fogetti

This is terrible. You watch everything through the glass of competition and money. I would hate to be raised in your family.

I guess they don't take good advice because the advice isn't good? The author doesn't give any reasons to think otherwise.

The author is proposing writing as a tool for self-improvement and to find clarity.

Sure enough, that will help to find clarity for sure. Just don't expect that it will help to find clarity for anyone else beside the author.

In a fast moving team setting, what most people hate the most is reading. If the context is not clearly set why reading something is utterly important, most people won't even bother to open the page, document, note or whatever.

The mental load is immense these days, and reading adds an enormous plus to that in a very negative way, so most people tries to escape this cognitive load.

Of course, you can use your authority to force people to read, but people will simply hate the experience even more.

This is seriously lacking in terms of what's available on the market in Japan now.

No support for point payments (like RakutenEdy payment), neither Linepay, Rakupay, Merpay, Paypay and other QR payment providers, nor Suica or Pasmo pay, and this is still just the tip of the iceberg what's available in Japan and missing in Adyen (Nanaco, Waon, dPay, auPay, etc). Just saying, before you drink too much of that kool-aid.

I would assume it's lacking similarly in other markets too.

Or it's more like "I am paxys and I know what every second kid in high school thinks"

Yes, algorithms are essential for information technology. But the question is not that. And the discussion is also not about that.

The question is: are algorithms essential for one's career and for the majority of business too? I don't think so.

And that's why HackerRank, Codility and all the other coding sites have zero relevance today in regards of the actual capability of the candidate. The fact that hiring committees, HR departments and software engineering managers rely on them goes to show how detached all those people are/have been from reality for a long time now.

Good software engineering skills on the other hand are pretty much more needed than ever.

> the transaction needs to be "Signed" by the `from` public key

Is that so? The code actually signs with the private key. Although I might have misunderstood what that sentence refer to.

I am sorry but this tells me exactly one thing: that you don't know how to write a job description.

If you have written your job description tailored to the ideal candidate you would have had a smaller candidate pool and a better match to the actual job.

And lo and behold, still it is there

That might look good in the short term, but there are many companies and roles which require you to show the actual number of users, or the load of the service that you worked on. Also many technically challenging issues only come out under load, and actually working on challenging things are very different from reading about them. Just my 2 cents.

I'd be cautious about this advice. Many times even though the company in general might be a feature factory [0], there might very well be a human who actually meets customers, or at least tried meeting them and failed for some reason.

So a much better and safer idea might be first to figure if there were any attempts in the past, or is there any ongoing similar initiative right now, find the participants if there was any and then to proceed.

By the way if all the PMs at FAANG are like you, that might be a terrible place to work at.

[0] https://cutle.fish/blog/12-signs-youre-working-in-a-feature-...

While that is a solid advice, still it raises the question: is there such organization which corrects itself by firing the incompetent and promoting the competent instead (the "toldyouso" guy in this case)?

Or we just simply accept and making it the norm that even the lowest level of organizational governance is corrupt?

I am serious about this, because how people perceive their own rights, their own roles, their own status, their own influence and their organization's wrongdoing will influence the attitude in the long run against each and every organization in society in my opinion.

I know that I was blowing the question out of proportion, but it bugged me to ask anyway.

I am sorry for playing the devil's advocate. I also think that pipes are extremely useful and a very strong paradigm, and I use them daily in my work. Also it is not an accident that it is fundamental and integral part of powershell too.

But is this really HN top page worthy? I have seen this horse beaten to death for decades now. These kind of articles have been around since the very beginning of the internet.

Am I missing something newsworthy which makes this article different from the hundreds of thousands of similar articles?

If you watch it closely, all the posts are stalled when the US folks sleep. The only active changes on the top page are during the kind of short 10-12 hourish time period when dang is awake and cares about the submissions.

Awesome. Thanks for sharing

Maybe that's how Facebook builds their organization: VP of Integrity, VP of Honesty, VP of Sincerity. So that Zuckerberg doesn't have to take on any of those roles.

