indifferentalex

Some of us have our stash of ~10 domain names for our side projects (that we renew year after year, with some embarrassment). Tim's got 90 linked from https://theuselessweb.com/

I wonder if he renews them on the cheap somehow, either way there are some really funny ones in there

You can also buy a 3d printed desktop Umarell here: https://www.superstuff.it/prodotto/umarell/?lang=en

Fun!

Love the idea! What about something like this but for software? Could be an interesting way to learn a new language/codebase

Good point of course, however irrational it might be, I can only imagine the scenario where there's a really awkward confrontation between us and the ETs over one of these articles. Will take the bravest of us to start throwing bacon jokes.

Really hope information like this regarding our meat-industrial complex disappears into obscurity before the aliens visit, or that they at least don't judge us by the biblical "sins of your forefathers"

Pretty meta:

  verb [with object]
  refour
  re·four
  reinvigorate or allow (someone) to use new forms of expression
  "refouring popular culture"

Just as a heads up since I don't see it mentioned in the comments yet, I got a description of Palestine for Peru, apart from the hiccup it's definitely a lot of fun

Taking extreme sports and jobs into consideration, and the fact that space is considered more and more as a lucrative destination for profit making, I think that human beings will be the first to do most of the ground breaking work. Virgin Galactic, the SpaceX moon flyby, etc. are meant for tourists, hence the different approach to absolute safety. I think the public's acceptance of the dangers of space, and the thrill/benefits of confronting them will come before we get to the point of having the necessary robot tech to make significant progress without humans on site. Then again if you consider things like Andy Weir's The Martian you realise that's a likely scenario of the kind of spending that might happen in the case of a stranded astronaut after a disaster, sending more afterwards would still be a financial decision rather than one of public opinion regarding safety however, and in my opinion the tech and financial support for these sorts of missions is going to be up to it in a few years.

Not on their radar, or their slides at least: Natural Language Processing based rule-based brute-force artificial intelligence (that could be augmented through sensors/motors that allow interaction with the external world). A Vulcan-like (Star Trek) AI, what do you think? Might be easier to simulate the entire brain, on the other hand it might be doable and bridge the gap to general AI.

Yeah I do: everyone can lie. Also, innocent until proven guilty, don't just believe what you hear, etc. I see the smoke, I know that by practically all chances there's a fire, but before I grab my pitchfork and go on a crusade telling everyone and anyone to never use uber again (which I will quite soon judging by the escalation and their inability to handle the accusations only adding to the likeliness of their guilt) I would like to make sure I'm 100% sure that what's been said is true. No need for more zealots, one's already in the whitehouse.

I agree, this is the only thing that I've been wondering, otherwise it really is, for me personally, the end of any interaction with the company, it is unforgivable if true.

I think this applies to cofounders and employers/bosses as well, if you're the programmer and they are non-technical, and they come to you and simply state "someone tried to do this thing and it didn't work" without giving you anything to debug with, view it as a huge red flag indicating that they do not, and do not want to, understand or appreciate your work and your time.

I've had this happen to me and after asking politely multiple times, and explaining the need for communicating in a detailed and useful manner (that I demonstrated), I would end up just getting angry when it would continue to happen.

We've run too quick, too far, trying to maintain systems with, in HN jargon, too much technical debt. There are not enough people with solid knowledge, not enough people with solid principles, not enough people willing, to maintain the systems people in power have insisted on building. Frankly it's a miracle and a true testament to human greatness and luck that things aren't as bad as they very well could be. Over the long run however things usually end poorly, and history is littered with such shipwrecks. We need to slow down, refactor what we can, rewrite what we cannot, the costs will be huge but the consequences of not doing it worse.

What I found really cool was the week it apparently took them to implement the change after he tweeted about it. Maybe they were already working on it, or maybe they're just that fast and agile. Either way like you said, pretty cool.

Great point about recounting instead of describing, it's really important to stay objective in such cases, especially as both sides (there are more than two however) continue to get more aggressive and vocal, each, maybe unconsciously, trying to push an agenda. This means like you said avoiding using ambiguous descriptors that can mean one thing for someone and something different for someone else. I would at this point add that through personal experience I'm led to believe the author entirely in the objective part of her description, one day we'll be able to partially criticise what people do or say without having to also point out to others that we agree with them, just not yet.

