapse making the records intentionally unreconcilable/vague somewhere in the accounting chain so that they could claim some portion of that as their own. I guess it could be gross incompetence, but the embezzlement story actually seems more plausible in this scenario, especially given the animosity between the corporate parties involved. Maybe an incompetent CEO at Synapse who really believes the vague numbers they were given that doesn't line up well with the other banks' own records. The fact that there was a lottery system baked in that grabbed from a pool of "cash winnings" that was financed by the interest rates of deposits at other banks just adds to the opportunities for embezzlement. An employee "gets lucky" with the gambling setup a few times with a pot that is non-attributable, says more money needs to get transferred to the pot because somebody won a payout, etc

Sadly no. Probably due to embarrassment. I had gone through this effort but didn't manage to ever get more than 4 or 5 people over simultaneously to take advantage of it. Maybe if I had taken pictures and actually shared it around a bit more, I could have gotten more out of the setup!

I did something like this at my last house but somewhat more covertly, with monitors going into storage but having VESA quick mounts hidden near the Ethernet hubs, a few on articulating arms that could pop out near couches etc.

My setup only supported 12, but was designed in a way where you could have 3 teams of 4 or 4 teams of 3 that got their own private area so they could more easily conspire against their opponents.

I think my most interesting design choice was that I had half the machines routed from the attic and half routed from the basement. Part of this had to do with retrofitting my setup into a house over 100 years old, but I thought it also worked very well. If I were to do it again, I'd probably mount all of the computers in the basement, since it would provide extra heat (for the house) in the winter and stay cooler (for the computers) in the summer when under load.

I have since moved, but haven't bothered to make it happen again. Life with kids is too busy, and I've largely abandoned the hobby because I believe it would not be a positive influence given the particular quirks of my children's personalities. Slowly easing back into the waters with board games, though.

Bun uses JavaScriptCore as its runtime, not V8

From this I learned that, contrary to what I believed, on iOS Safari, websites do boy in fact pause when you change tabs. I was really surprised!

Anyway, I used to do a lot of work in this kind of space, and you've encapsulated all the good parts down into a fantastic distilled pure essence. Wonderfully done!

You take that back!

Ahh, figures. As soon as I said it I thought it likely that Marvel had roped it in at some point.

Nothing is safe! Just wait til we get Star-Lord (Guardians of the Galaxy) accidentally facing off against some Jedi just so a writer can make some "Hans shot first" "inside" joke in some "way overshot the time travel to long ago in a galaxy far far away" plot...basically a movie to set up the joke in a trailer.