missing from that list is:
https://news.ycombinator.com/classic
not even hidden there as a <!-- --> comment
282 karma · joined October 25, 2016
https://news.ycombinator.com/classic
not even hidden there as a <!-- --> comment
reddit (my) karma score, & poster usernames -> hidden
HN (my) karma score -> hidden
slimming down everything to just content without any influencing factors(poster name, comment points) gives me a much better experience.
i find web forums which i frequent are so much better without karma & reactions.
for real?
> Facebook ..and being more liberal & exploitative in sharing user data than any company before
> Airbnb ..and subverting local regulations.
> Uber ..and subverting local regulations.
If a product is more widely available & readily sold, then there are going to be more people addicted.
Criminalization has nothing to do with the process of somebody becoming addicted to something. Heroin(& friends) are addictive to people who try them because they give immense pleasure. When the pleasure becomes less, people don't stop the drug, they take larger doses of it. And then if they're stuck for cash, go for something cheaper that still has pleasure. Isolation may play a part but it is a small part.
from https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/how-addict...:
"Addictive drugs provide a shortcut to the brain's reward system by flooding the nucleus accumbens with dopamine. The hippocampus lays down memories of this rapid sense of satisfaction, and the amygdala creates a conditioned response to certain stimuli."
> Something being legal takes a lot of the desire to do something away
That is just not true. What is that statement based on? People want to experiment with things(either purely for a new experience or to conform with their peers).
If product x gives you a high, you will want to try it again..and again..and again. This isn't theoretical, we see this issue with heroin, opioids, crack cocaine.
so, you & I are ok but the next generation..maybe it starts becoming a _much_ better bang for buck than alcohol. and soon we have a load more with a serious life-devastating drug addiction. short sighted at best to legalise it which (make no mistake) absolutely will normalise it.. criminally insane otherwise.
> replaced 80% of the front counter staff
Have you any credible source for that or any source at all?
Snopes has more info on a similar statement: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-robot-cashiers/
> CLAIM
> McDonald's is planning to replace all the cashiers in their restaurants with robots by the end of 2020
>WHAT'S TRUE
>McDonald's announced plans to install self-order kiosks in eight or nine thousand stores in the next few years.
>WHAT'S FALSE
>McDonald's is not replacing cashiers with "robots," the chain is not eliminating all cashiers, self-serve kiosks are not a response to a proposed higher minimum wage.
Is the work something so unique that it's not roughly the same as work in multiple other companies?
Is the work going to be such that it's going to continue to be interesting even after the newness/novelty of such work has worn off?
Most people talk to more than one company if they're planning on leaving a job.
I'm not gonna sacrifice a whole day just to check whether the company's suitable.
Work is work. Your employer pays you money to do work. If you do work outside of that, it doesn't mean anything other than you don't want/can't enforce a boundary between your work life and private life.
Also, yet another aspect is that even more of us like our work and want to succeed at it but have been around for longer than x years where the novelty of being "always on" has worn thin.
An employer taking advantage of one's lack of boundaries is bad form regardless of whether the employee can't/won't see how detrimental it can be.
If most of the issues revolve around having roughly the same environment for candidates, just create ready to go VM images, for example VirtualBox, and share that with them. Or use a cloud desktop VM.
All of which make it easier for someone to succeed.
Except for coding style (incl. naming convention), code organisation, test coverage, arch style, level of abstraction..plus a myriad of other things. I don't know anybody who treat the code in a coding question as a black box. It gets about as subjective as you can get when reviewing, with the (objectively) correct answer weighted the least.
Shit code that gets the right answer rates worse than code which ticks all the above subjective boxes but gets the answer wrong.
> This means the same items are made in the same way with the same ingredients in very different economies around the world, making the Big Mac...
This is provably not true. (without any prejudice against BigMac as PPP indicator)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-meal/big-macs-aroun...
> Google's security team first disclosed the vulnerability privately to Epic Games on August 15, and has since released the information publicly following confirmation from Epic that the vulnerability was patched
Panorama isn't a "reality-based" programme. It's an undercover investigative programme.
The problem with "reality-based" programming is that some scenes are completely falsified or exaggerated (with the knowing assistance of the show 'participants'). Most of them even have to put a disclaimer at the end of the show saying as much.
