alextheparrot

Damn, hopefully the SF location doesn’t change too much in response to this. There and the New Parkway in Oakland are the only theaters I really go to.

I think there’s a balance between accruing and exploiting in terms of converting delayed value into realized value [0]. The utility of a dollar goes down as your able to do less with it or have less likelihood of being able to spend it [1]. For example, a family member took a trip right after retirement to Machu Picchu and passed away, not much good his pension and 401k did at that point.

The numbers in the bank account work out, but I’m less convinced that it remains as simple when you add the existential variable into the question.

[0] Spending money

[1] Things like focusing on your kids and inheritance help subvert this a bit.

> He said the use of the larger test was appropriate because it could catch a wider range of diseases, particularly for those who were symptomatic. [0]

Cant’t believe this isn’t an ethics violation, it is like going into the car dealership to change my oil and them charging me to take apart the engine because “It could catch a wider range of issues”.

I know what service I want and would consent to, this “Technically correct but costs 50x as much” is harmful.

[0] This is the doctor’s response when asked why he is testing for ~20 other respiratory diseases in the drive-through coronavirus line.

It is a difference in who decides how much they’re paid. In a traditional business their pay is at the discretion of the business and thus in competition with what could be the business’s profits. Tips are inaccessible to the business, so they get paid more closely to what consumers are ok with paying. I’m probably paying more too because of being guilted into feeling like I must tip x% because I’m directly responsible for the person’s wages.

These two points mean there’s no guarantee a tipped wage would convert 1:1 into an hourly wage if we simply removed tipping, even if the value provided by the tipped employee stays constant.

Last time I looked into Nanopore the cost wasn't that much better where you'd even consider this experiment.

On the other hand, when doing a genome assembly, the Nanopore reads are good for a draft sequence and then the Illumina reads can be used to polish the sequence.

Three days ago there was a hacked verified account that had done a name change posing as one of the Winklevoss twins trying to get people to send BTC to a random address. That is to say trust is a reoccurring cost and not as trivial as “Has checkmark” at T=0.

Definitely interested in how they articulate risks unearthed by recent events in their future S-1.

That's what I was asking about, though. If there are any crypto projects that provide this given that the traditional payment flow [0]. Chargebacks seem to be conflated with escrow a lot while also simply pinning chargebacks to an oracle problem. If it really is that trivial, there should be a team that someone is aware of offering this?

From what I can find around current crypto "credit cards", it seems they are in reality just debit cards.

[0] Not money, but Visa - though this was ambiguous as written

I think that post is representative of how only the market and time will actually flesh out this story. The GME holding party entrenches further because the graph is bad (Y Axis distortion) and the GME short party says the pressure has been alleviated.

Looking forward to it coming full circle when Twitter fully fleshes out the “Tweetstorm” as a product. Long-form content, high intractability

Are there any crypto projects that allow chargebacks? I religiously avoid using my debit card except at bank ATMs to avoid that once every few years when someone skims my credit card.

That and rewards are the main value-add of a traditional payment flow at the moment.

I don't think hoteling is intrinsically bad, just when it is paired with the sort of space constraints the original poster described. If you only have space for 50% of the staff, it is going to be a bad time whenever an important meeting comes up where more than 50% of the staff want to be in person.

This really is the worst of both worlds for the employees. Employees are still bound to a physical location, but you also have to maintain a home office and heterogenous communications stack [0]. Also, coordinating who is in the office when is a nightmare and can often lead to oversubscribed days.

The only utility I can see is if you need to run for appointments that are easier to do when working from home, but this is less about remote work and more about flexible working hours.

[0] Having worked in a team with distributed offices, a fairly large company like your partner's can definitely solve this.

> Learning from messing up does NOT come for free.

This is a bit further down in the thread, but really is the core point new engineers need to hear.

Many of us have sat through retrospectives after spending hours writing up what went wrong and even more hours fixing a problem. Sometimes the problem has arisen because the person making changes should’ve asked more questions or looked for more answers regarding the system they were changing.

The only problem I’ve ever had with questions is when the same question is asked too many times. That can mean a few different things, maybe that the team’s documentation is poor, but most of all it means that the person asking the question isn’t learning from the answer.

Remzi and Andrea [0] have a pretty well regarded OS book used to teach the OS course at Wisconsin [1-2]. Hope they’re doing well, Andrea’s course teaching Scratch to 4th and 5th graders at a local elementary school was a highlight of my time there.

[0] I would use honorifics, but they are married which makes it a bit confusing. [1] Which I never took but was well regarded when I was an undergrad

[2] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/OSTEP/

What are you all talking about, the original top-level post has a reasonably presented assessment of Tesla’s strategy and the ramifications of such a strategy. Sure, that assessment might be flawed, but I don’t see how any of that is “anti-Musk bias” or “jealousy”.

The comment regarding humans not needing LiDAR misses the point, which is that either every other self-driving car group is incorrectly deploying an expensive hardware solution or there are valid technical reasons why that might be a better path to L5. Tesla trying to overcome the limitations other companies are deploying LiDAR for is a technical risk they are taking on, and, as the top level post noted, might not be the worst bet given the downside which is that they’ll just have to license the tech.

