Test0129

> I'm happiest, and most energized, when I'm by myself, at my desk, working on software.

Something I've tried to explain to people but it never gets through. Maybe I am unlucky but the last few companies I have been at have been filled with extroverts. Everyone wants to call meetings for the slightest thing. I've tried to enforce boundaries (I would prefer a slack message unless it's hard to communicate what we need) because it is draining being in so many meetings. The boundaries don't work. My "lack of desire to communicate" has ended up on yearly reviews.

I just want to work in quiet, alone, to try to conserve my energy for important things.

> In a nutshell, nushell is non-POSIX shell, so most of your regular shells knowledge (zsh, bash, ksh, etc…) can't be applied on it, and using it feels like doing functional programming.

Is there a reason some shells like fish (and now nushell) are non-POSIX? What is the benefit? I really like fish but I've kept away from it because it's non-POSIX and won't necessarily play well with years of POSIX scripts and knowledge I have.

> No, I'm just not interested in any "neutral" discussion of human rights. I don't want to read or listen to nationalists, incels, or whoever offering up opinions on the "great replacement theory" or whatever.

You pick an extreme example to make the same point anyone says about "free speech". I do find it funny that you left out the other side of the extreme. I am equally uninterested in listening to climate extremists who spray oil on businesses, rioters, antifa, anti-gunners, etc. Turns out, the extremes don't groove well with journalistic integrity because they don't believe in truth anyway. In fact, many of these extremes are created by the exact "journalism" we are complaining about here.

I do want neutrality in the truest sense. If news could be a list of facts derived by good journalism with sources, interviews, etc then I would be content. I don't want spin, I don't want an editorial disguised as a front page article. I want a person with a mundane droning monotone voice to tell me what happened, read off the interviews, and then close out the show. I want a set of facts that I can then derive my own conclusion from. This leaping off point would let me take this to my friends or family and have a meaningful discussion on what they think, or how it effects people, etc. Instead everything is an emergency. Everything is extreme. Every news outlet on whatever side you believe is telling you what to think, not what happened. You can't even listen to the big 3 news outlets in America, average their opinions, and end up anywhere closer to the truth. Coincidentally, this is the same problem with so-called "fact checkers", which is just a clever rebranding of yellow journalism, where the "fact check" is just a re-link to another disguised editorial or speculation on the meaning of something with enough filler to feel "truthy".

> I don’t think you should live without news. Being informed and discussing things happening around us is a natural expectation of community. I suggest find a balanced way to consume some so you can be reasonably well informed.

Except everything is an emergency. Did you hear the latest X said about Y thing? Did you hear what is happening in X-istan? What about the climate?

I don't care about any of it. At the end of the day being more informed about the comings and goings of every atomized point of the world only causes me more existential stress. If I'm being honest I really only care about what happens in my locality, and by extension my state. If it's big enough, maybe I'll care what happens at the country level. But very, very few things rise to meet this and cause me to have a need to burden myself. What Trump, or Biden, or Zelensky, or whoever is in the media circuits today says has literally zero bearing on my life in my community. Sometimes it's best to turn off the brain melting box in the corner of the room.

I haven't had any social media in nearly a decade (actually, probably a decade now). I'm regularly called ill-informed because I don't watch television news and I do my best to avoid any news on the internet. I listen to the radio mostly for entertaining talk shows and even those have been attempting to capture eyeballs (earballs?) with the latest in pseudo-journalism. I used to be really into NPR for a long time. The news seemed okay, but the shows were absolutely the best. Then at some point around 2013 they started doing away with more entertaining shows, and by 2016 it was all politics all day. Every talk show had some hot take on the latest event (usually from a deep left-leaning stance) and it drove me nuts.

I haven't found actual journalism. Reuters does an okay job most of the time. It's serviceable. The closest I've ever gotten to real journalism was the news feed in a trading platform I paid a lot of money for several years ago. Very "just the facts" - exactly how I like it.

"Journalists" have realized two things about modern media that I think lead us to this:

1. People LOVE drama. The more you can doll up a story to be a life-or-death fight, no matter how mundane or irrelevant, the better.

2. Since everything is on the internet there's no need to be right. 50 years ago when a newspaper, or news show released its information that was it. There was usually no easy way to redact parts of a story and not take massive heat for it. Now, we can watch news articles change in real time. You might say this is good but it leads to lazy journalism. Misinforming people and then pretending they had the right idea by the time they've edited the real story in.

