Apparently there were two different key bridges, one across the Potomac, another across the Patapsco. This was the Patapsco one.
4,218 karma · joined July 25, 2010
There’s only one way to find out! Who wants to join my ‘prehensile tails for humans’ (and other great apes with cash) startup?
Capitalism, wow!
Maybe niche BBs or a platform with enough distasteful content that no company wants their brand associated with it. (Ex. 4chan)
My parents were more tech savvy than the majority so maybe that played into it.
I don’t quite believe it myself (with people proffering 500 applications just to get one position) but I had a similar experience with online dating where my success rate was probably about 50% getting a positive response (and everyone seemed to bemoan their inability to get anyone to even talk to them).
Maybe this is just luck but I’ve also never been trying to work for google/microsoft/amazon.
I don’t consider myself particularly bright so I’m definitely not Carmack, and I’ve never seen the fabled 300-500k engineering positions, so my salary has been pretty modest for the duration of my career (always been comfortable but, well-maintained Honda civic money not Mercedes money). I just kind of try to make myself useful wherever I go.
When I apply for a job it has either been because a recruiter or former coworker asked me to, or because I was interested in what the company was working on, or both. I don’t go for jobs where I’m expected to performatively solve leetcode problems.
I get nervous around new people but I can get through a technical interview by knowing my stuff. I’m not particularly charismatic or anything.
Maybe I’m just lucky with target selection? I’ve always been about quality over quantity. I’m reasonably good at writing but nothing special.
It could be a sample size issue, my number of applications is not statistically significant compared to the overall market during the last 20 years or whatever.
It’s pretty simple, more expensive homes are less liquid and take significantly longer to sell, because there are fewer people with deep enough pockets to buy them. This equates to more effort in actually finding a buyer. A $20 million dollar home may be on the market for years before it gets sold.
I’m guessing that if just one side of the deal was getting a % of the value, there would be a significant imbalance between the sellers and buyers agents, in terms of effort, which is something that you don’t want as a buyer.
A good buyers agent won’t pressure you into any purchase and may end up showing you at least a dozen homes and can give you advice on bidding / actual value of the home, and can identify issues with the house before you’ve bid.
The key is that they’re prioritizing the long term network effects of being well recommended. Our buyers agent was great and I’d recommend her in a heartbeat. She definitely saved us from a couple of potential disasters, and from overbidding (likely saved us low six figures all things considered).
But obviously there are a lot of agents that prioritize turnover rather than actually helping you. You definitely have to either judge them carefully or get a positive recommendation from someone trustworthy.
You need some level of intelligence and knowledge to know what is worth stealing and what to do with it.
Getting a major with the sole purpose of industrial espionage and then telling people about it indicates a lot about the person in question.
I just don’t enjoy it much.
I do think my lying improves due to lack of inhibitions about lying (I’m quite good at lying but find it distasteful/onerous under usual circumstances, having to keep the lies straight).
To do this you must find ways to “cheat”. This can be of various forms. Better algorithms, better data structures, precomputation, caching. At some point you will exhaust low hanging fruit and need to dig into lower level aspects of the code or its compilation.
Anyway, best way to learn is to do it, go depth first and always check your work thoroughly. (It is easy to optimize yourself into a solution that is not working properly).
I’ve learned to tone that down by not responding immediately with an answer. My immediate response is almost always a set of considerations, and then I walk through my internal thought process with whoever I’m answering.
This does a few things, it respects the other person who you are talking to, as they have likely thought about it too and for longer, so might have some deeper insight. Secondly it prevents you from saying one thing out of nowhere and backtracking, preventing confusion/frustration where you contradict yourself. People have a lot more confidence in the person who is very clear and has fewer instances of jumping from one solution to a different one.
I would say change nothing but do learn to express your inner monologue clearly. I often do that by making notes as one would in debate (on paper or mentally).
Lack of birth control.
> The problem isn't that people in the West need to make greater sacrifices to raise children.
The problem is that the standard that you’re expected to meet in raising a child is significantly higher. Is it biologically required that you have full time coverage of someone watching your toddler? No. Is it legally required? Yes. Do most grandparents want to be live in caretakers to young children? No, they have better things to do. Do you have to pay a fortune for the service? Yes.
Is it biologically required to meet a certain standard of living to raise a child, a standard that generally requires 2 parents salaries in the west? No. Is it legally required? No, but you might sets them up for failure later in life, and means they’ll struggle too when they get to be your age.
The whole thing is people who want to be parents have a drive to make sure their kids live at least as good a life as they did (or at least should).
If that seems financially hopeless in the west… we have effective birth control and can delay until it is possible.
Sometimes the point in time when you are financially stable enough to have children is also the point at which you are biologically unable to have them (everything is more difficult after ~35 or so). If there’s no promise of financial stability any time is as good as any other.
Fixing the “problem”is a complicated mix of social/psychological problems and financial problems related to wealth inequality. Blaming millennials or whoever for being selfish is a bad take.
This situation seems like it will further devolve as it is a fantastic business model and is making rich people a lot of money. I don’t see how we close Pandora’s box because fixing the problem of usury and the negative impact it has on free people is older than modern society.
Tell me what went wrong so I can figure out how to fix it. I don’t care whose fault it is or how very sorry they are for the mistake. Even saying “the website you are trying to contact is down” can be misleading, maybe it’s not down, maybe I’ve lost my internet connection or the ip changed and dns hasn’t updated, or I have some rule locally that is redirecting me incorrectly. Guiding someone into an assumption is harmful and a waste of time, if not dangerous.
I understand that consumer stuff is all about dumbing down the experience so that an idiot can do the thing (we should strive for the most idiot proof interface possible), but that design principle is useless when things go wrong and you need to fix it.
The reasonable camp doesn’t produce good sound bites.
“LLMs are the next disaster” (either by replacing workers or as a fraudulent product leading to a market crash) is more exciting than “another interesting tool that is useful for certain problems that don’t have other tools, and works pretty well but still needs some polish and safety work.”
Neither message is particularly bad, but hypothetical error messages are just that. Either message would require piercing the veil between the Bluetooth transceiver and the devices that rely on it, meaning you’d have to be careful to avoid a leaky abstraction. (Bunch of HID detection spaghetti next to your clean Bluetooth disabling code).
Agree about the switch.
Also, it’s expensive as hell getting the proper certification for whatever you’re making, even if it works well.
Someday there will be technology to erase all memory of work you did in service of your corporate overlords and you’ll be able to start with a true clean slate at every job.
Which means we’d spend any amount of money on them and they’re a strategic asset.
Many safer designs are (basically) useless for enrichment, (pebble bed, molten salt thorium, w/e), which means the military might use one on an aircraft carrier or remote outpost, if they had any reason to (which they don’t as there’s no NIMBYism far out at sea). But safer designs are likely cheaper to run long term as the failure modes are significantly less catastrophic. (Not that the current gen ones are particularly dangerous).
Now imagine that we don’t have any practice building one of these things because people have been scared of building them for approximately 40 years, so the last person to make one is 70-90.
Now imagine that the failure case for this thing is a disaster that causes an expensive cleanup in the surrounding area, so no one will insure the project against that unless you pay an astronomical amount. Now add in that you’re using a “new” design that’s never been tested, and you have to follow a bunch of government regulations that didn’t even exist when the last comparable reactor was built.
Stack up all these things and you get a lot of uncertainty about project scope, uncertainty about financing, and uncertainty about whether it will work.
This means that to ballpark what it was cost, it will necessarily be expensive because of the risk everyone is taking in producing it.