staunch

> Are there data caps?

> At this time there are no data caps.

Too bad they don't commit to no data caps. Data caps suck ass.

Clearly the FDA and state agencies are either incompetent or corrupt here.

It's surprisingly that some private organization (Consumer Reports?) hasn't come along to do this kind of testing for oils, honey, spices, etc.

I'd pay more for food with certification of purity that I could really trust. It's sad that even a "Product of USA" isn't good enough in these cases.

That's doesn't seem like an accurate take on what he's doing.

Young is either hoping that other people will follow his lead or knows that it could happen. That's why he made it a big public announcement. Young is very openly trying to pressure Spotify into cancelling Rogan.

Whether Young's mistake here is as big as Rogan's is a very complex question.

What we can know for sure is that trying to cancel people because you disagree with them is an extremely corrosive thing to do in a free and open society. It's a very big mistake.

Rogan outed Mencia as a serial joke thief, which undoubtedly hurt Mencia's career, but I'm not sure that counts as cancellation.

For example, one would not fairly characterize Hannibal Burris as "cancelling" Bill Cosby's career by outing him as a serial rapist.

If Young was outing Rogan I would have no objection. But all of the behavior by Rogan that Young disagrees with happened in public, for anyone to see. Young is not exposing any new information.

It seems to me that both Neil Young and Joe Rogan are good people that are doing what they think is right.

But, in my judgement, they're both making serious mistakes.

Young is making the mistake of trying to summon and/or join a mob to silence someone. And Rogan is making the mistake of not handling his Covid-related conversations with the diligence a pandemic ethically requires.

In neither case do they deserve hatred. The best outcome would be for them, or at least others, to learn from their mistakes.

The tone didn't bother me but I'm thick skinned :-)

The answer is that YC is extremely aware of how valuable HN is as a source of revenue. It's probably their biggest marketing channel, so it's worth many billions to them. They're not evil or stupid either, which is why dang is the moderator. If YC appointed an evil idiot, HN users would revolt very quickly and HN would become much less valuable.

YC is as tolerant as they are because 1. there's a good person in charge of moderation that leans this way 2. they're smart enough to realize how precarious their position is. It wouldn't take a lot of missteps to create space for an alternative. See: Digg -> reddit.

Comments are less of an issue than submissions are. For the most part, I think HN moderation of comments is fairly reasonable.

What's pretty unseemly at this point is how easily large tech organizations can game the HN front page. There are thousands of people affiliated with YC/FAANG reading HN, and they're permitted to vote on submissions in which they have a vested interest.

SpaceX showed a way through the bureaucracy and corruption. By building technology that was dramatically better and cheaper, it became almost impossible for NASA to avoid awarding them contracts.

This seems to be Anduril's approach as well. Whether they can execute as well as SpaceX has done remains to be seen.

Of course there are lots of military contractors. There were lots of space-related government contractors before SpaceX too.

SpaceX and Anduril seem to be unique in that they're following the Silicon Valley tech startup playbook and not the typical US government contractor playbook.

The US military could probably use a few dozen Andruils to modernize it and make it truly effective at its core mission.

It does seem like a failing of Silicon Valley that it doesn't produce more military tech startups. Palmer Luckey had to get megarich first before it was possible to get Anduril funded. Same thing Elon Musk had to do to create SpaceX.

There's obviously a VC funding gap, and clearly "the VR guy" and the "the PayPal guy" can do a lot more than most people believed. And so can a lot of other people who understand modern software and hardware.

Landing interviews usually just consists of submitting resumes and using LinkedIn, etc.

As for interviewing, beyond the basics of showing that you have some relevant skill/experience, there are two key things to convey:

1. Your enthusiasm for the company itself (its product/service/industry, etc).

2. Your enthusiasm for the role itself (specific application/service/technologies, teammates, etc).

You want to convey that you are excited, motivated, and "coachable" in areas where you're lacking. The best "hack" here is to look for companies and roles that you are genuinely excited about.

Be as blunt as you have to in conveying these points. Don't expect interviewers to be good at reading your signals. If you have to, just flatly state that you are excited, motivated, eager to learn, etc. to every person you talk to.

Don't overdo it but make sure this is successfully conveyed.

People are much more likely to hire someone if they seem like they'll add energy to the team. Even in cases where their skills/experience alone don't necessarily justify the hire.

