hire_charts

If the tests are cheap and can be performed as frequently as necessary, I could imagine a system where a test isn't considered positive until a statistically significant number of them have come back positive. If there is an abundance of data, there is no longer a need to extrapolate from a single data point.

I had a blood test once where my electrolytes were somewhat out of whack. I wasn't called in for an expensive kidney scan or consultation with a urologist. I was called in for another blood test. The second test came back fine. I was likely dehydrated the day of the first test.

The availability of cheaper, more frequent testing means that the response to a single positive signal does not have to be as extreme. Thankfully my doctors office offers walk-in blood testing or my experience could've been a much more anxiety-inducing hassle.

I never really understand this argument. People make it about increasing the frequency of blood tests too. Or MRIs. Doctors are afraid of finding "incidentalomas", but why can't we instead just change the way we think about the data?

More data does not inherently mean more scares. If anything, it means that a false positive here and there will be less likely to upend someone's life, because doctors will be more focused on identifying trends, and will be more able to simply ignore outliers.

And I'll happily fill out a form to tell you any information I feel is relevant to my purchase. If you want to covertly fingerprint and track me, I'll gladly take my business elsewhere.

It's nice of google to respect the choice to effectively become undiscoverable to anyone searching for your product.

Who do you think convinced the politicians to make it happen? Lobbyists? (Ha.) It came out of labor movements! Strikes and walkouts! In 1867 workers shut down the entire Chicago economy for a week! (Congress then passed an 8-hour law in 1868, but that was just one step along the way.)

See my edit above. Looking at a country's overall death rates is not how you should compare virulence.

It doesn't need to be a global/political conspiracy for people to be more sensitive to a large amount of people dying after almost 20 years of significantly lower death rates.

Edit: Also, looking at overall deaths per million is not anything like comparing actual mortality rates of those infected. The baseline mortality in 1918 was already way higher and the pandemic amplified that, despite actually being less deadly than COVID-19 at an individual level. So I'd argue that the response to this pandemic was more than merited and was appropriate to the nature of the virus itself. It was not just another "asian flu."

What makes you think it has ended?

My use of the words secret and conspiracy was, at least in part, in response to the parent comment:

> everyone else is loosing their minds and ushering an authoritarian pseudo-communist state in the United States. Glenn sees it, and is trying desperately to warn us.

This is conspiratorial thinking. The whole "wake up, sheeple" mode of political argument is based in the paranoid belief that clandestine groups and powerful actors have a certain degree of control and agency over the world, and that there are those in possession of awareness or knowledge who can "reveal" the truth to the masses.

Rather than making more political-sounding quips, and in the interest of providing something more substantial to this forum, I will recommend a web series called "This is Not a Conspiracy Theory," which is a great overview of the history of conspiracy theories through to the modern day, and how the best conspiracy theories are often rooted in the kinds of facts, uncertainty, and paranoia that resonate with the zeitgeist of their respective eras.

http://www.thisisnotaconspiracytheory.com/series

Except this exact same argument, nearly verbatim, was one of the alt-right anti-Obama talking points! It's a solid criticism too - don't get me wrong.

But it's a single argument, reused over and over, to do more than simply criticize the actions of an administration - rather, to construct a grand conspiracy about how modern Democrats and progressives are secretly authoritarians. Nothing Greenwald writes these days goes beyond this tired trope. (Which, I suppose, would make perfect sense to anyone who has similarly bought into this conspiracy.)

A third possibility: Greenwald has bought heavily into the same cultural zeitgeist that is extremely prevalent on this forum: that "SJWs" and progressives will somehow destroy the fabric of neoliberalism. He's not warning us of something only he can see, so much as he's repurposing the same, tired alt-right arguments for an audience that doesn't necessarily identify as alt-right.

Amazon is not banning Republicans. Amazon is dropping a risky client after having more than reasonable doubts about that client's ability to operate in good faith. Republican views are not being censored. The fact that this site happens to cater to a lot of "Republicans" who feel marginalized by public discourse is merely a very telling correlation between a political view and a tendency towards violent tendencies and conspiratorial beliefs.

Something can be taxpayer-funded without being an arm of the government. Government grants and public funding sources can be divorced enough from what they fund that you can get things like NPR and PBS, which I don't view as authoritarian, certainly not in the way that state-sponsored media outlets tend to push the current party agendas.

There's a reason that phishing is the go-to infosec attack vector. It's because we still blame users for being tricked into doing things they shouldn't, rather than taking the time to build systems that prevent such vectors from working.

I'm happy that extensions no longer have such wide-reaching access to the system. Whatever we lost in power-user tinkerability isn't worth the high personal cost that the malicious extensions would have on the lives of unsuspecting users.

It's far easier to live off of ramen when the worst that can happen is that you fall back on your savings, or your family (for a home), or your MBA network (for a job), etc, when your business bottoms out.

This means that it's naturally a filtering function for people who have such safety nets already. It means that there are people who would be putting their lives and the lives of their dependents at risk in order to make the YC gamble.

It might be a filter that "works," but it will inherently be an uneven filter, doing very little to filter founders who already have the means, while effectively barring many potential founders from being able to participate at all, at least not without dire personal consequences.

These blacklist tags are "not new"* and are, for the most part, a necessary moderation tool to keep explicit and/or harmful content from trending.

Now, is this potentially something that could be abused to truly curate away ("censor") content from individuals, particularly conservatives, posting in good faith? Sure. It could.