What you describe is not luck, but different rates of probability. Luck is I would say when you have 50% of chance of winning.

Otherwise by definition it is not luck, but a high chance of winning.

Luck by definition is an independent variable.

Edit: I don't know who downvoted me, but this is the definition of luck according to Google: "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions"

Nope. Luck does not imply causality. Everyone can be an idiot (including you) and you can still be lucky. Or there can be a mixture of idiots and geniuses and you can still be lucky.

Thanks for the reply. But I am still not convinced. It seems these are watered down versions of outlines of the actual decision making. Which is different from what I am suggesting.

Here is an actual example:

> "• Question: How much will we communicate about this? We usually don't want people to game the Feed but this change might hit their pocketbook so my instinct is to be open about this.

> • Answer: Comms is aware and we will be proactive about communicating this. Inside Feed is one channel we can use to do this. The only way this can happen at the domain level is with full transparency and product is aware we can't do this unless we have that."

So the commitee passed the buck and all the transparency is gone. Also there are no names or responsible persons assigned. And by the way, the words "feed", "news feed" or "ranking" appears only once throughout the span of 4 months. I very much doubt there were no decisions in any form throughout those 4 months regarding the news feed.

So overall this looks to me like pixie dust rather than a true representation or involvement in decision making.

Hi there. Have you ever considered making the decision making open? I mean it seems you are obsessed with criticism and scrutiny. Then here is an idea for you: invite journalists from major media outlets to your decisions making. Then you can avoid these "unfortunate" cherry-pickings as you put it.

Why I am saying this: it seems you sit backwards on your high horse, criticising those people who for all intents and purposes have very limited insight into the decision making.

Me and my close friends are fed up with Facebook and how obviously it is trying to polarize everyone in this world.

No sympathy for you on my side, and I cann assure you I speak on behalf of my friends too.

Another unpopular opinion:

And that's the exact reason why Youtube should be considered a platform, that Youtube is so viciously fighting now and all the Youtube believers are blindly accepting.

Not that I believe PragerU's videos are factful or informative, but I think the argument by the court that Youtube is not a state actor is completely missing the point, and it only shows how outdated the legal system is in the US, but it doesn't actually reflect on the actual situation, i.e. how much power Youtube is wielding, and how it is censoring and actively blocking free speech.

These kind of decisions shouldn't be granted to any private firms with such user and content size without public, democratic and transparent influence on the decision making.

BTW, all your arguments seems anecdotal to me. Sentences like "I see", "I feel", etc. don't really convince me and should not anyone else either.

Sarcasm on Offshoring is only allowed for corporations, not for employees. What did those pesky peasants think? Sarcasm off

> there's a chance they will never bring them up later

If by that you mean that they will look for another company instead, then I agree. That's what I always do. I am not explaining anything, I just simply ghost the companies who behave like that. I ALWAYS found a more caring company by doing this.

This is why I hate hacker news sometimes. Many posts and commenters are really narrow minded and make bold, sweeping, contextual but nevertheless ignorant claims, conjunctions and statements.

To answer your question, no: in Japan there are many technical interviews where it's completely reasonable to wear a suit. It really depends in which part of the planet you live, and what company you apply for.

Except that the benefit is not yours, but your employer's. Let's take a look at the frontend landscape where every framework lasts 2-3 years at most. By the time you master something, you can start it over. And most employer does not support learning on the job. So you have to learn it in your spare time. The benefit is the employer's, the cost is yours. I can understand when people say f*ck it and they simply protest by not playing by their employers' rules. If they get the salary without investing time, they also reap some benefit at least.

That blob looks pretty much like pac-man.

I think you don't understand what I said. You can't climb the ladder if you disagree with management. And that's not because you have no talent and management has the talent. There is no such correlation.

Is this clear now or do you need more help to understand?

Saying that they can become managers is like saying they can become the president of the U.S. The point is that you cannot become a manager at all if you disagree with management in the first place (and that doesn't mean you don't have the chops). Also the number of management seats are limited. The number of union seats has no upper limit.