NAHWheatCracker

Makes sense.

Is there a reason Pandemic (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/710698.Pandemic) and The Rift (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/271167.The_Rift) aren't in Kaguya?

I think most n/x rating systems are extremely weak and the level of detail is irrelevant. Averaging leads to a soup where nearly everything that isn't objectively awful falls in 60-80% rating. There's no signal to determine if it's good or just mediocre based on the rating alone. Goodreads and IMDB have been utterly useless to me.

Rotten Tomatoes' system has a lot of positives and I see a ton of signal in Rotten Tomatoes scores. It only works with a critical mass of people rating a given piece and I don't think anyone could get that critical mass for books aside from Goodreads.

I had an idea of a rating system where people would have to create a ranked list of the movies/books. Their rating for a given piece would be based on where it is in their list, linearly. Then ratings would be relative to other content. I think this would be much harder to get off the ground than a Rotten Tomatoes system.

I like it. Very clean UI. I don't think "UI still looks like it's from 2005." is a bad thing (nor do I know if that's true).

I'm working on importing my library from a simple checklist app I made years ago. I posted one review.

Any idea why The Metabarons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabarons) isn't in the library? I guess comic books aren't in the data source.

He's just one of today's lucky 10,000.

https://xkcd.com/1053/

Higher tariffs won't do it alone. Time is needed, as well. The current tariffs are likely seen as temporary.

If you start a factory to produce on shore, you would have to recoup capital costs off the margin available due to undercutting offshore factories while tariffs are higher.

When the administration or whims change, the tariffs go away and your factory loses that margin and isn't as profitable.

Click and it changes colors.

I'm disappointed I couldn't mouse over the grid to find my PIN and see how popular it is...

Bitcoin is certainly extremely high on the speculative spectrum, but claiming gold is anywhere near the same level of speculation is specious.

Gold has the Lindy effect going for it. Humans have been trading it for thousands of years. Bitcoin has been around for 16 years.

Gold has industrial uses and if its value dropped, its uses would expand. Bitcoin has no such inherent supply-demand curve.

Vanguard says it's more of a speculation than an investment. Vanguard isn't saying speculation is bad entirely.

Stocks are ownership of a tiny part of a company that has assets, cash flow, and does something in the world. Stocks are a speculation as well, some more than others, but the balance of speculation to investment is weighted differently.

Bitcoin on the other hand is almost always only purchased for speculation that the exchange rate will go in your favor. You don't own a tiny part of anything.

From my perspective, a big issue with Bitcoin speculation is that it's inherently zero-sum. Investing in a company is usually positive-sum (even if it you don't profit).

Correct, I wasn't critiquing gRPC. I was critiquing a type of person who might push for gRPC. That developer probably thought of it as a novelty and made up reasons to use it. It was a big hassle that added to that teams workload with no upside.

My only work experience with gRPC was on a project where another senior dev pushed for it because we "needed the performance". We ended up creating a JSON API anyways. Mostly because that's what the frontend could consume. No one except for that developer had experience with gRPC. He didn't go any deeper than the gRPC Python Quick start guide and wouldn't help fix bugs.

The project was a mess for a hundred reasons and never got any sort of scale to justify gRPC.

That said, I've used gRPC in bits outside of work and I like it. It requires lot more work and thought. That's mostly because I've worked on so many more JSON APIs.

It's the hammer I have and it works on those nails, hah.

Micropayment systems don't work well because there are free options. Convincing people to pay any amount of money is incredibly hard.

Would micropayments result higher quality? Maybe, but until you have a critical mass no one can really tell.

Free options are more likely reach critical mass and dominate. Paid options thus die off, starved of attention.

I think what you describe is what infecto was saying. You can't use YouTube to find interesting content anymore. You can only use it to find more of what you've already seen. In the past, it was better at unearthing new things.

Personally, I added uBlock filters so the home page is empty and recommended videos aren't shown. I only ever go to subscriptions now.

Maybe I don't understand what is supposed to happen, but this doesn't work for me. (Firefox, Pop_OS!)

I was surprised at $0.99/lb for asparagus. My local Walmart has it for around $6/lb.

I've been thinking about this lately.

