thelean12

We might have to agree to disagree a bit.

If I am driving in the uncontrolled direction and see a car crossing in the controlled direction, then I slow down enough in case the crossing car slows down or stops unexpectedly. If the crossing car doesn't give enough space (i.e. cuts people off), then they're at fault. Otherwise the uncontrolled direction is at fault.

To simplify it: Everyone should give everyone enough space/time to stop before hitting something. Everyone should use that space/time when something unexpected happens. Anyone who breaks either of those should be at fault.

Again, just my opinion about how it should be. I have no idea what the law says.

That's a much more vague situation. Did they actually hit you? Did they cut you off and force you to hit them? Those are much different situations than them having plenty of time to make a turn and having to stop for whatever reason, and you assumed that they wouldn't stop so you didn't slow down. And to be clear, I don't care what the law says in this conversation; I care about what I think is the correct outcome.

A double stop at a stop sign is a very simple situation.

It's not the Cruise system's fault that you almost ran into them. They should absolutely be able to stop again to access the situation before continuing, regardless of the traffic situation. And who knows, maybe there was another pedestrian or animal running around on the other side of the road that you didn't see.

It's like rear ending a car at a stop sign because they did a double stop and blaming the front car. That's just not how it works.

What doesn't make sense? Surely it shouldn't be too hard to even say "air bags deploy when there's x amount of force, so they would have deployed in the simulation" let alone have an actual physics simulation going on.

I've said it for a long time but: Tesla implementing level 2 is dangerous and irresponsible. Calling it "autopilot" is even worse (and has been ruled as misleading in at least German courts).

If a human has to sit there and monitor the car without interacting with it, then we shouldn't allow it on the roads. That means skipping level 2 and probably level 3. Go the Waymo route and go straight to full self driving cars.

What's the alternative?

During the 90s information traveled slower and those with large audiences took the time to research reports before sharing it with the world. And if it turns out that they were wrong, the correct information can be spread across those few platforms to everyone.

Now, misinformation can be created way faster than it can be discredited and there are a massive number of surfaces where the misinformation can live without being corrected.

I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing.

The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?

And these are discussions to be had when developing, including what to do when someone does abuse the lack of curse word filters. Because people WILL abuse it.

The same discussion will also have to talk about whether Mr. SomepornwebsiteDOTcom or Mrs. Hitlerdidnothingwrong are real people and what to do about it.

Because people will abuse everything.

Whether it's curse words or porn websites or whatever.

> Even though we get paid a good chunk in the USA, our overall benefit package is thin in comparison to other developed countries.

What do you mean by this? I mean I guess I get less PTO than other countries, but I get way more pay. I could just take a month of unpaid vacation if I wanted to, and still make more than my European counterparts. Tech also gets great healthcare (unless you work for a startup or something I'd guess).

Not disagreeing that unions would probably be a net-positive for tech workers, but saying that tech in the USA gets a worse "benefit package" is pretty dishonest.

I didn't want to dive down away from murder, because then I'll have to pick my "line". I'm not prepared to do that for various reasons. For example, I don't know the punishments for the crime you mentioned.

Murder is the "easiest" crime to use to make my arguments. And even then I have to specify stuff like "intentional without a damn good reason".

After reading everyone's responses and responding myself, I've realized that I'm really caught up on the murder aspect.

I think my revised opinion is that if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason, you should spend life in prison. This can include second degree murder, which is often not life in prison in the US (And also happens to line up with the OP scenario).

> Is it because you believe that the penal system did not properly make this person safe to return to society?

I absolutely don't believe the penal system makes people safe after they serve their time.

> Is it because that once someone has committed such a terrible crime that they are inevitably going to be able to do so again, because they have the psychological profile to do it?

If a person killed someone without a damn good reason, why would I think they wouldn't do it again?

> Finally, does it mean that such a person is forever marked as fundamentally dangerous and unworthy of reintegration?

Correct. And maybe I'm caught up on the murder aspect. Murder isn't a small little crime. It takes a certain type of person to be able to intentionally murder someone. And maybe most of this thread can be summarized by: I think if you intentionally murder someone without a damn good reason you should spend life in prison. Right now, second degree murder can include that and often is not life in prison.

