slumdev

Sure. There's a balance somewhere in between idealized images and "Healthy at Every Size".

But if a product is intended for weight loss, I would expect its ads to focus on weight loss...

This doesn't make any sense without context and a citation.

Edit: Seeing that response, I think your top-level comment is a victim of Poe's Law...

> It's an expansion of our ad policies that have long prohibited body shaming

Having a BMI* greater than 25 is a risk factor for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and cancer.

This move is guided by feelings, not facts.

*Yes, everyone knows by now that BMI doesn't apply to people who are very short, very tall, or bodybuilders. There are other measures like body fat percentage or waist-hip ratio that can also be used.

> IMO with how many they have it doesn’t make sense since you are bound to forget nearly all of them day-to-day.

You won't forget them if you end up working there. They're used as rhetorical jabs when people want to win arguments.

Someone more creative than I am could probably do a great comedy sketch in the vein of Darmok using nothing but the leadership principles as dialogue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok

It is true of ICs, but a good recruiter will tell you that you don't need to have stories for all 14.

There are really only about 8 or 10 that they expect SDEs to demonstrate.

The culture will slowly rot as the company gets larger and as the real visionaries (good or bad) become increasingly disconnected from the boots on the ground.

We're already seeing things like people getting hired and then PIPed within months so that their managers can avoid firing the reports they like...

So I need to rehearse two more stories if I want to interview there? Sign me up for that!

It certainly does change who a person is. It damages virtually every part of the brain and directly causes anxiety disorder, mood swings, and a whole host of other unpleasant psychiatric disorders (to say nothing of the physiological disorders); and it causes this damage at doses that most people would consider "moderate", if the doses are administered consistently over a long enough period.

You are the kind of PM that I will gladly give estimates to.

The others, not really.

There's a browser-based adaptation of LORD:

http://lotgd.net/home.php

(not mine, no affiliation)

Requiring someone to come in to the office when it's been promised all along that he would be WFH permanently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

> Political note: calls for nationalisation, in American politics, is a gift to the other side.

Populism changes the equation. Populism blurs the left/right split.

Populists of all political persuasions can get behind nationalizing Intuit.

Doesn't a company have to be at least slightly sexy to be called "tech"?

> Right now there's a lot of recruiters trying to sell me on various nebulous hybrid positions (sounds like the companies don't really know or have committed to anything just yet, or are afraid to let potential hires know what they're really planning), but there's equally as many recruiters contacting me for 100% remote (and plans to stay that way) as well.

A recruiter (household name tech but not FAANG) pitched me on a position that was "1 day a week" in an office 300 miles from my home.

I knew my conditions* wouldn't be met, so I turned him down.

*The company covers my airfare and meals. I fly out and back same day. The morning outbound never departs before 8AM. The return never arrives after 6PM.

I bet John Carmack hasn't even solved most Leetcode mediums.

Those are small discounts against a large premium.

A health insurance analogy would be: Customer A pays $100/mo because he gets an annual checkup and takes the medicines the doctor prescribes. Customer B pays $200/mo because he hasn't seen a doctor since college.

Customer B could reduce his total out of pocket by $800 per year if he paid for the $400 visit.

> $400-per-visit deductible

$400 is pretty close to the cost of an office visit, physical exam, metabolic panel, lipid panel, and EKG, which is what a primary care doc is going to order annually on something like 90% of Americans after a certain age.

It shifts the expense of routine care and checkups to the patient. If you view insurance as indemnification against unexpected loss, it shouldn't be paying for expected, routine costs.

You're right. But how often do you want to rewrite that code? It may be worth accepting a few -isms (and the associated performance hit) in order to be able to write something like this instead of having to bang out the imperative version:

<BulletedList [(DataSource)]="MyCollectionProperty" />

JSX isn't HTML. Is it truly less cognitive burden to have a language that looks like HTML but isn't? With properties changed because they're reserved words? And with control statements from other languages supported inline?

If someone gave me a language that looks like Lisp but with car and cdr renamed to something else, is that really making my life easier?

Browsers support HTML and JS (and a few other things not relevant to this point).

Neither HTML or JS on its own will do what you're describing. HTML doesn't allow binding to a data source. JS doesn't allow you to write HTML declaratively. So, people build abstractions.

If an abstraction ever became popular enough and futureproof enough, there could be a case for supporting it natively. But I don't know of anything that currently exists and does what you're describing.

Most of the web can and should be static HTML and CSS.

Writing HTML programmatically or using JSX are both unfortunate React-isms.

Not saying that Angular's banana box is ideologically superior, just that all JS frameworks have idiosyncrasies.

The front page of their website proclaims Svelte to be "Cybernetically enhanced web apps", whatever that means.

The "Rethinking" post gives a little more detail:

> Instead, Svelte runs at build time, converting your components into highly efficient imperative code that surgically updates the DOM. As a result, you're able to write ambitious applications with excellent performance characteristics.

https://svelte.dev/blog/svelte-3-rethinking-reactivity

Seems like a great idea, if it can gain the critical mass required and build a community of people developing code for it.

The most important line:

> It's important to understand that virtual DOM isn't a feature. It's a means to an end, the end being declarative, state-driven UI development.

Declarative, state-driven UI development is a valuable abstraction.

I really hope readers take this to heart, rather than the article title becoming a new meme.

Marijuana users aren't littering San Francisco with used needles and feces.

You are intentionally muddying the waters.

American chocolate is probably a bad example because what makes it bad is the lack of cocoa.

If we sold "American coffee" that was 99% chicory and 1% coffee, it'd also get a lot of hate.

Literally any framework of moral reasoning.

"Do what thou wilt" is not an ethical framework.

Users are not prosecuted in a huge number of jurisdictions already, so you must mean making the chemicals themselves legal to produce and sell.

Selling Fentanyl over the counter at Walgreens isn't going to get people off the streets.

It's going to put a lot more people on the streets.

This idea is DOA. Just laughably out of touch with the reality of addiction.

Hate speech and name-calling aimed at anyone who supports a strong border shows how weak the argument for open borders really is.

It's pretty clear at this point that harm reduction policies are failing worldwide and that only the lessons learned at a higher stage of moral development will get us out of this mess. Relationship-focused consequentialist thinking leads to this downward spiral.