wgerard

Sounds good.

And people are allowed to criticize his reluctance to accept those vital security patches, because he submitted code packaged as a crate to be used by others on a public registry.

By publishing something to be used by others in a public registry, you are opting in to receive criticism from the public.

Criticism is not the same thing as vitriol and I’m not endorsing the latter even one iota.

Is that not crystal clear to you?

what are you talking about? The code was submitted to be used by the public as a crate on a public registry. There were ABSOLUTELY discussions of the soundness of the crate - that’s literally what sparked this issue, security flaws in the crate.

Are you sure you have a firm grasp on what actually transpired here?

> in my analogy you're the homeless person and the maintainer is the charitable person. in your analogy the homeless person is getting advice from ...?

the maintainer?

> completely specious. code in a github repo is not active participation in society. the fact that it's public does not mean it's been submitted for evaluation in any way. criticizing a think that wasn't critically submitted is meaningless. it's like calling my practice sketches inferior to commissioned pieces - no shit that's the point!

Uh, what? By packaging something as a crate, by listing it on crates.io, you're submitting it to be used. If you don't want it to be used or evaluated, at all, why in the world would you publish something as a crate on a public registry?

This is more like submitting your sketches to a public art gallery and then being upset when the public criticizes it.

> what is the relationship of your analogy to this situation? is the maintainer the homeless person in your analogy?

It's your analogy, you tell me.

> you can criticize all you want as an exercise of your critical thinking faculties but the volunteer is not in anyway obligated to heed the criticism.

Nobody said they were. Nobody's trying to punish the maintainer legally. That doesn't mean criticism won't be offered or warranted.

Here's another analogy: You have a right to be a jerk in real life. Nobody's going to physically or legally stop you, barring extreme circumstances. People will still criticize you for being a jerk, as is THEIR right.

Here's another analogy:

A homeless person asks for money. You don't give him money but give him some advice. Can the homeless person rightfully criticize you?

You can absolutely criticize choices made by volunteers. I don't think you need to think too deeply about this to imagine situations where few would object to criticizing a volunteer's behavior. An obvious one would be if an open source maintainer willfully included malware/etc. into their project - which, to many people, ignoring glaring security issues is vaguely equivalent.

I obviously don't think vitriol is warranted ever, but criticism obviously is from time-to-time.

They're 20 year loans.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of a single person that wouldn't tell an unverifiable lie to get a lower interest rate on 20% of their loan lifetime.

Doubly so for loans with compound interest (as some private student loans are).

So I’ll double major in biology and something else I’m actually interested in, say my intended career is medicine (even though it’s not), and maintain my low interest rate for four years (or even longer)?

> Well you won’t switch your major if your loan depends on it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I said.

If you're referring to my second statement, I met many people in school who intended to go into engineering or computer science or medicine and had to change their career path once it was clear they weren't going to make it through the first year of introductory classes. I doubt I was alone in seeing that happen.

> but allow lenders to differentiate with rates on the basis of area of degree earned

This makes little sense in the current system, where many students don't even declare a major for their first year (or two, sometimes). They'd be halfway through college by the time they were able to know which degree they'll earn.

Intended major is just as bad of a metric. I think we all know many people who intended to go into one major and ended up in another.

> Maybe they’ll look at your major

That wouldn't make much sense, many students aren't accepted into a major until a year or two into their education.

"Intended major" would also be a poor choice, as I think we all know many people who intended to go into one field and ended up in a completely different one.

> The first two points don't seem to have anything to do with _why_ bankruptcy shouldn't be used for student loans.

n.b. I'm not suggesting this is a GOOD system, just explaining the reasoning behind it.

I mean, they kinda do; Student loans are unlike most other loans in that there's no collateral. Mortgages have houses, USDA loans have farms, etc. They could theoretically "repo" your diploma, but that would be a token gesture and wouldn't really make much sense anyway.

In most other contexts to offset this you'd just get charged an exorbitant interest rate (which indeed does happen for many private student loans) or go through a rigorous qualification process, but the government offers low-interest loans and in return says those debts aren't dischargeable (thus removing the 'risk' of default).

> However, these jobs are not meant to create wealth. They're meant to provide subsistance. This is much the same goal of UBI.

I'm not even a proponent of UBI, but I immediately see a few problems with your argument here:

1) They often don't provide subsistence, hence the necessity for many people to have multiple jobs. While we can adjust UBI accordingly (to some extent, obviously CoL is a thing), it's significantly more difficult to adjust around people working multiple jobs.

2) You're missing a critical component of UBI, which is that people are free to pursue whatever they might like (including nothing at all) without the fear of losing basic necessities. Low wage jobs obviously preclude you from doing that--because you're, well, spending your time working those jobs.

This is hyperbole of course, but we may very well be missing out on a modern-era Emily Dickinson or Darwin because they're spending all their time working minimum wage jobs.

3) Everyone's already moving heavily towards automation. Corporations don't employ people out of the goodness of their hearts. The second it becomes cheaper to automate something, those jobs will disappear. You can already see this to some extent with automated checkout lines, internet vs. retail shopping, etc. Unless you do something drastic ala NJ and Oregon with enforcing low-wage work like gas station attendants, those jobs quickly fade away.

As a teenager, I used to skateboard a decent amount. Sometimes businesses would put juts on rails, or little lips on things - stuff like that to keep kids from skating on their property.

It didn't stop us from skating, obviously; we just found somewhere else to skate. Often on the same property. More malicious peers of mine would do things like grind down the rail until it was smooth.

I think about that a lot when I hear about stories like this. We were just kids doing stuff for fun, not people fighting for survival.

