justin_vanw

Yes I think you are right, buuuut...

Lots of times the initial screen is done by someone totally non-technical, and they are asking questions from a sheet and judging whether you are saying what is in the answer field for their sheet. This is super stupid, but I have seen it, usually when some headhunting firm is deciding whether to add your resume to their database which they pull resume's from to send to clients.

The moral: Don't use headhunting firms, because they will basically never send you a decent candidate. In the very rare cases where they by pure luck do send a good candidate, this is rarely worth the dozens of crap candidates they have sent you (not to mention that they will try to push candidates on you if they think they can get away with it).

- HEADLINE: Proper support for installations on GPT partitions

- DESCRIPTION: I have tried installing debian many times on various machines and have had huge trouble getting the install usb stick to boot properly (or in the end for the bootloader to install) with Debian. Ubuntu installs flawlessly on these machines.

- DISTRIBUTION: (Optional) [stable, testing, unstable, or even a Debian deriviative]

- ROLE/AFFILIATION: (Optional, your job role and affiliation)

I don't know why there are special rules for popular websites. If there was some building in town where you had to show ID to get in and participate in whatever activity was going on, imagine when the ankle biters showed up and announced that it was 'dangerous and evil' to require people to have to use their real identity to come inside the building.

If you have some reason to not go on facebook, don't go on facebook. There is basically nothing worthwhile there anyway, you aren't being personally attacked because they want to run their community the way they think is best.

I found this site to hurt my eyes and left me with really bad after images. It's dusk here and I haven't turned the lights on yet, maybe that is why, but I really prefer mild contrast when reading or I end up having striped after images and floaters become very noticeable.

Maybe the nice looking sites aren't so bad, and people who disagree can just override the settings (very easy in browsers), like has been possible since windows 3.1.

Well assuming correlation implies causation (always safe), enjoy being poor.

Just a shot in the dark, but from your setup you and another person were meeting up at a bar, and then they got mad when you were only interested in talking about work... Maybe she was interested in you and kept dropping hints and you were impossible to derail from your number theory laptop notes?

As a side note a girl once asked me to help fix her computer in college (both of us majoring in math), and she was slightly annoyed when I came over and couldn't find anything wrong with her computer. It was a laptop, but she said it only caused problems in her dorm room.... I later felt extremely stupid!

So what about my initial point? How does a mass moving in the absence of other masses know that a geodesic for it is a euclidian straight path?

I would say that it doesn't, and that inertial motion in the absence of other masses is meaningless, and I think this is a key insight that allowed the development of GR in the first place (since any attempt to introduce absolute coordinate systems breaks causality because you can have multiple outcomes from the same boundary conditions, at least in the Hole Paradox).

I would say in addition that every other part of physics that I am aware of can be described locally, for example you can detect if you are in an magnetic field (at least in theory) even at the level of a single proton (since it has a magnetic moment). There is NO test you can do locally to detect that you moving inertially in the presence of a gravitational field. If you can't detect it locally, either there is a huge coincidence (in this case the coincidence is that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical) or you can't expect to find any messenger particles, since why would you need to 'tell' a mass that it is in a gravitational field when it can't even detect it to begin with.

I disagree, I think you are assuming far more.

My description is, from my limited understanding, just describing General Relativity, which is a totally accepted and highly verified by observation and experiment.

Where you say it is incompatible with quantization, you are assuming that gravity has any quantization to begin with, which has never been observed. You are literally 'begging the question' here, assuming that gravity quantization needs to be explained by gravitons, when neither quantization of gravity nor gravitons have ever been observed.

I'm not an expert, but I simply don't understand your reasoning here.

For example, lets suppose some mass is moving at a constant inertial velocity through empty space. To me it seems that your reasoning would require gravitons to communicate to the mass that there are not other masses nearby and so to 'tell it' that 'straight line' for it means to go in a euclidian straight line. Otherwise, how does it know?

I think baked into your logic is that there is something special about geodesics in the presence of masses and so you need to tell the moving mass to 'curve', but to the mass it is just going straight, even if to an external observer it appears that it is curving or even orbiting.

Intelligence is measurable and meaningful.

It astonishes me that people can claim with a straight face that it is not. I suspect it is sour grapes or something?

If intelligence isn't measurable, then you would agree that the average frog cannot be reliably distinguished from the average human in terms of intelligence?

Ok, so lets move on from that, and don't give me some painful story about how there are different kinds of intelligence and frogs are 'smarter about eating bugs' or something, please?

Maybe with the benefit of the doubt, you are trying to say that human's are genetically not very diverse, and so you can't find significant differences in intelligence. To that I would say you are certainly not claiming this in good faith, and you have some quasi-political reason to deny something that is obviously true to anyone who has interacted with more than 3 people. (and we can skip the lecture along the lines of 'you can't trust what is obvious and have to pretend that all your beliefs are properly cited or they are invalid')

The author is referring to genius without defining it.

You might say that being 1/1,000,000 in intelligence qualifies as a genius. However, that would still leave around 8000 people smarter in the world. This author seems to limit the word 'genius' to the people that those 8000 people look up to.

When this author talks about genius, she means a genius among geniuses. The population she's calling not-geniuses are in the top 1/10th to 1/100th of 1%.

He didn't mention any research. Lets not start the 'prove that there is such a thing as smart people' debate again.