I think those questions are distracting to my very simple point: I don't want to work with a person who has murdered someone without a damn good reason (self-defense).

I truly can't believe that HN thinks this is some offensive opinion.

13 years for a "serious, violent crime" could very well be referring to second degree murder in many states. No, I don't think my coworkers or friends have committed second degree murder.

Context is of course key, but a blanket statement of "hiring someone who spent 13 years in prison for a serious, violent crime is a good thing" seems wild to me, which is the vibe on this thread.

There are a lot of people saying they're in favor of this type of thing. And for non-violent offenses I'd probably also be on board.

But this person committed a "serious, violent crime" that sent them to prison for 13 years. Are you comfortable sitting next to someone who is capable of a "serious, violent crime"? Are there certain crimes that cross the line for you? Would you expect your employer to inform you of their record?

Edit: Just want to remind people, 13 years could very well mean that they murdered someone. Context around the charge is key, and no one seems to be acknowledging that.

I don't think the public knows or cares about any promises made. The vast majority of people are extremely happy that they can charge their laptop and their phone with the same cable. That's a major improvement from previous generations of chargers and has absolutely simplified the situation. And it's only getting better.

.

That link has absolutely nothing to do with them being US based or not.

This is the problem with having conversations about tax law: the vast majority of people have no idea what they're talking about. Worse: the vast majority of people think they know what they're talking about.

I have as well. In no world is dealing with chain control in your 2WD sedan working "just as well" as an AWD SUV.

This also doesn't account for towing capacity. Most sedans are not suitable for towing a boat, for example.

I assume the ban would exempt commercial operations, but something to bring up as well.

Focus on electric vehicles, not bans on trucks and SUVs.

SUVs are basically required in many parts of the US. Or at very least, it's much worse to have a sedan in the snowier and hillier parts of the country. Not to mention towing capacity or the more rural areas where off-road capabilities are important.

> why in the world would we subsidize investment losses?

We do that all the time. Major industries are bailed out all the time by the government with negligible interest loans. We've literally done that in COVID times already.

We should have deferrals up the chain if the government is preventing people from working.

Interesting, sounds like I'm mostly wrong about Palantir vs the CIA, unless the prospects of Palantir IPOing is luring.

Regardless, I'm much more familiar with FAANG compensation and my comments are still accurate for those.

It's not a good indicator of experience. But it's probably a decent indicator of a lack of experience.

Queue vs stack is an extremely basic concept. They're not even unique terms to CS. You can almost guess what they are just by their names.

How are they going to get the Palantir people? Doesn't Palantir pay extremely well?

I don't think people in this thread understand: The starting salary range for a "Technical Developer" is $60k-$150k according to their website. I imagine it's similar for CIA labs. That won't get any FAANG or Palantir developers out of bed in the morning unless they think being in the CIA super cool or something.

You say "equivalent salary" but compared to what? You mentioned FAANG above so I assume that? Unless you're ignoring total compensation, that's not right. You're going to have a much lower base compensation at CIA labs than FAANG. The $150k extra might only match FAANG, and would probably take years of effort to get it at the CIA.

I imagine if you're talented enough to work at CIA labs you could land a much more lucrative and guaranteed FAANG compensation package instead.

...What? In what situation does this happen?

If I'm busy then I'll let it go to voicemail and call back.

> Can software development jobs actually be reliably estimated though?

That's why I often 3x my estimates. It works great for me.

It's never a problem that I finish a project early. But when external launch plans are on the line, it can definitely be a problem to finish a project late.

Finishing a project on time is one of the things you get evaluated on in performance reviews as a software engineer. It's also up to the software engineer to provide reasonable estimates and to push back on requirements or incorrect estimates coming from higher up.

It's small enough that it's not a concern and not something we should spend much effort worrying about. 105 is absolutely nothing compared to nearly 200k deaths in the US.

It's also a HUGE distraction to the real concern: We don't fully understand how contagious children are.

Isn't that up to the developers to provide reasonable estimates? I regularly tell the higher ups estimates that are 3x what I actually think because I know I suck at estimates.

If the problem is that your manager isn't listening to your estimates, then find a new manager. Plenty of fish in the sea.