For a couple weeks, I was worried about my health insurance for next year through my state's marketplace and I was considering whether it would be worth the unsubsidized price of $350-450 per month. Ultimately, I don't have enough information about my risks to feel comfortable with my analysis. While it would be mentally soothing to use the calculator, it's not really helpful.

I'm also curious what's going on with insurance prices this year. The health insurance premiums this year are 33% more and just today I got my home insurance renewal asking for 25% more with the exact same coverage amounts. Did something happen to justify these increases?

I don't know you, but based on what you're saying, I guess you're in a much different environment than I've ever been in. You're probably also more of a "type A" person than I am.

I've always worked in places that are essentially established businesses. People are mostly bureaucrats and lazy. I believe that's a large majority employers. If you honestly can't understand that that's how a lot of people work, then I think you live in a bubble.

I agree with you that's how it should be, but experience tells me that everyone is insecure and it's hardly correlated with position and job security.

People lower down the chain are insecure because they could legitimately be let go at any time for any reason.

People higher up the chain are insecure because any loss of face is debilitating. Especially having failings pointed out by someone "below" them.

As someone who never used Twitter, I made a Bluesy account and it was okay. I learned that I have no idea how to engage with that style of social media.

One thing that put me off is how so much of what I saw was just talking about Bluesky vs Twitter. I hope they can move past that.

Nvidia is $3.42T market cap. AMD is $246B market cap. Nvidia makes up over 5% of the ETF I use. AMD is less than 0.5%

There's a lot more wealth tied up in Nvidia, so there is more interest and worry. They are also more associated with hyped up tech like Bitcoin and AI. Whether you believe in those technologies in the long term determines whether you're likely to think Nvidia can maintain.

With everyone dumping on Intel lately, AMD also looks like the primary CPU manufacturer.

You'd be surprised how people will stick to a name.

At my last job, we spent 3 years building an electrical systems product with the same name as an eye scanning company. We had invested in marketing and sales that was practically useless once the executives finally agreed they needed to rebrand. It was the sort of thing that was pointed out on day zero, but the man in charge was too proud of the name. It wasn't even a very good name for our product.

And that was a bet-the-company type of choice. Lingo here is just some little library of no import to Gitlab's business.

I did this as well for 3 domains that use the same EC2. There were random connectivity problems from my phone for a couple months, but it works perfectly for the past 6 months. I have no idea why the issues went away.

Lots of people are, they're called nootropics.

Whether they are successful and whether they are mostly a bunch of snake oil is another question...

At my last job, there was a frontend developer who added a linter rule that variable names must be at least 2 characters long. The project already had 20,000 lines of code. Every time anyone made a change to a file, they would have to rename all the one letter variables. Usually, this meant all the for loops in the file. I tried to explain how pointless this rule was, but he wasn't having any of it.

Most people just renamed variables like i > ii, which was worse.

My only personal experience writing with Lisp was Scheme, which I wrote for two weeks back in college 18 years ago, so I truly know nothing about the language.

In retrospect, saying I don't understand was hyperbolic. Of course I understand that people have their preferred languages. The handful of languages I've used in my career each have their draw.

My comment was meant more to question the assertion that Lisp is the-right-thing, which sounds like asserting the-right-religion.

One counterargument is that people who claim "worse is better" are often making excuses for why their preferred technology didn't win.

Often in these arguments, worse means "shortcut" and better means "won". The difficulty is proving that not taking the shortcut had some other advantages that are assumed, like in the article.

I'll never understand the obsession with LISP. My guess is it just appeals to a certain type of person, sort of academic in my view. I'm not convinced that LISP was ever the-right-thing. The author didn't express anything about LISP vs C except to assert that C was a 50% solution and LISP was better.

I agree though that for practical purposes, practical solutions are just going to be more successful.

If PMs are accountable, then I'm with you. Decision making should lie with those accountable.

From what I've seen, accountability doesn't mean much. Could be the places I've worked. Poor PMs get promoted despite running projects into the ground, good engineers get held back despite pushing through adverse project plans, vice versa.

That's the practical advice to engineers who are stuck in a dysfunctional organization where they can't really effect change, which is probably 90%+ of all organizations.