sdiupIGPWEfh

I keep hearing folks say this in a way that grossly overestimates the capabilities of most modern camera phones. I have to ask, just how clearly does your phone take images of airliners, drones, high-altitude balloons, and satellites? Don't get me wrong, I'm not into claims of extraterrestrial visitations, but I am annoyed by the habits of lazy armchair skeptics, whose snark does more to distance true believers from rationalism than they may realize.

We're explicitly given top-down OKRs, which we're required to align our own "bottom-up" OKRs to, and then we're not empowered to meet our own OKRs, because product management alone steers the ship.

> Mercifully, you don't really start forming strong memories until you're about 3-4...

A popular misconception that needs to be challenged, and one that I fear encourages some non-negligible deal of neglect and abuse.

Children under 4 years old have surprisingly excellent memories, extending years back. But something happens around age 4, possibly a burst of neurogenesis, which scrambles most of whatever episodic or autobiographical memory is in the brain. Other forms of memory endure the transition just fine. Motor skills are obviously retained, as are other life-long skills like how to speak (and for the hyper-literate, how to read). Acquired fears certainly survive, and though they can be overcome... they're still around to actually have to be overcome. Early childhood trauma, and especially abuse, absolutely leave an imprint, even if the events themselves are no longer clearly recalled.

None that I know of, unfortunately. It's been a while, so there's probably newer content out there to sift through, but that's a pretty deep rabbit hole of multi-hour videos. Maybe I could find one of those videos that represents the way I wouldn't run the game, but not sure that's worth it either.

The rules being as condensed as they are, nothing beats just jumping into it with a few friends (with a few beers if that's your thing) and even if you don't get it 100% "correct", you're going to have a good time. Maybe don't start with a huge group, I'd suggest 4 to 5 people including the GM for your first foray, and you'll want at least 2 to 3 hours to spare.

I suppose I did just suggest there's a right way and a wrong way, didn't I. Oops.

I've played Everyone is John for years now, and groups of friends I've played with have gone on to play with even more groups of friends. It's been a fantastic middle ground between role playing and party game, with no preplanning required and very little prep.

I was surprised to find that how I've interpreted and run the game differs from videos I've seen of others' games. Not to suggest there's a right way or a wrong way, but this seems to strongly impact the flavor of gameplay.

The way I've run it is guided by this paragraph:

> Everyone is John is a humorous, competitive roleplaying game about playing the various personalities of John, an insane man from Minneapolis. One participant is the GM, or, in Everyone is John lingo, “Everyone Else.” All of the other players are Voices in John’s head.

Hence, the Voices are John, directly making choices and taking actions. The GM, despite the name of the game, is not John. The GM handles all other characters, describes the world, calls for rolls, adjudicates, and does the usual GM stuff.

However, in videos of games I've seen online, players will act only as literal Voices in John's head, while the GM plays the voice of "sane" John, whom the other players get to boss around.

IMHO, I'm running it correctly, and the results speak for themselves, with tales of misadventures told and retold years later. The other version, to me, is more one-note and less worthy of replay. To each their own, of course.

I loved having small, focused PRs. So much easier to review without interrupting my day, too. Then we got handed a policy of one PR per ticket to simplify our QA process. Oh well.

It's in our nature to worry about the state of things after our death. If you have children and grandchildren, it's entirely fair to worry about their well-being long after you will be gone. Same is true even if you don't have kids but have at least worked hard to leave behind something for future generations. (Many of us aren't concerned enough about such things.) If none of that applies to you, perhaps you empathize with humanity as a whole, in which case you'd do well to bury your anxiety by focusing instead on the good you can do for people here and now.

But I am disappointed that if we screw up badly enough, any subsequent species rising to our level probably won't have the time or resources left to go on and surpass us.

Based on the frequency of data leaks and such, very much yes, that information tends toward finding freedom. Attempts to secure such records are necessary because they "want" to be free. Avoid leaving a trail of that information where you can, and keep as much as possible off the internet.

The notion of "information wants to be free" should be taken as an observation about the nature of things and the folly of corporations trying to have it both ways—information made broadly available yet on their exact terms—not as a value statement on any inherent goodness behind freeing information.

How many teams before you consider it bizarre? As a mere individual contributor / senior dev, I've only ever officially been assigned to a single team at once, but there are times when I'm juggling tickets on 3 different teams' Jira boards and attending 3 different standup meetings. Thankfully, I typically don't have to worry about sitting in on more than 2 teams at once, and I'm definitely an outlier. For me, this arose from joining a growing team before it split several times and also from predating all the current product owners.

Certainly, noted that it's observation rather than a complaint on your part. But I am still rather surprised just how often I do see it framed as a complaint nonetheless.

> It also sets the bar very high for parents.

Every time I hear this framed as a complaint, I feel the tiniest bit guilty—just for a moment—for personally identifying with Bandit's level of playtime effort and enthusiasm. But I can also commiserate with the few episodes where he let's on just how exhausted he actually is.

