Commons did a great episode on the Irvings' dynasty a few years back: https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/dynasties-2-the-irvings/
359 karma · joined August 7, 2013
No. This study has changed precisely nothing about how we measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Or climate change in general.
Like it or not climate science is extremely political and selectively reported science (which this is) that is presented to the public needs to account for the context in which it exists or it is no better than propaganda. The fact that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is primarily funded by the US Department of Energy is plenty of reason to be suspicious of its motivations. They have a vested interest in shaping the public's perception of energy production and its impact on the climate.
> Re: tech bro
The tech bro thing comes across most apparently in the pro-VC slant of this site (inextricable, I know). There is a high proportion of believers in a fantasy meritocracy where current wealth concentration is justifiable due to the sheer genius of "founders". This is very much a tech-bro way of thinking.
The way HN regularly reduces socio-political problems into a technological gap is another tech-bro "thing". When someone suggests that a country switch its currency to crypto to eliminate state corruption, or suggests that biometrics scanners be installed at ports of entry to eliminate slavery and humans rights abuses, that is a tech-bro opinion. It is different from a blue collar environment because the people on this website are extremely insulated from the social issues that come up on here. Nonetheless, they feel like they have an obvious solution to a version of the problem that they've concocted in their head based on a 2 second glance at a headline. It reminds me of this Adam Savage video that I think is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP4CKn86qGY
> Re: obnoxiously male
This is exemplified by the high confidence and combativeness in this and other similar comment sections on HN, but let's just talk about this comment section.
Commenters here are confidently asserting that the author's lived experience is wrong because of a certain interpretation of the words that they typed in the article. When she says that someone made comments that made her feel othered, the reaction here is to disbelieve and downplay. That is very much a "obnoxiously male" way of approaching things. In more balanced spaces, the presumption would be that this blog post was made for a reason and that the person who made it is valid and rational by default. Nobody here has any additional information, and they are asserting that their interpretation of her words is correct even though they are heavily influenced by their own biases of gender, class, and otherwise.
Do you?
> not the same sort of risky move
I don't see it as materially different. I also don't consider this to be an example of either of them being genius visionaries. I actually think it's an extremely straightforward tactic to cannibalize part of your business to break into another bigger market.
Apple didn't stop selling iPods, you know? I don't really get why it was more risky for Apple to market the iPhone than for Facebook to decide not to shut down Instagram once they acquired it.
The differences in the literal creation of the entity are immaterial to my point.
Me, I guess. I've released MacOS apps for free and never felt any expectation to provide indefinite support. They do what they are supposed to do and people still use them.
> why I'm working on bugfix now?
Idk that's on you brother.
Why do you keep saying that "support forever" is the default here? Nobody would expect that except if you were releasing under a subscription model.
Plus, this app doesn't need support. Come on.
That's fair, it is your experience, but I think it's about whether you're on the same wavelength about what level of corporate suck is standard and acceptable. I don't love the framing of this being specifically an "earlier-career" issue but I'm an IC and ICs are not a borg that I have assimilated into (yet), so some have internalized varying amounts of corporate suck relative to me.
For example: I find in some places, low-autonomy is just considered par for the course, and when asked "what sucks?" certain ICs might respond "this job is the best one I've ever had, I have no complaints." But, if asked "what part of project delivery is most frustrating?" or another more specific question they might say "requirements change sometimes arbitrarily and we're expected to respond to any changes without changing the delivery target." The point I was trying to make is specificity helps to get higher signal answers when you don't understand your interviewer's baseline. One man's yuck is another man's yum or whatever.
> "what's your funnel look like for this role?"
I think this is a fine question to ask. It is fairly corpo-speak sounding, but it doesn't communicate the same "Do you like the others better than me?" vibe as the question you contrast it with. It communicates that you are evaluating them, not asking them if their evaluation of you is going ok or not. If you're interviewing with the C-levels then they also have enough information to give you a clear response, and the answer will give you details about how long it will take to reach a hiring decision.
> What are the bad things about this job?
Too vague. Most interviewers won't be ready to shit talk their employer with this question and will say "nothing." A better question would be some variation of "What would you change about the way your team works if you could?" Frame the question properly so that they don't set the parameters themselves.
> How many other people are being interviewed and how do I compare?
Comes off very insecure and gives you no useful information. It will only reflect poorly on you.
Really groundbreaking stuff. I'm so happy public funds are being used to pump surveillance data to a mega-corporation so they can tell us who does or does not have a bike.