Notwithstanding that every produced show is going to have some slant to a point, to classify the linked video as "reality-based" is completely and utterly disingenuous.
I can't remember ever seeing one of the fundamental reasons explicitly being called out..leading to vast amounts of devs never truly grasping the why of 'why are SPAs faster'.
Did you mean you're not going to regret not spending extra time in the office? i.e. family > work or did you mean work > family
Glad to see this mentioned.
Hopefully legions of devs can least now UNDERSTAND why SPA can be faster & what makes it so.
They'd have bought from one of the other mobile OS vendors(Symbian, MS) or made their own (Nokia w/Maemo). It could be argued that Google distributing Android for free(so as to ensure the continued dominance/inclusion of Google Search) did set the smartphone industry back. Who the hell wants to compete against free? Even more so when that "free" is coming from a XXX billion dollar company. Which is maybe why MS gave up on mobile OS, or Symbian no longer exists or Maemo.
> you're forcing the companies to follow a set of rules to use your product
...and Europe found those rules broke the existing law.
It's unequivocally a positive if they play by the rules. They fell foul of Europe(who was protecting it's consumers).
Google's not a charity and made the choices they made to get to where they are. Making Android free ensured they quickly became relevant in the emerging mobile market without having to invest massive amounts in designing/making/manufacturing devices (alongside the risks), if doing Apple way. Or if they went the MS way and tried to sell a closed source OS to device manufacturers, those device manufacturers may instead have chosen a different, more polished OS from a company who had more experience/better reputation in that field.
> Google places some terms of use to their software and suddenly they're being "anti-competitive."
You can drop the scare quotes, it's not "anti-competitive", it's just anti-competitive.
> who could look at how Europe treats Android and come to the conclusion that Google made the right decision by being open?
Google was fined on antitrust grounds. I don't see which direction to leap to make that sentence relevant to them being fined.
From the EU’s competition commissioner
> Fine of €4,34 bn to @Google for 3 types of illegal restrictions on the use of Android. In this way it has cemented the dominance of its search engine. Denying rivals a chance to innovate and compete on the merits. It’s illegal under EU antitrust rules. @Google now has to stop it
just think of it as bookkeeping, period. a ledger of all events. absolutely nothing to do with double entry (which for accounting; from wiki: "The double entry has two equal and corresponding sides known as debit and credit.")
I think it would cover a few of the use cases that people are turning to event sourcing for(excluding scale).
> before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
Should have been clearer They should have tests to cover their code (not the code I'm going to right).. This cuts down on me adding testing libs needed, any setup, and laying down a pattern for their expectations(wrt tests). With expectation dev would add tests to cover their code.
> And when on Earth do you get clear and detailed instructions on what is expected?
On the job, I have easy access to the information/easy access to the people with the information. Not to mention personal relationships with the people I need to query.
My usage of 'inane' refers to things that a dev on the job won't be doing 99.9% of the time. Things that take effort & thought to setup(initial project setup) but don't really give any insight into whether a dev can write & architect code well. All the things a company already has in place.
a) setting up a git repo with working code in it (including tests, dependencies and whatever else) so I don't have to worry about inane(but taxing) decisions in terms of project structure/code style. Also, verify it works before sending it out to candidates.
b) including clear & detailed instructions on what is expected
c) given the test to current employees (blind) & timed them on it (allowing for the fact they know the domain & technology)
d) make it somewhat representative of day to day. i.e. I have 0 interest in spending time configuring and doing anything which is a 1-off task such as authentication etc..(unless the companies primary product is security/auth)
In short, make it easy for me to prove myself.
Maybe I'm talking to more than one company and don't feel like subjecting myself to this absolute nonsense over & over. Maybe I'm just feeling out the opportunity without having to worry about solving a made up issue and hope it conforms to what the employee reviewing it considers good.
What other in-demand professions(based on demand vs. qualified candidates) make potential employees sing & dance, and then go through a full interview process on top of that?
Do accountants have to balance a fictional company's books or find the most efficient structuring of a fictional company's taxes across multiple jurisdictions before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
The content in Europe is woeful compared to the US.