I just stay away from most things now. Anything important enough to truly effect me I'll hear through other channels. It's a good enough filter. I don't need to be a "good global citizen" and take the burden of the world on my shoulders. My life is tough enough as it is.

I used to like NPR a lot. I listened every single day on the way to work and back home. It seemed around 2013 or so the agenda became far less neutral and far more one-sided.

I haven't really found a source that is truly neutral. Reuters does an okay job and that's about it. Journalism is more-or-less dead in the era of eyeballs.

I'm not so much frustrated by a lack of salary ranges in ads as I am about two things:

1. Waiting to figure out salary until the final interview.

2. No mention of CoL adjustments.

I don't know what employers expect to gain. Cynically people think that it's because employees are terrible negotiators. Maybe that's true. I always ask the top of the salary range based on other salary postings and let them explain to me why they have to work me down. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it's a CoL adjustment or other non-sense and I don't complete the paperwork.

I'm not convinced that posting salary ranges will make pay more balanced. It's nice to see but I think what people want is a hard number - you will definitely make $X if you work here. Unfortunately, it's typically not that simple. At my company we have pay bands by seniority, and pay bands inside those pay bands (to provide for raises, etc - merit pay).

This system works. What people should be doing in my opinion is talking about their salary. Force your employers to justify salaries. This is how I got a raise after I figured out I was paid 20k less than the new guy.

However, I'm not sure people are ready to hear "you're bottom barrel" to a response on why your salary is at the lowest band. Unfortunately, humans are creatures that compare and you won't be able to guilt your employer into paying you more if you are actually just simply bad at your job. I think discussing salaries openly will help the merit worthy engineers get what they should be getting. It will, necessarily, cause a LOT of hurt feelings however because a lot more people think they are more merit-worthy than they are. Whether it's worth it to protect people's delicate sensibilities can only be figured out by doing it. Discuss your salaries!

Do you believe they aren't for some reason? It's not like they release whose buying ads if you ask.

It's not about preventing people from knowing anything about my life. It's about control and threat surface. You can do these things without thinking after a little practice. I would like to present the version of myself I want the public to know about and have full control over that. Incursions into my privacy violate that idea.

It's not paranoia. That would imply they aren't out to get you. They are. Leave the government out of it for a second. If someone's phone is stolen it's very likely their entire identity, a majority of their secrets, documents like medical ID cards, credit cards, etc have been compromised. This is akin to "getting a warrant to a safe" (which in reality is just court-ordered theft) and it will completely destroy a person. In the context of the discussion if you were able to break into a dead person's phone you could very likely build a complete picture of their life. Perhaps one they weren't interested in you knowing about.

I'd prefer to avoid those situations. First, by not making myself a target, and second by protecting any and all data I have the best I can. I rarely think about it but I know if my phone is stolen, my computers are taken, or I get caught up in a fishing expedition the threat surface is extremely limited (provided the information isn't beaten out of me).

This sounds like poor consideration for edge cases - not really a problem with the UI or people clicking through it too fast. Anything that could be interpreted as remotely fatal should've shut the machine down.

You do realize state actors include the IRS, the FBI on a fishing expedition for a crime that occurred near your house, being framed for a crime because you look similar, false DNA matches, etc, right? All of these things are non-zero, and significantly above non-zero that everyone and their grandmother should consider it. Unfortunately, pandora's box opened with Snowden. We are all targets. The only difference is what degree of a target you've made yourself. If you work in tech, you're already high on a priority target list somewhere.

No.

Any password to a bank, or credit card, or whatever dies with me. It's for their own safety. Lest lawyers in some future time come collect a bill that my dead self forgot to pay for.

Everything important is either written into a will, or has a well establish next of kin process associated with it. All other things die with me.

> Don’t put the disabled in the position where the website itself takes extra steps just to be usable for them, old 90 year old grandma Betty with failing vision is never going to figure such things out and saying “lol just figure it out” isn’t good enough.

It's always funny when people get on their virtue bully pulpit and then immediately go to ageism. Nice work.

> The analogy I would make is actually round doorknobs vs door levers/handles. If you pay attention you will notice you don’t see doorknobs on new public buildings and that’s because of issues like arthritis. Yes somebody might aesthetically prefer doorknobs but that doesn’t justify their installation in something used by the general public. It’s fine for a PRIVATE website to be as inaccessible as you want, but not a public one.

