Documentation sucks where no one gets promoted for writing great documentation.
1,436 karma · joined January 17, 2016
i have a cat. She's a good cat, mostly. We get along pretty well, mostly.
Before the pandemic, there were large parts of the day when we didn't see each other.
Because we knew we would be separated much of the day, we found time to play around when we were together. I'd throw a toy and she would squawk and chase after it then look at me excitedly until I walked down the hall, picked it up, and threw it back the other way. Then when she was tired it would be time for treats and petting. Good times.
Play time was a valued time for both of us, as we knew that soon we would be separated for many hours, possibly days. Time together was special.
Now, we have nearly unlimited time together, and when I want to play, kitty is tired or hungry or wants to stare out the window at the pretty birds and squirrels and swats at me and tries to bite me if I persist in trying to initiate play time.
Meanwhile, when kitty wants to play, I'm often at my desk trying to focus on my work and probably trying to understand why this awful corporate group has cut another ticket about outdated software to our team when I'm on call. So when kitty jumps on the back of my chair, climbs onto my shoulder, and then flops down on my keyboard with a 'come pet me' look, I pick her up and toss kitty on the floor and tell her to leave me alone.
There is no play time anymore.
QAnon conspiracy theories are incoherent and absurd yet are embraced by thousands and cause needless harm to many.
ooof. i tried to play it but got into some boring dead end where i didn't know what to do next and figured i missed something but realized i just didn't care and would rather do some chores than keep playing.
i was just confused that anyone liked ultima at all and forgot about it.
kind of interesting to see the story behind that game (i forgot about it so much that i never bothered to look into why it sucked so much before today).
The linux approach is "what you are doing is not my problem, so go do whatever you want".
For a bank, what their employees do is very much their problem.
Pretty much every modern financial app I've used has one of those confirmations - some better than others but all pretty clearly state "you are going to transfer $XXXX.XX to ACCOUNT_YYYY -- click here to approve transfer".
Even venmo's quick prompt to make sure you really mean to send your pet sitter $125.00 before initiating a transfer would have avoided this problem.
Then the world is improved and we should all feel relieved. Seems pretty straightforward.
Just because someone found a way to profit while damaging society doesn't mean they have some right to keep profiting once society realizes what is going on.
loose fish vs fast fish is top of the line 19th century humor.
i admit i was bored to tears by those sections on the first read.
honestly i think it just isn’t a great read for people in their teens/20s as the world weariness, fatalism, and obsession with an imperfect understanding of an obscure expertise is something better appreciated as one ages.
i would quit this job sooooooo fast
random, enforced, early morning socializing is so very much not my scene
there was one former boss who i felt was always a bit cold and standoffish (but always professional) with me and i could never quite put my finger on why until i did show up at one of the weekly happy hours i almost never went to and realized that he loved them and spent the whole time laughing and smiling and chatting with everyone.
since i was rarely at those and especially missed most of them my first 6 months on the job (when i had some ongoing family issues that required my non-work time and focus), i suspect he took that as a bit of antisocial behavior on my part and prevented him from really trusting me
I was a good tactical/operational manager but did not enjoy many aspects of the job (bureaucracy, performance reviews, personnel problems, being 'corporate'), had limited interest in strategic business concerns, and did not have the enthusiasm needed to move up the management ranks.
I'm much better suited to being an individual contributor.
Three years later I was making more $$ as an IC with none of the stress and nuisance of management.
Five years later I was making 2x my old salary and significantly happier w my day to day work.
To each their own...
and how could anyone on hacker news claim there is 'no evidence' that unreviewed software may do something other than what people claim it does? especially if it 170,000 lines of matlab?
from the article:
> "Without scrutinizing its software's source code – a human-made set of instructions that may contain bugs, glitches, and defects – in the context of an adversarial system, no finding that it properly implements the underlying science could realistically be made," the ruling says.
Online brokerages are from the first dotcom boom. They are over 20 years old. There are many well establish reliable brokers.
And many of them have cut their transaction fees to $0.
All Robinhood seems to have done is layer a fun UI over a weak trading back end and pretend to be empowering their users.
In my book, "really pissing off your customers" is "doing something wrong" which is why if you absolutely must do something that will make your customers angry you absolutely must explain yourself as quickly and as transparently as possible.
I think they should go bankrupt because their customers leave them for one of their many more reliable and trustworthy competitors.
I know some people think "but that's not illegal so they did nothing wrong". Those people are bad and should feel bad. And I think in this case enough customers are angry that robinhood will not escape the consequences of its actions.
I only said I would be unsurprised to learn they acted illegally.
I admit the "suck at lying" thing is more my opinion than fact at this point.
They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their customers should leave them.
And I will be completely unsurprised if when the dust settles it turns out they acted illegally.
Also, they suck at lying.
What is not OK is bending and breaking the existing regulations to stop a group of individual investors who are individually doing nothing wrong in order to protect a hedge fund that was exploiting the existing (bad) regulations.
Also, it seems insulting to suggest that the only "good" reason for someone to buy a stock is faith in the fundamentals of the company when finance media has been yapping up the joys of derivative trading for decades.
An app claiming to be a stock trading app that doesn't allow trades for a NASDAQ listed stock isn't really a stock trading app.
I have a guitar that I could sell on the open market for ~$300.
But I don't want to sell it.
If someone offered me $300 for it, I'd say no. If they offered $400, I'd still say no. I'd say no at $900.
Why? Because I don't want to sell it and I don't have to.
There is some price that will change my mind, of course, but it has nothing to do with the actual value of the guitar.
Whenever I show this to people they are (rightly) horrified.
~ $ python
Python 2.7.16
>>> 3/2
1
~ $ python3
Python 3.7.7
>>> 3/2
1.5I'm still not sure who is fake and who is sincere about this stuff.
We have a weekly status meeting with the first section dedicated to "how are we winning" -- which is like awesome if you are a baseball team but when you are rolling out incremental features to a modest app and dealing w routine operational concerns it's hard to get that excited about "nothing caught on fire this week" or "we did the thing we said we'd do".
And we have these horrible self and peer appraisals that we have to do where you are expected to describe routine competence in terms that should normally be reserved for a someone who rescued all the kittens and puppies from a pet store fire.
What you should do is spread some parchment over it and get some charcoal and rub the charcoal on the parchment over the chiseled letters... oh. yeah. sorry...
But their leap to "if X is banned and Y is similar to X and Y isn't banned then X can't be banned" is still wrong because it is not the similarities between X and Y that is causing X to be banned.
It is the fact that X is being used to inspire violent opposition to the government that is the source of the banning.
Or to make it much less abstract:
A bunch of people broke into one of the most important buildings in the US government, killed a police officer and wounded others who were trying to stop them, stole stuff including computers belong to high ranking government officials, broke stuff, humiliated the government, and had every appearance of being willing to cause physical harm to political leaders because of X.
X was supported by social media.
Social media hosts reasonably concluded that the government may cause them to suffer negative consequences if they did not do something to prevent this from happening again.
Because of Y, some people have gotten into fights on the internet and a few individuals have found their employment and social options constrained. The government is not nearly as interested in this.
what’s novel is the centralized nature of social media (in terms of # of people reached from a single source) and the fact that some incredibly wealthy companies control these sources and face an existential risk if their platforms are used to create enough civil unrest that whoever ends up controlling the government is convinced that these companies are too dangerous to leave unregulated.