Shatnerz

How are you defining efficiency here? Is walking really more efficient than cycling? I would put walking as the least efficient manual powered methods mentioned.

Aside: I used to unicycle to work, and I have to say that it was both fantastic and much faster than walking while on a 27.5" wheel.

Try overemployment. Get an easy second job that you allows you to meet expectations with minimal work.

Pick a niche hobby and dive in. Any hobby without too much supply will be full of interesting and generally welcoming people since they will also be in need of growing the community. This could be anything depending on where you are. Maybe recreational sports or something like table tennis or padel.

I unicycle. There aren't many of us so when we run into each other we usually hit it off instantly. You can take it as far as you want from learning to ride, to doing tricks, to riding in the mountains or across the country. It requires focus so it takes your mind off of recent events plus it is good exercise and helps with coordination. You become comfortable with looking ridiculous and as a result you meet all types of folks which is great.

India has some previous experience with censorship. Maybe we will end up with "The Emergency: Part II"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)

I first heard about Miegakure from xkcd. It's been just about 13 years exactly since that comic.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/721:_Flatland

Something like 35% of the US has graduated university[1]. I suppose the average university graduate is smarter than the average person regardless of the school they attended.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...

I don't see why not? Citizen science has been pretty important to fields like ornithology. I'd actually be surprised if something like this wasn't already happening somewhere at small scale at least.

edit: There is even a "Butterfly Count" section on the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science

True, but at the moment the funds are locked until next month when Ethereum has a network upgrade (Shanghai). If they credited users ETH directly now, they may not have enough liquid ETH on the books if everyone were to withdraw before the upgrade which would remove all trust in the exchange.

Burn more calories than you consume. There was a professor (Mark Haub) who only ate junk food for a period as a self experiment and lost a significant amount of weight simply by calorie restriction.

The issue is that not everyone is comfortable bringing up issues as they happen. Some people may not recognize issues. Others may avoid mention until a problem grows larger. Regular 1-1s make this much easier to catch and give direct reports a great opportunity to share.

Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.

> If you want to cancel it every time, that's fine

I would amend this to "If they want to cancel it every time, that's fine".

I personally think its best to keep 1-1 availability as consistent as possible. Always be available to spend the time and avoid last minute changes to the meeting. The time is an opportunity for the direct report as well. If they want to cancel, that is fine. Same with whether they want to use the whole slot or only 5 minutes. Cancellations and changes from the manager side may throw plans askew since reports might be hanging onto something to unleash during the time.

When starting with a new manager or direct report I usually ask that they read this blog post from RandsInRepose: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...

> I don't want to just keep blowing my trumpet, or just complaining.

Complaining is fine. So is general chatting. The time is basically an opportunity to discuss what is on your mind. Share new ideas. Talk about potential problems. Ask for an update on your personal growth and progression. Give feedback on your manager. Ask for feedback on your manager.

I wouldn't worry about being super efficient. The habit of regular 1-1s is what is important and building the relationship between manager and direct report. Some 1-1s will be quick and easy and over in a fraction of the time. Some will stretch the meeting time. Try keeping to natural conversation and avoid robotic responses and status updates.

I first heard about it here on HN 36 days ago. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996953

"How to Know Every" - Elke Wiss. I read this recently and it was pretty good.

I didn't actually read the linked article but I see it is from GitLab. GitLab makes it easy to view the diff between versions of an MR even if it includes rebases.

Have you asked for more? There is no incentive to pay you more if they think that you are content with your position. Not much can go wrong when asking for a raise. Worst case, you continue to get paid the same, which seems to be the trend here.

> Per my knowledge US is the only country which stubbornly (and illogically) considers Sunday to be the first day of the week;

First day of the working week is Sunday in Nepal. I assume they consider Sunday the start of the week, but I'm not Nepalese. This is just a random fact I remember from visiting.

It's just a recoining of "Rest and vest" right?

I find that it is fairly common for companies to pay you as a contractor if you want to leave the US. This simplifies things for both parties in most cases (assuming the company doesn't have an established office in the location that you will be working). You likely won't need a US address when this is the case.

Regarding taxes, you will likely need to a hire a tax professional in the area that you are working from. If you are a US or Eritrean citizen / permanent resident you should also hire a tax professional from the US / Eritrea in order to handle their citizenship based taxation.

Depending on the setup, companies can often block/disallow secondary market sales. It almost feels standard at this point.

I don't know if it has a specific name, but I believe it is possible to work around the company in cases like this. You basically setup a contract where you accept money and then agree the transfer shares as soon as they become liquid. No transfer of ownership happens beforehand so the company is left out of the process entirely.

I have never tried it, but I always thought it was an interesting concept since I first heard about it.

> It's not 'semantics', it's the opposite of 'semantics'.

Is there an opposite of "semantics"? Isn't semantics just the topic around the meaning of words and communication? Is the opposite just everything else?

Anyways the point was that Coinbase is likely acting not because it extends the "practical usefulness" of their products, i.e. it adds no new features or functionality. They are likely acting out of regulatory necessity.

The semantic argument is whether regulatory necessity falls under "practical usefulness". I'd argue no, as the usefulness of their product as it applies to users either doesn't change or actually goes down as a result of this, but one can similarly argue that not satisfying regulators likely results in the loss of the product altogether.

> It's not mostly 'terrorism and protect the children' - it's tax evasion, wire fraud, bribery, insider trading, financial fraud, scams etc.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Collecting beneficiary data is useful for things like redundant checks against sanction lists such as OFAC (terrorism, organized crime, and human trafficking falls under here). I don't see how tax evasion, insider trading, and bribery even apply here.

