bigjimmyk3

My initial attraction to screen / tmux was when I spent most of my time logged into remote servers. The ability to start a long-running script at the office, detach from screen, then re-attach at home to check on it later was indispensable.

FT8Call has been renamed to JS8Call (and also mentioned upthread).

tivert's reply is correct, and WMT does it on a surprising array of goods. The most visible example is "Great Value" frozen pizzas, which are produced by the same company that makes and sells Red Baron. Cost conscious consumers buy GV, brand conscious consumers by RB, both companies make money.

You are correct that more stores are mixing their house brand in with "national" brands (or whatever term you want), and that stores have discovered the good ROI that comes from upping their house brand game (which is the point of the linked article).

I want to add that there is a hidden benefit for name brands to having the house brands there, at a lower price point. There's plenty of fascinating reading on "price positioning" and how having a lower house brand right next to the national brand results in increased sale of the national brand.

My main point was that I don't think Amazon sees its relationship with vendors the same way that older retailers do. WMT has a deserved reputation for being very aggressive with their suppliers, but I believe that their culture still sees the relationship goal as win-win (they would argue that they are helping their suppliers achieve better efficiency, or often licensing the national brand's stock to make their house brand so more sales for all). I know nothing about Amazon's buyer culture, but their own brand activity does not seem to give much consideration to supplier health.

It's also interesting to note that their own brands are immune to the commingling problem, which gives them a perverse incentive to let that problem ride. That makes me very uncomfortable.

I think it's different because of intent. Supermarkets and large retailers (e.g. WMT) seek deals to relabel and sell products as "house brand" but it's generally done in such a way that they are selling to customers who would not have purchased the name brand in any case. That's the pitch anyway, and judging from the longevity of these arrangements it's likely that the "name brand" is seeing enough benefit to continue in that way. The two entities seem to find a way to balance their interests.

With Amazon, I don't think they are seeking that balance at all. I do not think it's a good long-term move for their retail side. The problem with stabbing all of your friends in the back is that you also have a back.

It's possible that your automation saved jobs by enabling your former employer / client to remain solvent. Sometimes the choice is not "30 jobs without automation or 10 jobs with automation," but rather "10 jobs with automation or 0 jobs without automation."

I think you hit the bullseye here, because the tasks you highlighted simply aren't done at most other QSRs. They are novel ways to apply human labor to fast food (at least, novel within their competitive space).

I think I read the OP's assertion in relation to your counterpoint like this: when thinking through the problem, your initial iteration of work is allowed to say exactly that: a leap year occurs every 4 years. However, you should do so via a semi-stubbed function (isLeapYear) as mentioned previously. I am imagining that the specifics of when a leap year occurs are not critical to your solution, only that you know when they happen. Thus, you avoid spending too much time on a detail that's eventually important, but not critical for proving your first hypothesis. In the "correct" stage you come back and improve the isLeapYear function to return correct results.

Part of attaining wizard status is not learning how to hold more of the program in your head, but instead learning how to hold _less_. This seems like an excellent step in that direction.

A train's emergency braking system is somewhat sacrificial (using it can damage engines, cars, etc.) so you're probably correct. I'd say that in either case, most people who are not "train people" will dramatically underestimate the required stopping distance. The mass of a fully loaded train is surprisingly large.

I had PRK about a year ago, and I'm very happy to have done so. I wore contacts / glassses for about 35 years prior, and I don't miss them at all. I have experienced some of the post-op complications mentioned in the article, but I'm not a good data point there because of many confounding factors: my age means that I'm starting to experience things (allergies, presbyopia) that would have happened regardless of the surgery.

I wanted to mention something else that I experienced post-op, which is more relevant to HN: anger at websites that don't support zooming! My temporary foray into the world of low-vision web browsing gave me a new appreciation for people who have to experience the web like that every day. If your website's header grows to fill my entire screen as I zoom, I'm not buying anything from you.

TMND is rarely mentioned in these discussions on HN, and I think that's a shame. Despite being a bit over 20 years old, it's a fascinating study of documented high net worth individuals. They also do a good job of contrasting high net worth and high income.

Have you been talking to my wife today? Because she reminded me of forensic accounting as soon as I got home. Yes, that is a thing but it's not part of a normal financial audit (at least not in the US).

I knew that phrase was going to bite me! See my reply above, where I clarify that "reliability" is better said as "reliability as a summary representation of our books."

What Tyrek said.

Also, I could have phrased it better as "assurance that the company's financial statements accurately portray the activity in their accounting ledger(s)." An audit is about matching the financial statements to "the books" rather than looking for impropriety.

Married to an accountant, and her words are echoing in my head (loudly): "The purpose of an audit is not to discover fraud!" An audit is a written opinion on the reliability of a company's financial statements (my words this time). It is not an opinion about the company's business model, ethics, or future viability. Saying, "the auditors should have caught that" misses the point of an audit (a financial audit, anyway).

I think people may have conflated these auditors' jobs with that of, say, an auditor from a government entity like the IRS whose job duties can include discovering fraud.