But let's think about this -- if Twitter didn't have these tools in place, there are plenty of bad-faith actors who would constantly push profane and/or derogatory memes up into the realm of trending content. To me, preventing such content from trending is a necessary part of the service Twitter operates.

The unfortunate fact of the "profane" that there is no broad consensus around what is and isn't offensive. This means that Twitter will naturally step on toes in the process of keeping their platform friendly to the masses. I honestly don't see a way around it, and I far prefer a world where more people feel comfortable than the kinds of content I see on, cough, alternative "free speech" forums. But maybe that's just me.

* source: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n7wdxd/twitter-blacklists...

What kinds of feedback loops is the IPCC known to exclude, and is there any serious study into what the potential consequences are? Like, how possible is it that there is a feedback loop that will push us well beyond the RCP8.5 scenario?

Can't you essentially fabricate this statistic by controlling for the amount of time that counts as "before", assuming the inverted curves happen more often than recessions?

On the other hand, what better way to give your immune system a head start?

If the regulations had been enacted before the incident, how would anyone know whether or not they even worked?

In one of my early jobs out of college I had a manager who really got this. He knew I was getting my work done, so our 1:1's turned more into career coaching, and his focus was almost always around improving my "visibility" within the org. Looking back, it's hard to say whether he was genuinely interested in helping me get promoted, or if he just wanted to improve his own visibility by proxy, but either way it worked, and the lesson stuck with me.

Infrastructure requires a continual investment, which means that at any given time you can always point at something that is, quite literally, crumbling away. That's just the nature of the modern era - that we rely on such projects for far longer than the original engineers could've imagined speaks to both their and our ingenuity.

Is there truth in the idea that repairs take longer? Sure. Sometimes it's due to incompetence and lack of funding. Other times it's for the same reason that software takes a lot more effort to maintain/refactor than it took to write in the first place. There's a lot of momentum you have to undo if you want to make an old thing new again.

> Best solution is no code or a simplification of the problem to existing solutions. This results in zero liability, while the revenue the solution generates is pure assets.

Not exactly zero liability, but the source of the liability is pushed outside the bounds of your own code, such that the burden is shared among far more people than you can employ on your own. Point being, you may still find yourself contributing code to these shared solutions, but that's a good thing, because such external work will have a wider-reaching impact than anything you build internally.

A long time ago, around when I was first taking systems programming courses, I had this vision for a filesystem and file explorer that would do exactly what you say. I imagined an entire OS without any filepaths for user data (in the traditional, hierarchical sense). My opinion (both now and back then) was that tree structures as a personal data filing system almost always made more of a mess than it actually solved. Especially for non-techies.

Rather, everything would automatically be ingested, collated, categorized, and (of course) searchable by a wide range of metadata. Much of it would be automatic, but it would also support hand-tagging files with custom metadata, like project or event names, and custom "categorizers" for more specialized file types.

Depending on the types of files, you could imagine rich views on top -- like photos getting their own part of the system with time-series exploration tools, geolocation, and person-tagging with face recognition, or audio files being automatically surfaced in a media library, with heuristics used to classify by artist, genre, etc. But these views would be fundamentally separate from the underlying data, and any mutations would be stored as new versions on top of underlying, immutable files, making it easy to move things between views or upgrade the higher level software that depended on views.

This was years ago, and I never got around to doing any of that (it would've been a massive project that likely would've fallen flat on its face). And now, in a roundabout kind of way, we've ended up with cloud-based systems that accomplish a lot of what I had imagined. I'd go so far as to say that local filesystems are quickly becoming obsolete for the average computer-user, especially those who are primarily on phones and tablets. It's a lot more distributed across 3rd party services than what I had in mind, but that at least makes it "safer" from being lost all at once (despite numerous privacy concerns).

Even then, can you guarantee that the person behind the account isn't being paid to say things they wouldn't otherwise say?

On top of that, I'd consider adding a bit of idempotency to the form submission -- to make sure that if the request did in fact succeed even though you did not get the confirmation of a success, subsequent retry/resubmit attempts won't result in duplicate entries.

A rough way to do this would be to add a hidden UUID value in the form data that is generated once up front and used by both the client and the server to ensure that the result of the first successful request can be cached and re-returned.

Reminds me of this other thread from a post about a CRM for keeping track of personal associations:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14498633

Facebook has a huge opportunity to help people stay connected with those closest to them -- and keep track of a wider circle of friends and family members -- in ways that actually evoke empathy and care, rather than jealousy and attention-seeking.

But I suppose that would run counter to their advertising funnels...

$350/mo seems _extremely_ reasonable for a quiet studio. I don't think that's the kind of office expense the poster was talking about. For instance, in NYC, $350/month would barely get you a "hot desk" (i.e. chair at a table) in a coworking space.

I wouldn'tve found that funny before I stopped watching broadcast TV. Now that I've cut cables I notice "organic" ads like that right away.

From what I can tell, they have slightly different aims.

For instance, Cutestrap follows BEM naming conventions and uses KSS to generate its own documentation. KSS is a nice way of generating a pattern library of your own, as you start to extend your base CSS framework.

Also, one big difference is the way they handle grids. Cutestrap grids automatically stretch columns to fill up the horizontal space and allow you to provide weights. (This is essentially a very thin abstraction on top of flexbox.) Whereas Pure grids deal more with unit sizing, more like Bootstrap.

In general, Cutestrap is more opinionated (as its tagline implies) whereas Pure offers much more customizability. I'd argue that Pure should be used more like Bootstrap, as a way to prototype complex UIs before applying more custom styling, whereas Cutestrap should be more directly used as a base for your own, custom (and opinionated) styling.