So I as an independent developer am responsible for this in all of my public code? That's asinine. My home is catered to me, if people want to visit me in my home I am not going to change my door knobs, fix my windows, redo my concrete, etc so it can happen. It's mine and out of the charity of my heart I am letting other people use it if they need it.

Where do you draw the line? It sounds like you want FAANG to be the only game in town given they're probably the only people with the budget and bodies to fulfill all of your requirements. I don't see someone repackaging firefox as "firefox with accessibility", or using an add-on, as an undo burden on taking advantage of a service voluntarily provided, and most importantly does not compel you to use it.

Or, I could be a developer burdened by developing, marketing, and promoting my product. Unable to afford the time nor the energy to dedicate a large portion of my already limited budget on such things. Fundamentally, you are correct. Practically, you are very wrong. If you've ever been in this situation, as I have, you simply do the best you can with the tools you have. Sometimes this means not doing anything at all. Is this correct? Probably not. However, no one is paying me to do it and if someone threatens to sue me over it I'll pull the code and release it under an anonymous pseudonym. At some point automated scanners that look for things like this and send mean emails about compliance, legal action, etc are just bullying not different from patent vultures.

Heading down this path, while valiant, must be done carefully. Otherwise, Google/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon etc will be the only people with the budget to allow for full compliance to every possible disability that may effect the use of their product. I'm not convinced you understand just how much time and energy it takes out of actually delivering a product on a limited budget (in Nord's case free).

Your use of "alienate" has venom behind it that makes me think you're implying they do this deliberately to spite people with disabilities. Occam's razor.

> Unfortunately, this palette does not pass WCAG[1], which seems a weird thing to not have tested for if you've made a palette intended for web UI.

...can't you just use an accessibility extension to change the color scheme of a website? This seems like a solved problem. Extensions have been able to swap CSS for ages now.

I use nord. Honestly, the community is really centered around it's implementations. Nord makes it SO easy to use their theme almost everywhere. Use Vim? They got you. Emacs? Got you? $EDITOR? Got you. Gnome/XFCE/iterm2/etc - yep got you there too.

Honestly, not only is the color scheme excellent (speaking as someone who stares at a computer 18 hours a day) it's so easy to use compared to others it's hard to pass up. Even zenburn and solarized are frustrating to use because of subtle differences between implementations of the palette.

Ivy's were one example of the problem. Not of the white minority. As far as I know, ivy leagues do not have a white majority (owing to the legacy membership programs at many of them). However, one article [0] points to this happening in the midwest. It is also becoming the case at my local university who follows harvard's doctrine of race-based SAT/GRE admission standards.

[0] https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2022/08/29...

No, I know neither the doctor will see that, nor will I pay anywhere near that. It wasn't a "complex" visit, though there were a lot of convenience. Medicine consulting, in-house blood work, etc.

Sorry for the confusion. I stated the EOB to hopefully clarify that. Assuming that they got even 90% of that the doctor would be pushing $200+/hr. just to take my temperature.

> I know HN loves to pretend that racism only affects white people, but it just ain't so.

Do you normally just make things up?

The universities have been doing a underhand work around for affirmative action for a long time now. In particular the ivy's have been allowing certain races more leniency on standardized tests and other performance metrics in order to promote so-called diversity.

I do not expect this to change. They needed the above workarounds because it is often the case in the recent decade that white people in particular were reaching minority status in their population. This would mean white people would be entitled to affirmative action treatment at their university. According to dogma this is certainly not "diverse" and therefore, not good. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes hunting for source as this has been discussed here on frontpage topics for the last few years. It's common knowledge at this point.

I think the supreme court is making the smart choice here because affirmative action is often being ignored by the universities. There's no sense in even having it if they are defining their own rules to select for non-asian, non-white students. The existence or lack thereof of this ruling will not change the current bigoted admission policies of the ivy's.

The F-14 was a fantastic airplane. My favorite of all time (except for MAYBE the A-10, F-4, or the spitfire).

Unfortunately, it was too expensive to maintain and didnt perform a role that couldn't be performed by more advanced multi-role fighters (e.g. the F-16 and F-18) at the point it was retired. Similar to the A-10, really, in that the F-35 will likely take it's place.