Don't think it does, there are two comments (three but one is a double post), one is advertising a no longer existing job review website, the other is from an intern who says she had an amazing 3 months there but doesn't specify why she didn't choose to work there. I'd definitely dig deeper, cause there are polls such as this one:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ccvzh1XUcAAMua4.jpg

High pay (to retain employees), low meaningfulness and low stress most likely means you'll be doing very boring stuff, judging by the quality of their latest products it wouldn't surprise me if this chart is accurate.

To OP, this is one of those times that you're better safe than sorry, make sure you make an informed decision as there are a few red flags.

I don't want to take anything away from anyone, but I did not mean writers/journalists, I meant people who travel the world on their parents' money and post photos of themselves on their voyages on instagram (labelling themselves as "travellers")

I know he has other sources of income but the fact that this extremely smart and dedicated person, in an age of professional lifestyle bloggers, "travellers" and other celebrities, is rewarded for his efforts and can just go out and buy himself a brand new Ferrari with the prize money makes me smile.

I don't know why you would comment something so "simple" (if you actually read the article, if you didn't then I'm wasting our time) when the author clearly (albeit sarcastically) points out that "Obviously designers have no right to comment unless they were in the room with the Uber designers during the design process". Surely you should come up with a stronger rebuttal than simply paraphrasing _his_ sarcastic comment?

It's not so much about where the link goes as in the discussion it provokes, no? It's just another way of saying "let's talk about the issue of shoddy electronics in hoverboards" but you start out the conversation with a bit of visual context.

I'm still studying and have never encountered obstacles set up by people with institutional power over me, so I am to a degree naive and privileged, however I was talking more about the day to day interactions that happen with a myriad of different people, mostly your peers (which apart from a few instances where it was the "bosses of tech" causing the problems, from what I remember reading the sexism usually came from the coworkers of the women). I definitely wasn't commenting on the application of the author's thoughts to all of human interaction, and didn't mean to come off that naive.

10/10 Will read again.

The sexism debate has indeed painted a bleak picture, people so often try to show a different side of the picture but end up using the wrong words or simply adding ambiguity to the discussion, most of the time only making the matter more complicated, and worst of all, pulling us even further from a potential solution. This one showed us not only a potential solution, but also proved it's effectiveness.

Lea Verou (the author of the article) perfectly explains that even though there is undoubtedly a problem, a problem whose degree is not/can not be calculated (she also indirectly, simply by not giving it more article-time, makes us understand that the lack of statistics doesn't mean this problem doesn't exist or should not be resolved), this problem can and has already been solved, not by company policies or special rules, but simply by people treating others (women included) nicely, or as my first grade teacher taught me, by following the golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated, and amazingly across all mindsets and ways of thinking this rule means, for anyone beginning from the wee age that they understand what those words mean, that one should be treated in a way that is free of bias, fair and rational.

I will read this article again, and I will recommend it to friends and acquaintances and family, because sexism is a problem beyond tech too (in certain industries it might be an even bigger problem). I think this article and hopefully ones like it that either exist already that I do not know of, or ones that will be written afterwards, are a great way to make us realise that all people should be treated the way that we want to be treated, and I truly believe that will be enough to fix the problem of "women in tech".

As much as the causes at Chernobyl can be attributed to the poor quality of the systems installed and of incorrect safety procedures, it shows that bad things can indeed happen, simply saying that they were caused by incompetence doesn't prove nuclear power is safe. Likewise stating that "fewer than 50" died at Chernobyl, while possibly true (referring to the immediate area), is a severe understatement of the crisis. All european countries were forced to react, radioactive dust sent up into the air by the fires was carried across the continent and whole crops had to be destroyed. The low figure of consequential deaths is thanks to a large and costly effort to prevent further problems. Much like Fukushima. This article is reverse fear mongering and it is just as wrong, nuclear energy is without a doubt an incredible resource and the pros objectively outway the cons compared to fossil fuels, and the claim that the gap left open by insufficient adoption of renewable energy can be closed by nuclear in the meantime is a valid one, downplaying the dangers of nuclear however is not the correct way to move forward.

The man's commitment to his game, considering that he works alone is incredible. Without using terms like "10xer" and "rockstar", he's got an incredible level of perseverance and dedication, considering that he already launched the game and at this point is working on features that are considered by many boring and a grind, all to make a polished finished product. The fact that he documented pretty much everything in his blog is great if you need motivation or are just curious about how to make a game from zero.