Norm and Saget

Such rebels, bravely front running YC startups batches... /s

When I submit the myprivacy.equifax.com validation it hangs at "Processing..." indefinitely. #AbolishCreditAgencies

That's some shady behavior though. The whole point of the law is to prevent companies from penalizing employees based on prior salaries. Wouldn't be surprising if Google was finding excuses to retract offers based on seeing that they "overbid" on someone's comp. If anyone has had suspicious stuff like this happen, it sounds like it'd make a great lawsuit.

Would be nice if some journalist(s) made a big stink out of Google finding a loophole in this employee protection law.

Absolutely true, although it's not as bad as it once was. And if you can manage to choose well (i.e. by earning stock at multiple companies, some of which go on to IPO), it's possible that equity can (more than) make up for it, but it's definitely a bumpier ride. One has to choose where to invest their labor like a VC chooses where to invest their cash, and to build a portfolio over years.

The other alternative is to be a founder, but not everyone is up for that.

This phenomenon is a major reason that good startups win vs Big Tech companies.

The Big Tech companies have standardized their interview process around hiring new grads. They fight with each other to hire them. These noobs get hired en masse and perpetuate the process, ultimately creating a monoculture of noobs hiring and mentoring noobs. It is the blind leading the blind.

So Big Tech companies end up consisting of armies of highly uniform noobs that throw massive amounts of code/money/people/time at every problem. And not because they're stupid, but just because they never had the benefit of real mentorship and training from a diverse pool of experienced experts. And because they've never learned to build without the resources of a Big Tech company.

On the other hand, good startups seek out experienced experts with diverse technical skills because they really need the most effective people possible. They're not just trying to meet recruiting quotas. They have to do great work and have to do it efficiently or they fail. This is why good startups can very often do much better work than even much larger Big Tech teams.

If you're an experienced expert, and actually enjoy your work, you probably want to work for company with less than ~300 people. And you probably want to quit when it gets to ~1000 people.

I've bought a number of their Nitrokey HSM 2's and been very happy with them. But that is pretty much the extent of my knowledge of them.

It's not a bad trick. Lots of historical examples of an external enemy bringing internal stability. It often ends in genocide, sure, but it does seem to work!

I'm a big fan of Tesla but I'm fairly certain that, at some point, they're going to voluntarily refund everyone the money they paid for self-driving. And, at some later point, they will probably make self-driving work but on a future generation of HW/SW.

Genuine question: if this happens, will it kill Tesla to refund all of this money? I don't pay close enough attention to their financials to know myself. I assume (and hope) not.

The privacy advantage is not giving extensions access to what domains you are browsing. The extension declares a static list but doesn't know what did/did not match.

Because if the extension knows what URLs you're accessing, and can send that data somewhere, that's a major privacy concern.

So this makes sense and seems good for privacy. But if it breaks uBlock Origin significantly, that seems like a very bad thing.

It's an ad designed not to look like an ad. It looks like internal site navigation but is an external link. Not a big deal but a bit shady/confusing.

And Chrome won't allow the extension block lists to include regexps/wildcards, they all have to be FQDNs?

It seems reasonable to require a static list for privacy reasons. But not supporting pattern matching rules would seem to be an explicit attempt to stop ad blockers.

It seems proprietary because there are ad links disguised as documentation links. You can't click "Components" anywhere on TailwindCSS.com or you'll end up on TailwindUI.com pricing page.

It's fine that they want to make money but it's very confusing for a new user. Ultimately, they might make more money by dropping the shady links if it's turning away enough new users.

  s/Components/Tailwind UI/g

across their site would be a big improvement.

If you were following the guidelines yourself, you would have assumed my comment was not targeted at the author at all, which it was not. And you would most definitely not assume I was criticizing someone for their language skills...

To be clear, since someone else was confused: I wasn't being critical of you for using this word. If anything, being a non-native English speaker is the one valid excuse for using corpspeak in earnest :-)

> ...is more concerned with providing child care rather than instruction.

Which could actually be a reasonable design for school.

If public schools can't teach advanced topics, they could still handle the basics, provide childcare, and help to socialize kids.

And then tutors (backed by a voucher system), parents, and the internet can do the teaching of advanced topics.

Founders are the ones with the experience, skills, and knowledge to lead the companies they create.

Generally, VCs are equity portfolio managers and not qualified to lead a company. Even when they are successful founders themselves, they're almost never the right people to lead another founder's startup.

Yeah "learnings" is just corpspeak for "lessons" because it seems more sophisticated (to some people).

Selling equity is one thing. Selling control is another.

When the founders have control, they're the leaders and directors have to follow. When the directors have control, they lead and the founders have to follow.

Generally, founders are more successful leaders of their own companies.