I would argue that unlike "remote work," where the COVID shift made it clear "hey most of us can just work from home" - the K12 "hack fix" most schools implemented was barely sufficient to get through the year or so that students were forced to stay home. I suspect that most standard public schools would do better to drop this offering altogether and leave it to 3rd party online schools, if such a thing exists and can get enough traction to stay alive.
I'm hoping the latter half of that was a joke, but please, let's not further extend the awful trend of pushing every part of life being a subscription. I understand the argument as a way to sustain the business, but I don't think this is the right way.
I was hired after interacting in a comment thread with a founder that was building the same thing I was NIH-ing at my current job. Easy fit to come on since I was currently doing it, but not ultimately a great fit. It pulled me out of my first five year gig at a huge corporation and helped me see the extreme opposite of that, and paid hugely better. I don't think it was a huge resume pad, as it wasn't a well known FAANG, but I appreciated the perspective it gave me and the redirection of my career.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you have it backwards. It appears that the new array spread being introduced does use two dots, which could mean potential conflict with the existing range syntax?
Adding spreading is neat, but curious why they chose to go the two dot route instead of three. It's been a while since I've worked in C#, so I can't remember if there are any reserved implications of three dots.
I will admit to the same, and perhaps I've missed some buried gem as a consequence, but I think that also speaks to the value of not deeply burying the lede.
It's funny to me, the length and level of detail defending meetings feels like the sort of meeting content people long to avoid. Paragraph after paragraph, major bullet after major bullet, all to say "there is value in meetings that you would otherwise miss." I can agree with some meetings being of value, but to your point, I think a lot are fluff, like the majority of this article.
Could you explain why any of the things he says make you think a number that high? I'm just finishing building my first PC ever (I've used computers for ... 20 years? But never actually built one). And I have a 1TB NVMe SSD from Western Digital, it was about 60 bucks. I have a 35" BenQ monitor from work, I think it was around $600 at the time of purchase. I don't have fiber at my home, but from what I understand, it's not prohibitively expensive in general. Anyway - I went with 16gb RAM. That felt like a reasonable starting point considering my current and prior daily driver were there as well. My build (minus admittedly expensive monitor) was, to me compared to the Macbooks I usually have for work, a fairly modest $1250 or so. So, roughly the same specs - seems like nothing too crazy?
This actually leaves me more confused; it seemed like building in public was the problem because it left potential for copying, sharing metrics doesn't seem like it would run a risk? That's the part of this movement in the other direction that doesn't make sense to me.
I am also a bit confused by some of what the author has said here. On the one hand he talks about not disclosing things because others are ripping off designs, etc, but in other places he's referring to things like employee salaries and run-rates, etc.
Maybe I'm dumb and not connecting the dots, but why would sharing things like your costs allow others to steal your business? I genuinely don't understand this, so I think I'm misreading the article.
> From envy and toxic feelings dividing teams and friends to businesses copying other businesses completely, the scene is getting spotted by more and more cases.
The first part of this reads like the traditional reason that "don't talk about your salary with other employees" was a commonly accepted thing. Is the author (/community at large) deciding that going the other direction is a bad idea?
Maybe someone can TL;DR in a better way to save my Friday fried brain?
At least in the case of the scene from the show, it's likely just for the sake of having people to spend this "dead" time with rather than being alone. Possibly also the latter as well, though.
I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument. 1.75MM rear endings occur yearly. Decreasing that number does seem relevant. Could / do these auto-brakes decrease that number? You seem to think no, per your second quote comment - I'm not sure, I haven't done any further research to see if there's a trend. I wouldn't be surprised in either direction, honestly. The ratio of accidents to "near miss" is probably hundred(s?) to one, but could this make it more? I don't know. Fwiw - I'm anti-auto-brake as a rule, but I'm just curious if the data would be in their favor or not.
I don't have an auto-brake feature, only ridden with people who do. I believe that most of them do have some sort of warn prior to brake - but to your point, there are so many situations where this could falsely trigger that it would likely end up being tuned out, at least as I imagine it. Actually, my truck has one of the "warning" things, and I ultimately turned it off for this reason. The number of "immediate danger" warnings that would flash when I was driving, e.g. alone on a country road at night, made it not worthwhile to me. I can imagine an auto-brake would be even worse that way though, lol.
I wonder what the market share makeup would look like for people who want smart appliances. This is another one where most people that I know want as dumb as possible.
I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure studies have and/or are being done on this. I wonder if the rate of incidence of rear-end type accidents has changed noticeably with these systems becoming standard. A quick Google suggestions around 30% of accidents are rear-end, accounting for something like 1.75 million accidents annually. What % reduction in these would make it make sense to "require" this? I'm not sure, I personally can't stand currently implementations, but it does seem like an easy thing to target for reduction.
As an aside, trying to quickly search for these sorts of statistics leads to an awful lot of law firm websites.
I would be ok with bluetooth, I think this can be done while maintaining a "dumb" interface though. I'm not much for the backup cam, but there are implementations of it that are also not too over the top.