- Tax evasion would likely deal with the exchange reporting both trades and received funds for a user, neither of which applies to beneficiary data on outgoing funds afaik

- How is insider trading relevant here? Would that not be dependent on trading and not the transferring of assets. Does providing beneficiary data do anything to shed light on trading with privileged data?

- Bribery? Maybe, but seeing as this still happens fairly regularly with traditional finance, I doubt that this will curb much behavior.

> We mostly derive our protections from 'government overreach' via the constitution, not anonymity.

I assume you are talking about the US constitution which doesn't much apply to non-US persons. The US Constitution doesn't provide much context or protection around the financial system either.

In Section 8 we have

> "Congress shall have Power [...] to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin."

And in Section 10,

> "no state [...] shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

We can turn this to a semantic argument over the meaning of "practical usefulness", but in my opinion collecting such information provides no additional benefit to Coinbase other than keeping regulators at bay and avoiding future fines and restrictions.

> why might 'regulations' be in place such that when large sums of money change hands

I have done some work in the financial compliance space. You would be surprised how small some of these "large sums" are and they keep getting smaller even while inflation weakens the value of the currency involved. In some locations, the limit is as low as ~$1000 USD.

Yes the motivation is anti-terrorism, protect the children, national security etc... but in practice it is just a vehicle for governments to collect data on its people. In this case, good actors will behave the same while their data is collected and shared. Bad actors who are aware of these restrictions can just pay the $0.25 to transfer through a newly created wallet and then send without these restrictions while regulators pat themselves on the back for stopping money laundering.

What can end up happening with policies like this? Well if governments, regulators, or monopolies get out of hand all of a sudden you cannot send money to a political party. Maybe all your bank accounts are frozen for supporting a protest or all of a sudden you have no way to purchase a flight to leave. Maybe Mastercard/Visa ban donations to entities like Wikileaks for "moral reasons" while allowing donations to the KKK and other similar organizations. These changes don't typically happen all at once. Freedoms are salami sliced away at a rate that doesn't upset the majority and the norm slowly moves to believe that these restrictions are for our own good. (sorry I went a bit off topic here)

Also, why was "regulations" in quotes? Sorry if I missed something or misinterpreted your tone here. Hopefully I answered your question.

> might be useful in financial transactions

This is likely to satisfy regulators. I highly doubt that this change has anything to do with practical usefulness

Send to your own privately controlled wallet and then transfer as your heart desires.

Would it be ethical to land several tech jobs at the same time and then do the bare minimum at each to keep the paychecks until you hit $100k? You'll likely be fired and burn some bridges for potential employment, but I think you could hit $100k within a few months including interviewing.

> 1) an 8-person company will be a shit-show and not a good experience for my first adventure in start-up world, especially coming from a large legacy insurance company

There is a lot to be learned from shit-shows and even sinking ships and the experience can be invaluable to your career.

> 2) sales in start-ups is easily the least defensible position - not as "valuable" as engineering and product.

If you are confident in your ability to this shouldn't truly be an issue. Sales is also often a crucial piece to a startup that is often overlooked and ripe with opportunity for the right people.

---

I'm not sure what exactly you are looking for here. Only you will be able to make this decision. Neither is wrong and it sounds like you may just be seeking validation. Regardless, don't look back too hard and with much regret no matter your choice.

I'd personally make the decision based on the people that I'd be working with and my interest in the work/sector. Even the perfect position can suck if you dislike the people that you work with or don't believe in the product.

As with everything it requires discretion, but avoid attributing bad intentions especially on first offenses.

If someone forgets to credit you for work done, reach out and let them know so they can correct it. There is a good chance that they just forgot. Now if this happens every time without fail, something is up and blindly assuming positive intent would just be naive.

> asking them to assume positive intent from the other party is dismissing their experience of what happened and how they should feel about it.

I'd disagree here. It isn't immediately dismissive but it is a chance to change their perspective. Should you let them stew in their anger because they think Bob hates them, or should you perhaps suggest that Bob's actions were a result of outside information unknown to them (obviously depends on each case)?

I first ran into this concept maybe 4-5 years ago while reading the GitLab handbook[1]. I have to say that I am a fan. I've been repeating this idea to every company and team that I have worked with since.

Lol, I recently had a potential issue where I switched teams and the team lead was new to the company. We had a daily standup thread in Slack. I would make the key ideas bold so it is easy to skim. The manager reached out a few weeks later and was taken aback by my "attitude" in these threads. He/she was assuming the bold text for anger and impatience (despite happening with both positive and negative ideas) while the original intent was to just ease reading comprehension. Now "assume positive intent" is always part of my intro spiel when working with new people.

1. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#assume-positive-in...

A meteorite strikes your house and puts a hole in your roof in the middle of rainy season. You will likely need cash quickly. You may be able to get an invoice or payment plan, but a lot of workers who will patch your roof get ripped off and demand cash up front as a result.

Other examples:

- car transmission fails at a crucial time such as during travel (now you may need accommodation)

- boiler breaks

- AC failures during summer

Really any major house related or car related issue. You could argue that these are maintenance costs and not emergencies and I would agree, but not everyone approaches these the same. It is also entirely possible for several affordable and expected events to unexpectedly happen at the same time.

You don't. Emergency funds are for emergencies.

Higher yields are possible with various different investments but they all come with additional risk. You do not want to have an emergency fund they may drop in value during a period which you may need to draw on your emergency fund, such as a market downturn that leaves you unemployed.

Similarly, you want to be able to access emergencies funds quickly. Emergencies are generally unexpected. If you need to wait for funds to unlock or for sales to settle, then it could possibly be too late.