I dunno, that's the point. Since it only technically requires "reasonable accommodation" it's up to interpretation. "Reasonable accommodation" has been used by ambulance chasers to sink businesses. I'm sure a set of absolutes could be codified.

I'm getting downvoted to death for having an opinion again so I'm just gonna leave the topic.

> Worse, I need to confirm the doctor kept in mind _all_ of this in my treatment plan, because I've had awful reactions when they haven't.

I'm not disabled but do have some chronic stuff. A couple decades ago I started carrying my medical record (well...the synopsis) to the doctors office for this reason. Especially when you end up in a clinic rather than a real private practice you're often not guaranteed to even see the same doctor twice.

> This is terrible for the doctor. I'm making them go over time, be late to the rest of their appointments for the day, and asking them for extra energy and brain cycles for treatment, for no extra money.

Though I'd not worry about this. My insurance EOB stated for a simple visit and bloodwork the doctor charged well over $1300. I saw the doctor for exactly 10 minutes. Make them work a little for their money.

The ADA is a definitely a case of great idea, terrible execution. Unfortunately, doctors (and really businesses in general) are forced into a no-win situation where as you stated you either comply in the fullest legally, or face a potential customer looking for a reason to sink your business. Where I live, the ADA is also responsible for some of the large increase in home prices over the last 20 years.

I wish it differentiated between necessary things like ramps, spots in a waiting area, etc, vs unnecessary things. There are just simply too many disabilities for even an honest, well intentioned business owner to keep up with. Of course, without retaining an insanely expensive lawyer.

I have a lot of experience with doctors. I've found regardless of what you look like unless you're going to a concierge clinic you wont even get the time of day from most of them. It seems to be a volume business, and thus they just go through the motions. Much like tech with engineers, the good doctors seem to leave as soon as you find them.

They can be used to start an exploit chain on a phone. I’ve seen 0-days personally that root a phone by triggering a drive by download. The other issue is they are unauditable. You have to almost go to the link to discover what is there. This is a problem, for example, when shell code can own the camera itself.

> The people in the communities believe in a moral right to having self-diagnosis believed. Having a diagnosis is almost considered a form of privilege reserved for wealthy white males, an observation rooted in scientific evidence of systemic under diagnosis for minorities and women.

This, in and of itself, would seem to warrant some sort of mental illness. Victim complex, perhaps?

I had interpreted this trend as something different. Kids wanting to be outliers because being an outlier is cool. Claiming some, realistically debilitating, mental illness makes you special (at least in the "different" sense). This gives lonely teenagers a sense of belonging and something that differentiates them. Most of them could probably be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder but I am not doctor. I suppose this isn't new. When I was a kid the kid in class that showed up with a cast was pretty cool for the time they had the cast. Everyone loves an outlier.

As someone who has struggled with a mild-to-medium form of ADHD, only getting a formal diagnosis late in life, I am baffled anyone would want to pretend to have a mental illness. Yet, here we are.

I have a really hard time ordering. After spending time doing security I do not trust QR codes. They make me really, really uncomfortable. To the point I wont eat at a restaurant with them unless someone who is not as paranoid will get the menu.

Aside from me, what about people without phones?

If you think chemistry is unpaid check out math :P.

But seriously, outside of quant work or certified actuaries mathematicians do not make as much as one would think.

> So why don’t we know? To Dr. Rubin, the reason is simple: The clitoris is intimately bound up in female pleasure and orgasm. And until very recently, those themes have not been high on medicine’s priority list, nor considered appropriate areas of medical pursuit.

Oh for christ's sake. Why not apply occam's razor? Is the tip of the penis a deeply studied and understood structure? Has it been mapped and analyzed to the point medical science has a definitive reason for everything's existence?

No. It's a small piece of a much larger bit of machinery. The rest of machinery is well studied because problems are common. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

Should medical science study more things? Sure, but to suggest "science doesn't like it because female pleasure is taboo" is positively bonkers. I would be SHOCKED if a gynecologist didn't have enough knowledge to diagnose various illnesses related to it. The entire article seems hinged on a case where a doctor, not understanding the anatomy, did nerve damage. Please, point to the proof these injuries are so common that Occam's can't apply. Why are we allowing plastic surgeons (who aren't gynecologists) to operate like the article suggests?