For me, the biggest "blind spots" in the last few cars I've had are not covered by any sort of detectors... the front pylons on the windshield have often made me unable to see left and right. I often find myself rolling up to a stop sign thinking it's clear, but then realizing that someone has just been driving "in sync" with my pylon, entirely hiding them from sight. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but I suspect some sort of indicator could be useful in this case.
Otherwise, I'm not sure what the main driver of this is. In part, it's probably a combination of "I know better than the system," especially after some incidences of false positives, and then the general confusion / annoyance with "new UI." Again, at least for most people I know, having an "entertainment center" in the car is not desirable. A simple display for current time / now playing and then a series of tactile buttons is the desire.
For me personally, the blind spot indicators specifically, the yellow triangle blinking on and off in my periphery, are really bothersome. I haven't owned a car with them yet, so likely after enough time I'd get use to it, but I really don't like this feature. I'm not familiar with ACC, looks like "adaptive" cruise control? In general, I don't have the opportunity to use cruise control, except for infrequent drives to some other location. In this case, the manual cruise has typically been plenty, and if I have to turn it off due to traffic, it's usually enough that I'd probably want to be paying enough attention to manually manage my speed rather than letting the car adapt. I haven't used it though, so hard to speak to that. I have not liked the centering, though maybe the versions I've used have been too primitive - it generally makes me nauseous if it's on, the unexpected pulls back are too abrupt..
Huh, maybe the people I know are the exception, but everyone I know gripes constantly "ugh, I wish my car didn't have all this electronic crap, I just want the analog stuff and no computer." The exception for at least a portion of that group would be the rear camera, which I believe is now mandated by law, but... the rest of it could be left dumb and I think most people (I know) would be as happy, if not happier.
ETA: I guess it could be debated as well whether the "auto brake" type features would be desirable by that group. My personal opinion is no, but I think other threads have indicated I may be in the minority.
I don't think the original article was in any way trying to imply that the "concubines" were willing participants, inasmuch as they call out their being "slain," which seems rather involuntary. I'm not sure why you felt it was important to call out that this was not only a ritual sacrifice, but also a rather perverse ritual sacrifice - it doesn't seem relevant to the original article.
Yes? I mean, it exists and I know of at least a half dozen people in immediate proximity to me that have kept old devices around in case they want their photos later. Some have them backed up elsewhere as well, sure. Contrary to your assertion, I'd guess the opposite - I suspect there's a large number of people, especially non-technical people, with phones in drawers with information they'd like to have available for "some day." Obviously speculation based on my own experience.
WRT the off device syncing being default, that is fine up to the Xgb that the provider offers free, anything beyond that is not synced without a monthly subscription, and the same people I know that are keeping phones around are also not paying for that.
A counter, or perhaps extension example to this: say I had a phone ten years ago that had full disk encryption. Since then, I've migrated to a new phone, but kept the old one around to have access to the pictures. Ten years on, I finally have the desire to go and look and... now I realize I have a paperweight because I can't remember the password.
While the term "fair wage" is obviously something that's more "arguable" (e.g. what's fair?) it seems to me a less loaded phrase than "living wage," the alternative to which, on its face, seems to imply death.
I think I actually made a comment to this effect recently (although perhaps not on HN? Can't recall now). I think your idea of phrase overloading is an interesting one; often it seems that words lose their severity / intended effect, so new words are adopted. To the point of a sibling comment, homeless has now become "unhoused," to infer a different connotation or slight nuance over what is traditionally or stereotypically thought of the homeless population, perhaps. "Dire" and "manipulative" drive attention, and that is indeed the goal for better (to drive change) or worse (to profit from attention).
Ouch, in a national chain, potential video, potential payment trail... it's too bad that (in my admittedly limited experience), these sorts of things are almost never pursued, because to your point - there's no disincentive to the perpetrators to stop.
I guess in the scheme of "things that happen in a college town," being invited to another party from a public bar with people you just met there doesn't seem like a particularly unusual thing to take part in either. It being a college town, and stemming from a bar, does seem like it may have aided in the inappropriate response from the police, unfortunately. I wonder how many college kids end up in a similar situation, where in most cases the police likely won't even be able to do anything to follow up. A friend's brother had a similar experience, having been approached at a gas station for help and ultimately being beaten up and mugged. Aside from also being treated like a drug addict (which he was, to be fair), he was told they they couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it anyway since they had no way of knowing the people involved.
If you don't mind sharing, what was the reason to get in the car with them to drive? Were you planning to head out to an event like a hike or something that you had arranged online, but hadn't known the people ahead of?
The Quest Pro is "newly" available now (as of late Oct 22 it appears), but the GP said they had tried last year... I guess now that we're in 2023, that could mean some time in 2022, though. I took their comment to mean that they tried out the 2 in anticipation of the release of the Pro, some time in the more distant past.
Isn't the Quest 2 the newest headset they offer? Why wouldn't it be fair to try that out and see if it worked, and come to the conclusion that it was underwhelming?
I don't disagree that there are ways the government can deny you service now, just mean wrt a non-government example like identity theft, you at least have some path forward.