1,328 karma · joined March 18, 2010
On the other hand, StackOverflow simply limits the number of interesting discussions that can be had.
* Steer ad hoc discussions toward the issue tracker--whether via stories or spikes.
* Don't let Slack/IRC/Teams be the place decisions are made and documented. They're good tools for conversation starters and finding throw away answers, not good as a record of design and decisions.
* Always be steering ad hoc conversations towards outlets that provide reusable context when it becomes clear that there's something of substance. This could be steering towards issue trackers, wikis, knowledge repos, README.md files, etc.
* Realize that many people aren't natural writers, and accommodate them.
* Hire for writing ability. Find a balance and pair writers with talkers.
I hope this stuff gets easier before I get to my 90s.
1) When the semantic web didn't emerge, I got excited by embedded microformats as a way that many of the same benefits to be achieved in terms of computable knowledge.
2) I was always optimistic about P2P tech until I realized that we live in a world dominated by centralizing forces, both governmental and capitalistic. P2P can't exist in a recognizable form without some centralization that allows law enforcement or capitalistic gain from the service it attempts to provide.
In both cases, I underestimated the control that governments could exert, and the power to capture dollars and mindshare that centralization due to corporate profits would entail.
You see that in the web itself. The demise of RSS, the demise of the personal website, the reemergence of walled gardens. We're back to AOL, albeit with three or four players taking the role of one. What are hashtags but scaled up AOL keywords? What are Facebook groups but scaled up AOL forums?
The web of those dreams will only exist in the margins and never at scale. Like ham radio or hobbies outside the mainstream that don't scale.
One of the first times I'd ever used Zoom was in a call with a startup trying to pitch my company on something. The remote participant said something later in the call that was uncannily prescient and related to notes I had in a separate application window. I wrote it off as coincidence, but the phrasing used (and the fact that it was an answer to a question I hadn't asked) seemed nearly verbatim to my written notes.
Fast forward to today and 10x to 1000x the number of us wonks are getting an overlapping amount of Reader's value (plus new value) from Twitter. The purging of Reader is a distant memory, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad to try a bunch of things and kill the non-viral losers (in a relative sense).
I'm not discounting new brands of terror, but propensity for cruelty is the constant--the medium of cruelty is the main difference.
Would it be feasible to stack filters? (E.g., 0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01...)
For instance, let's say you have some cash sitting in a brokerage sweep account paying 1.0% because you weren't paying attention. In <60 minutes over a few calendar days you can find an online savings account with high interest (say 2.2%), set up a transfer back and forth, and get a better rate. On 10K sweep, that's $120/hr gain annually. On $100K, it's $1200/hr annually. Although there, maybe you want to consider a bond at 2.5% and net $1500/hr.
Likewise, put expenses in terms of an annual rate. One less $5 coffee per week is $260/week annually. Then reframe in terms of your overall expenses. Over 10 years, that might get you 30 days closer to an early retirement.
The point is that you probably are overlooking very trivial opportunities to improve your lot. Convert the metrics into savings or earnings over time, and turn that into whatever future goal you have (early retirement, size of yacht, months of rent/mortgage, etc.) and you realize that with a very small amount of effort, you can have a huge compounding effect on your goal.
https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=<your latitude goes here>&lon=-<your longitude goes here>&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical is my favorite.
Just substitute your XX.XXXX latitude and your YY.YYYY longitude (negative from 0 if you're in the US) for the <> and their contents as variables.
There's also a tabular form of this. Very dense in terms of hourly forecasts. I tend to plug in various lat/long changes to figure out when a storm is going to blow into the kid's sporting event clear across town. Each degree of latitude or longitude is 68.3 miles, so you can usually just adjust the URL to get a pinpoint forecast...which is useful in metro areas where you might be traveling 40-45 miles to an event.
I've got an elderly relative who fell into something that I swear followed a lead generation funnel. Accepted some semi-legitimate domestic computer services help (optimize your PC and scan for spyware by some company from Utah), only to have the full hammer come down a few weeks later with a follow up from an Indian call center that commandeered her PC, made fake deposits to her bank account, turned on her camera and showed he could see everything, and insisted she purchase $500 in iTunes cards to pay for the malware removal. After wising up, the same center called her multiple times daily for more than a year from various spoofed numbers.
If they're getting calls every 30 minutes, it's likely they've become a qualified lead in some way, by something they've done.
Sustainable should mean that 500 readers of HN each individually managing their little $2000 nest egg ($1 million aggregate) making independent decisions should be able to collectively be sitting on $3.13 million after a year.
You don't get sustainable 213% returns without a commensurate, sustainable level of risk to go with it. But if you're able to do it sustainably with 3x ETFs, congratulations.
On the OP getting warned, it wasn't immediately clear to me if the objection was more about a) knowledge that Matthew Yglesias didn't read the study and therefore was not in a position to summarize his analysis with a pithy analogy and be quoted, b) the use of any pithy analogy itself, or c) the use of an analogy that seemed to explain a confounding issue? There seemed to be some additional, non-obvious context missing (at least to me) that led to the warning.
But I don't know whether the Red Elvises ever played a seven-string guitar. And their style wasn't exactly up the lines of old, traditional Russian music.