I think your historical assessment is fair, as usually legal has an allow-list of licenses and anything else is non-trivial to integrate. Moving forward, though, with multiple companies trying to solve issues via licensing (Mongo, Elastic, Confluent), I think we could see some of the new licenses become legal allow-listed (Which allows for some of the moment open-source can give as you mentioned in the link).

Honestly, I think the biggest issue with Elastic-style licenses moving forward is API compatibility. It is just a question of how much money is at stake for a company like Amazon to go from just operationalizing ElasticSearch to running and maintaining an API-compatible fork, just as they've done with Mongo. It would actually be a bit hilarious if Amazon open-sourced said fork with a more permissive license, given that their buck is usually made off of ops.

In your post you talk briefly about licensing -- effectively (1) MIT/Apache are common and very permissive (2) AGPL sometimes gets shut down by legal (3) Changing licenses is hard.

Given these primitives, do you think one solution to the problem is just what we see here, a new licensing structure for some types of open source? Elastic's move here, attacking the issue through licensing, is one way that this sort of business model is becoming more robust over time and would be instructive for other founders looking to create revenue generating software that is also open source.

As a developer, the main reason I _love_ open source is that I help patch issues or inspect the code to get a better understanding. Which is great because the changes Elastic are making to their license are orthogonal to the value prop for your average developer.

That quote is not supporting your point, though, because the author and your friend are in separate camps. They are separate on exactly the grounds you indicate — the author spends paragraphs supporting how Prop 22 is not turning out positively and then says welp, people have been bamboozled.

The bamboozling is the conclusion, not a premise of the article. Such a conclusion is done out of kindness for the voters who passed this proposition as the actual ramifications are now becoming clear. They either didn’t realize or didn’t care that we’d see incidents such as the recent firing of Von employees.

Easiest way to check if someone understood what they were voting in support of is to ask if they thought workers would be fired to be replaced with this new class of employee. That’s why I voted no. I didn’t understand how it would end up being rolled out reality and correcting ballot propositions is much more involved than an ordinary bill.

I don’t see how the popularity of something necessarily corresponds to its utility. How is it counter-productive to speak to the reality of the bill, popularity at passage is entirely orthogonal to “Has it been beneficial”.

People like having cheap Ubers and didn’t prioritize about the ramifications otherwise, that’s my personal take from conversations I had around the election.

No, they don’t.

Thanks for the pointer, wasn't aware ZIO had an actor implementation. My interest was the inversion, though, which is “Could you make a (more or less) drop-in replacement for Future/IO/Task/ZIO that implements not just concurrency, but distributed concurrency using actors” (Where the actors could be Akka, ZIO, etc.).

I wonder what it would look like trying to implement something like the IO monad backed by Akka actors. Can't recall anything off the top of my head that would make that untenable aside from the aforementioned scoffing.

There was an interesting comment made on the recent "Bio Eats World" episode [0] that genetic tests are not aligned with health care reimbursement cycles.

Jorge Conda [0] cited two reasons that genome sequencing (Different from 23andMe's GWAS, for example). First he cited the high upfront cost to buy the machines (Usually meaning you need to be a big hospital). The second fact was a bit more interesting, which is that doing one expensive test (Genome sequencing) which then your health care provider could do cheap queries against ("Which other users have your symptoms and similar mutations in key genes" for example) does not align with the current billing model.

I think that's the "What's next". Finding a way to effectively bring genomic care to the general population, to allow for better research into genetic conditions. If you're interested in how "big" this can be, here's a case where "This American Life" covered how just a few genetic differences was the difference between an olympic athlete and a muscular dystrophy patient [2].

There's also the bio-terrorism and pandemic response angle, which is why the DoD is investing in third-generation sequencing systems where portability has finally become more of a priority.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knome [1] https://a16z.com/bio-eats-world-podcast/ (About 13 minutes in) [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/muscular-dystrophy-patien...

I suppose the contra seemed a bit hollow, as the bit you quoted has an implicit “in the company” attached based on the context of the post. It was less that your statement was strictly false and more “Well yes, but that isn’t really addressing the actual topic”.

The entire post talks about effects on the company. If we’re trying to be unreasonably obtuse, it doesn’t change conditions for a worker either because a person not working is not a worker.

Seems to be that the distinction may not be important for managerially oriented people. Some parents, of a mindset which I was not raised by, seem to see the role of a parent to be more in charge of "Coordinating an upbringing". I don't think this mindset is wholly bad, though I would expect it does have recognizable trade-offs.

My experience with this type of tracking is that it makes me more thoughtful about my time. I used Numbers and it cloud-syncs to most of my devices, I prefer this over passive trackers.

I did this for a month a while back, one realization I instantly had was that a lot of the my attention issues were caused by 'micro-interuptions'. For example, spending 8 minutes answering a support question on Slack and then going to write code - how do I record that? The same is largely true with Twitter or even HN, spend 5 minutes browsing instead of doing something with intention. Recording [Activity,Start,Stop] was preferable for me, the continuous scale made it really easy to track not just what I was doing, but the interstitial time when I didn't actively have a plan to do something.

Just setting out to record what I am doing helped to limit the number of things I was doing and made me be intentional about what they were. This post was relatively timely, as I actually started doing it again this morning.

If only I were so lucky, might've made me more thoughtful when planning experiments

I know, just glad I worked in a molecular biology lab after Taq was discovered. My lab experience was akin to his first hopes — put the reagents in, place it in the thermocycler, and pick it up the next morning.