Substituting one meaning of "steal" or "theft" for another meaning and saying they're the same thing sure sounds like equivocation.

Also, for whatever my purely anecdotal experience is worth, I'd say the general quality of a professor's teaching was negatively correlated with how hard-ass they were about anti-collaboration policies. That also held true for a couple classes I'd dropped and retaken with a different prof.

One might think I'm just rating easier professors higher, but no, there were definitely enough sub-par teachers with lax policies and forgiving grading who failed to impart what their course was supposed to cover. There were also tough professors I learned a lot from. It's just that I can't recall a single decent instructor among those obsessed with anti-collaboration policies.

> strict cheating policies that essentially made any group work verboten

If I had to guess, some polytechnic school or another?

With some classes even forbidding discussing work with other students, where each assignment required a signed (digitally or otherwise) affidavit listing everyone you consulted, acknowledging that if you actually listed anyone, you were admitting to violating the academic honesty policies and if you didn't list anyone yet had spoken with others you were of course also violating the academic honesty policies.

Where only consulting the professors or TAs was allowed, the TAs were never around, and the professors refused to help because if they gave you any hints, it would apparently give away the answer, which would be unfair to the other students.

I've just discovered, thanks to this, that my tinnitus stops for a brief moment if I move my jaw forward. Thanks for the moment of relief.

> People who wish to harm others will harm others regardless, the only thing that will stop them is consequences. On the other hand, people who don't wish harm to others will not harm others regardless of whether they believe objective categories or objective morality exists.

This discounts that there are those who wish to harm others who aim to persuade others still to look the other way or even join in on the harm. If the only argument against them is that they'll face consequences, they only have to grow their numbers large enough to avoid said consequences.

To say nothing of those who'll argue against there being any consequences in the first place.

> Anyone here seeing an actual rendering with their eyes closed?

At times. Outside dreams, it's most vivid during hypnagogic states, where anything I try to picture manifests with full clarity.

During regular waking hours, it's much less intense, usually somewhere right in the middle of the various aphantasia tests I've come across. Colors are sometimes there. But I can rotate and examine 3d objects in my mind quite well, and when I'm painting, it's always better when I can paint a subject in my head first. I can also see words and visualize numbers.

I like "Unbounded".

> Cats seem inscrutable because they have very few; dogs seem more understandable because they can move their eyebrows.

What's wild is that we're apparently directly responsible for the eyebrow thing in dogs. As in we literally bred the feature into them.

- https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1820653116

- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-eyeb...

- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/science/dogs-eyebrows-evo...

Now get yourself some half-decent psyops and contaminate the first group with supporting voices that emphasize weaker evidence, use poor logic, name-drop socially questionable sources, and go out of their way to sound ridiculous.

The unfortunate reality is that if you push back, you may get "drug seeking behavior" added to your records, making it even less likely to receive sufficient pain relief in the future, even for unrelated situations.

Sounds like a bad idea. Even under ideal conditions, you'd get easily get stuck in the net or otherwise be held in place by the force of moving water.

This makes me curious what the HN consensus is about reasonable salary ranges along the east coast.

Truth. Been learning this the hard way, myself. But what do you do when you've never been one with heavy soft skills? When schmoozing has never been natural or enjoyable? Is there really nothing more than either choosing to suck it up and accept your fate or else force yourself to be what you're not?

Been listening to playlists of brown noise on Spotify lately while working, when I get tired of listening to actual music but still want some background noise. More indistinct and less distracting than other ambient sounds.

The primary benefit to me of using Spotify for this is that I'm already set up to control music on my sound system from my phone.

> It absolutely sucks if you want to do good work and that doesn't align with company goals.

It's particularly bad if you otherwise love your coworkers, your immediate manager, and what the company does enough to stick around indefinitely, but come find you're never actually allowed the opportunity to "do the right thing", because there's instead just always something else more pressing pushed on you. You'll never get the chance to fix the big problems that you see solutions to. You realize that for everything else you appreciate about your position, you're still just a cog in the machine. Then you feel depressed and slip into some negative developer stereotype.

Unsupervised and left to my own devices, I tend to spend my time on what I actually think is the most valuable contribution I can make. Selfishly, perhaps, because that tends to lead me toward what I find to be the most fulfilling and enjoyable work. This tends to upset some people, because my maximum effort is not funneled toward advancing their immediate metrics. But others get it.

The question for management is, are you hiring, cultivating, and retaining the best people? And are you defining "best" appropriately? If management's concerns around remote employees slacking off are at all valid, it's management's own fault in the first place.

To me, "offshore" means acquiring developers from international shops that bid for US contracts, whereas hiring internationally just means hiring outside the country on an individual basis.

Speaking very broadly here, my impression is that those offshore development shops bidding for US contracts often don't have the greatest working conditions. Those talented enough to know their worth and find better options will do so if the opportunity presents itself, which could mean either applying for international positions on their own or immigrating to where the jobs are. Thus there's an outflow of talent away from those offshore companies.