For one thing, the reason that options/shares aren't traded widely in earlier stage companies is regulatory. If you have too many investors, or something, you have more regulatory overhead to deal with. Small companies don't want to have 5000 investors for this reason. However, I personally know people who have sold their vested options at a significant profit in very early startups (just after an A round).

Options are worth more than cash IF AND ONLY IF you have insights and evidence that the company is going to outperform the current valuation of the company, after being adjusted for risk.

For example, if you see that it is the best team ever assembled. Most startup CEOs says their team is the best ever, but if you interact with the team for a bit and see it is probably true.

For example, if the company needs you really badly, and they are able to give you options based on a valuation that based on current information is a huge underestimate. For example, a drug company that found out yesterday that they got their FDA approval for their new blockbuster drug, and for some reason they need to hire you very badly. This is iffy because they are probably not able to offer any options if they are already far along on being acquired.

Overall, there are certainly startups where the signals would be available to someone thinking of working there such that they would be able to determine if it is likely that options have a promising expected value. I think this is going to be a very low % of startups where that expected value is even remotely close to what you would get at a large company, and very very few where it would be much higher.

Like half of this was talking about how the male was not letting the female asking the question (the male sounds like a bad interviewer for sure), and the other half was about how everyone 'literally applauded' what the author did. Sadly none of it was about the woman who was not allowed to speak or what she said... I get the point, the rest of the audience didn't say anything, but on the other hand 'literally shaking' is maybe not a reasonable response to someone being (probably inadvertently) rude, really no matter why the person is being rude.

I don't know how to write this without sounding like I in any way would defend sexism in any form, I mean maybe I should show I'm not sexist by piling on the male on stage and breaking out the pitch-fork or something.

It's hard to say without seeing the terms, but raising money is not quite like selling a bunch of stock. The money probably comes with a bunch of terms, and if it's effectively a down round the terms are probably incredibly terrible for the company's existing investors.

I wish there was some kind of 'best of HN' where this comment could live on forever.

Very solid points, totally agree.

Lets all waste time virtue-signalling about things we have no experience or expertise in, that are dominated by charismatic dummies we can barely communicate with, and that we'll have no measurable impact on!

Or we can keep doing what we can do well and has actually, fundamentally changed the world for the better and made us rich.

Werkzeug + Postgresql

So this lists the usual stuff that people who aren't experts in any system think are good reasons to pick one or the other for.

1. The single binary is attractive, but with modern virtualenv and wheel and anylinux wheel files this is far far less important than it would have been 10 years ago. I count this as irrelevant but probably python's library packaging is confusing to a beginner.

2. Static types don't really help you here, yes you can run into some issues where you have an object that is a different type than what you thought it was, but this is not common and your tests will catch it for you. I'm not sure why django's orm will fail on the wrong type since SQL is loosely typed anyway, but everything django is garbage so don't use django.

3. Performance in python can be pretty awful. Not going to argue. It's usually not too slow and you should focus on algorithms first, if you agorithm is efficient then you should be able to do whatever computation you need to render html or json for your service in plenty of time. But Python is slow sadly.

4. You don't need a web framework for Python either, Werkzeug is a great toolkit to roll your own micro framework. So I'll just count this as lack of experience and knowledge, plus confusion.

5. Great IDE support. I guess this is a thing people like to have, personally I think if you are being slowed down by how fast you can type or remember method names something is horribly wrong. The other things IDE's do are usually pretty pointless, at least for me, but if you feel like you need it then I agree IDE support for python is usually pretty weak because python is very hard to statically analyze. None of the more productive programmers I've known through the years used IDE's, they all used Vim or Emacs. If you feel like you need hand holding I guess IDE support would be important for you though.

This is (hopefully) someone who has very little experience dealing with customers and did a bad job today. It's not some web 3.0 holocaust that we all have to be shocked and amazed about.

I'm sure he'll get chastised and everyone involved will continue to be fine (and maybe a little wiser). Or we'll turn it into some major incident with our weird fixation and the person will get fired and it will turn into a 'whole big thing'.

Synergy: One product that nobody uses is now bundled with another one.

Why can't you (work 100% remote)?

I write software so maybe I just have a biased worldview ;)

This only lists major cities. If you want to save money, don't live in a major city.

They are 'striving' to hit 3M subscribers? Sounds like they are trying very hard to go right out of business anyway.

I love how you assert that with such confidence, as though you actually know what you are talking about!

Why is it the goal to help every student reach their potential? Who decided this, and what authority did they have to decide for us what the goal of all schools everywhere automatically must be?

Also, you absolutely can't 'let' kids move at different speeds in the same school. You can let kids move at speeds where you enough kids at that speed. For a 90th percentile kid that is fine, there are roughly 10% of the students that share their speed (or nearly do) so you can form a class of them. For the top 1% or top .1% you just can't, and the 99.9th percentile kid can learn much, much, much faster than the 90th percentile kid, and can immediately understand concepts that the 90th percentile kid won't be able to grasp until they are years older (if ever). Putting those kids in the same class means one will be impossibly behind or the other will be incredibly bored.

>> I think you'll find that parents are very uninterested in your theories of social engineering [cite needed]

How can I find a citation for a my own statement that I believe something?

Are you under the impression that the comments section of HN is a scholarly journal where all claims are documented? I notice that you don't ask for citations for any of the claims in this thread that you agree with, so your demands for citations are really just an obnoxious lack of argument.

Facts? The argument against me was 'you shouldn't help people because you might not help some people that you could also help'.

That's a moral argument, and my reply was a moral argument.