Spree may be dead, but its successor Solidus (https://github.com/solidusio/solidus) is still seeing regular fixes and feature updates.

For "light reading" on this subject, try _Working Effectively With Legacy Code_ by Michael Feathers. We used it to very good effect at my last company.

I have a similar service (1gbps up/down) and I was able to get 944mbps by cabling my laptop directly to the ONT. According to my research, that's the practical maximum since there is some protocol overhead taking up part of the pipe. Once I reintroduced the router, I also dropped to ~750mbps.

All testing was to an iperf node at my ISP.

I recruited someone to help me play a prank on a friend, and in return she asked me to find her a date from my university (we attended college in different cities). She forgot to say "other than you" so I won that one. We went to see a movie and one of the characters recited a short equation. I knew she was a math major so I wised off, "You're trying to solve that aren't you?" She looked at me like I was a ghost, because... she was. Click.

We have been married 20 years and we have three awesome kids. Best prank ever.

A few years ago I felt like I should contribute something back to SO (having used it plenty of times for research), but somehow I got routed into a "gotcha" UX where the site would repeatedly tell me that my previous action was against the rules. It felt like being trained via shock collar. I certainly appreciate the goal of maintaining quality in questions and answers, but I hope there are better ways of getting there than what I saw.

Note that the experience I have didn't appear to be human-initiated: I understood it as an automated "feature" of the site itself, a sort of guided initiation process. Maybe that process trained some people a bit too well?

Seconded -- while the decision-making ability is centralized (not in each individual robot) the system as a whole is still able to make its own decisions in many areas.

I'm controlling zigbee devices with hass via a lightify hub, and I know there are other supported methods as well.

EDIT: clarified that I am using homeassistant to talk to the lightify hub.

We had the best luck with an electric comb -- that is, a comb designed so that the louse completes a circuit and receives a small (but lethal) dose of current. It is difficult to build up a resistance to that.

After a few initial hiccups, my wife is sold on Walmart's grocery pickup service. For short-range delivery, they are also experimenting with "terrestrial drones"[1] which I have seen around town once or twice.

1. http://www.chainstoreage.com/article/different-kind-drone-ro...

I remember reaching my state spelling bee and noticing that some of the other kids had a book I had never seen. It turned out to be _Valerie's Spelling Bee Supplement_ and when I got to the national bee almost every competitor had one. I felt like the knife guy at the gunfight.

As an employer, I like contract-to-hire because it gives me a chance to learn more about the employee -- and vice versa. Most of these have worked out quite well, a few have ended in... spectacular fashion. Point is, I have always felt that contract to hire (when I don't already know the person) reduces the risk of a "bad match" on both sides.

I'm in a similar situation, but don't think of this as an unsolvable problem:

1. Find people who are great at it and be interested in how they do it. I think of this as learning to read good design before you write it. They may be interested in how you do what you do as well. 2. For me, one of the most productive steps was learning the basic mechanics of the bootstrap CSS framework. It did not make me better at designing beautiful web pages, but it did help me make something minimally usable (i.e. not repulsive) that lets me get my ideas roughed out. With a few days of learning, you may be surprised by what you can do. 3. If the best you can do is a cookie cutter design that lets you get started, congratulations! You can get started! What I mean is, I have felt what you are feeling, and there are ways around the problem. Good luck!

All good advice. After about the same amount of time, I am seeing things from the other side -- that of the manager / employer. I have had quite a few employees who came to me and sheepishly told me they were accepting another offer. In every case, my response has been "Congratulations!" and it's sincere because these people are also my friends. I want them to win! As their manager, part of my job is to provide an environment where they can grow their skills. If they grow faster than the business grows, economics tells me what to expect.

If you tell your employer you're leaving for more money and they get angry (assuming you didn't just consume a bunch of money in training), that's a sign that you made the right move.

I have a story from the other side. In the late 90s my university RA position involved installing and maintaining a network in a nearby school district. One day, a teacher at a junior high indicated that one of his brighter students was "messing around" with one of the workstations. I took a look, and sure enough he had rebooted it with a linux CD-ROM distro. No problem. However, there were clearly multiple logins for people who weren't students, and the server was accesible from outside the network. Problem. Further tracking led us to a password sniffer installed back at the university, which in the 90s was serious business (and a whole other story).

Once the teacher understood what was going on, he quickly ran it up the chain and we wound up in a vice principal's office with an SRO and the boy's parents (SRO = School Resource Officer). I was a pretty bright kid in high school and the one time I wound up in a vice principal's office, it was pretty unpleasant. However, when the kid walked in I think he outdid me -- he instantly went #ffffff and almost fell over. To his credit, once he started breathing again he was honest and open about what he did. I tried to emphasize that he didn't act out of any bad motive, so I'm pretty sure the worst punishment he received was that office experience.

In retrospect, I'm glad I was there because (even as a college student) I had enough credibility to explain the situation. I did not keep up with the student, but I hope he went on to much career success.

My alma mater added a course requirement on professional ethics shortly after I left, partly due to multiple "incidents" at the university (not because of me... this time).

Ethics is the difference between Dr. Spock and Dr. Frankenstein.