It's not meant to be a benefit for the company, other than good PR I suppose.

It's meant to be a gesture of good faith towards the candidate that invested their time and energy to interviewing with you, i.e. at least the candidate didn't walk away with nothing from the process.

Yes, people frequently request justification when they're rejected romantically.

This is also why people get ghosted while dating nowadays. Many of the same reasons at play.

This is why people don't give candidates feedback, FWIW.

It's a bit like arguing with a potential romantic partner who doesn't want to go on a second date: You might win the argument logically, but you're not getting another date unless there was a comical misunderstanding.

Two main reasons:

1. You're assuming they're using an ATS with that feature, which isn't as common as you'd think. You'd be surprised how many companies track incoming candidates using spreadsheets and email.

2. Part of that "efficiency" is not actually taking the 5 extra seconds to reject candidates, but instead just ignoring rejected candidates.

Think of it as leaving something read in your email inbox vs. choosing to archive it. Imagine you're getting 100 emails a day. Now imagine how many people you know (not necessarily you) who would leave those emails as unread in their inbox and quickly scan for important ones vs. choosing to go through each one and archive them as necessary.

> Or at bare minimum, automatically mail them when the position is set to closed?

Many places will leave positions open for opportunistic hires, e.g. see how many places are constantly hiring for "software engineer". Many job positions never actually close.

Just explaining not defending: That's partially due to the volume seen with online applications.

Even 2-5 person companies will sometimes receive ~20-30 resumes a day for an open job, and 90% of them will be obviously inappropriate for the job even just from glancing at their resume.

It's a positive feedback loop: People have learned to "shotgun" their resume everywhere, and as a result even small companies have learned to process resumes as "efficiently" as possible (which often includes not sending responses to rejected candidates at that stage). This leads to more shotgunning, etc. etc.

Not too many places will straight up ghost candidates that have done on-sites, that's pretty unusual.

Sometimes they'll dangle candidates if they're waiting to hear whether their first choice accepts, but even then it's rare not to communicate at all once you've done an on-site.

We interviewed a lot of hiring managers/etc. while we were working on a previous business in the hiring space. As part of that, we asked them this very question.

The fear of litigation was by far the biggest reason we heard, but there were some other popular reasons (mostly relating around conflict avoidance):

* Notably, giving feedback feels like an opening for the candidate to submit a rebuttal instead of ending the conversation (e.g. "You didn't do well on X" "Well here's a list of reasons why I didn't do well, and here's me demonstrating I actually understand X").

* It was just a personality conflict that few people would admit to in writing (e.g. "You're kind of an asshole, I don't want to work with you" isn't something you tell a candidate).

* There just isn't much actionable feedback to give. "Nobody felt excited to potentially work with you" isn't really actionable feedback, and sharing that just feels kinda mean for no reason.

* Someone better came along to fill the role and nobody wants to tell a candidate "We found someone better than you".

Not really, the truth is likely much more mundane: People are fairly predictable [1] and their predilections aren't that unique [2].

1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

2: Real conversation I overheard: "I was talking to my friend about buying a switch and the very next day I got FB ads for it!" - well duh, it's the holiday season and game consoles are very popular gifts.

Living in a college dorm isn't a common occurrence for most people for the majority of the nation's history.

Ah fair, and I knew someone might bring that up :).

I meant more that I don't think that type of situation was common throughout history, more-so just for that time period for a certain group of people.

My impression is more that while families and groups of families might have cohabitated for long periods of time, it was a bit more rare for complete strangers to do so.

That would likely be illegal, for example in NYC an apartment must offer 80 feet of space for every tenant (so those 10 people would need to have a 800 sq ft apartment).

Sure, easy to skirt around if you're just an individual landlord, much less so if you're a company openly advertising it.

> A private bed and storage space in lower Manhattan for say, $400 a month

It would likely be similarly priced to the article, i.e. closer to $1200/month.

I think that's the real downside of things like this: They're offering a pretty steep discount compared to what it would cost to, say, rent a studio in lower manhattan, but not a steep enough discount that it would be affordable for someone making minimum wage.

It seems like a poor alternative to just having roommates and living in Crown Heights, is what I mean.

A key difference: I don't think it was as common to be "co-living" with complete strangers (though maybe I'm wrong on that).

Sharing a room with someone you're pretty familiar with is a much different experience.

I think the point is more like:

It's hard to imagine a recent college graduate understanding the machinations of corporate entities enough to give meaningful advice about how to run more "efficiently". It's a bit like when a SV company is promising to revolutionize farm equipment and the founders have no background in agriculture - weirder things have happened, sure, but you can see why people are a bit skeptical.

Yes, it's obviously a bit unfair because sometimes untainted eyes can be the most beneficial, but hopefully you can also see why there's a bit of skepticism.

> I realized that one of the things that brings me the most joy is a clean house; but I hated to clean.

On the flip side, obviously only if it's something you can manage to do, this is also a good litmus test for whether you should just hire someone to help you out.

* If you don't care about having a clean house and don't enjoy cleaning: Don't worry about it.

* If you do care about having a clean house and don't enjoy cleaning: Learn to enjoy cleaning (as you have), or hire someone to help clean.

* If you do care about having a clean house and don't mind cleaning: Clean it yourself.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I'm quite surprised to see the article dismiss the idea of hiring an accountant to manage your books and give you a general sense of your financial health/etc. I think it could be well worth the money, especially if the most likely alternative is (as it is for most people I would imagine) to just ignore it.

That doesn't mean you have to be ignorant of the financial health of your company, in fact just the opposite: A good accountant will let you know about problems you would've been ignorant of before they even arise.

Funnily enough, HN actually works reasonably well in lynx.