I made this as an experiment to see if a older style (PHPBB-alike) format would enhance readability of posts on Hacker News.
To me the present style represents a discussion room in which members form nested cliques, which means that a few comments are well heard while many others are ignored. Voting exacerbates the effect, as disagreeable comments are often pushed down or hard to read (light gray text). Finally, due to the tree-style presentation, it's difficult to determine the context for a reply when there is a lot of nesting levels.
The classic forum style, in contrast, simply shows posts in chronological order, along with the reply-tree visible inline, so context is easy to determine. With no votes or light gray text, I find it significantly easier to follow the conversation; YMMV.
The present implementation is rather slow as the API isn't built for the display format I'm using. Give it a sec to load :)
I'm currently working on adding reply/submit functionality. You'll see dummy replies to this post while I get that working.
I have a different view than captured by your A-E options.
1) The climate, or really the whole earth, has some background rate of change, that itself changes over time.
2) On top of that, there is change, ranging from significant to insignificant depending on the area, caused by humans.
3) This will cause the earth to change at a rate (potentially much) faster than if humans were not here.
None of this, to me, represents a problem in itself. The earth before humans, or at any other point in our history was not some ideal utopia. Humans have inflicted colossal change upon the world since our first day -- we've decimated pests, built cities over forests and dams over rivers, created lakes and removed others, just to name just a few. The world we live in today is anything but "natural".
My primary point of disagreement with those who consider climate change a grave threat is the approach. Rather than setting "reduction targets" and "cutting back", we will, as humans have always done, build solutions to problems as we grow. Whether that's investing in improved desalination technology to provide large quantities of fresh water (due to a demand for water), electric vehicles to reduce localized emissions (due to a demand for clean air), or plant a trillion trees to store carbon (due to a demand for lower temperatures), the key is that for those to be workable options they must represent the growth of humanity, not the decline. There's also vast amount of land in Canada and Russia that at present is undesirable because it is too _cold_.
Humans have survived in horrendously hostile environments and have built upon that the wonderful and wholly unnatural modern lifestyle. Humans have never in history been THIS well resourced to survive despite environmental changes, and I have the utmost confidence we will do exactly that.
I mean I hear what you're saying and it sounds GREAT. It sounds optimistic. And hopeful.
But it also sounds just Option A. "The threat is exaggerated".
For vast amount of land in Canada and Russia to become habitable, vast amounts of land that currently house HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people will become UN-inhabitable.
Either due to sea level rise, or from just heat.
I understand maybe on the scale of our civilization we will survive (Maybe), but not before the unnecessary deaths of millions, maybe billions.
Is that worth it to you? Or do you believe that I am being alarmist, and exaggerating the grave threat?
I'm the founder of AgMaps (https://agmaps.us) -- simple and fast drone mapping software for Agriculture. Map 160 acres in as little as 15 minutes on your iPad while the drone flies, then locate areas of stress or damage and walk out to manually inspect. High resolution visual and thermal imagery lets you see issues quickly without walking thousands of acres, leading to faster and more accurate inspection.
I'm looking for a non-technical co-founder to bring this technology to market, primarily targeting agronomy co-ops, fertilizer, seed, and crop insurance businesses in the midwestern US. Individual crop consultants may be interested as well. If you can sell software to Agribusinesses, lets talk. devin [at] agmaps.us.
I read that part the same way; for standard remote ID drones, transmission over internet to a USS should be made if possible, but as long as the drone can continue an ADS-B like (but specifically NOT ADS-B) transmission it remains compliant. That's the big question here I think, because there are a lot of places you can fly that don't have internet connectivity, such as rural farms where drones are currently very useful.
It's temping to treat this as more of the same "Catalina is buggy, Apple is doomed" news, but note that Mail.app has ALWAYS been less than rock solid. For some reason, it seems to be a prime target for new features and reconfiguration every release, resulting in a lot of churn which unsurprisingly brings about bugs like this. A cursory search indicates a bug about some messages not showing up in 10.8, a Gmail issue in 10.9, VIP issues in 10.11, etc. But hey, we have gratuitous, cannot-be-disabled window animations when replying to a message, so what's a little data loss compared to that?
> that governments need to put some "guardrails" around engineers and the tech titans they serve
No. We don't need "guardrails" at all. We have an existing legal system that works quite well to discourage companies from profiting from ventures we don't like: we simply make those ventures illegal. Companies have been able to make a profitable business out of harvesting personal data, abusing consent, etc., because these things aren't illegal. GDPR et al is the start of laws in this area, but a financial penalty is simply a business cost. If I can make $500B with a 25% chance of a $5B fine, the rational action is of course to proceed.
If there was a law about certain types of consent being legally required for certain types of data, THEN an engineer, manager, or exec can decide to either a) report the violation to authorities or b) become complicit themselves. When breaking these laws comes with real penalties (jail time, not fines), then the business can choose between a) do something illegal and government puts everyone in jail and takes all assets or b) don't do something illegal, which is exactly what we want.
Bottom line: No special regulation is required here. Simply make a law extending the personal data productions afforded by existing regulations and let the system do its job.
This is better than most of these "tips for a good life" lists, but I feel like it too misses a certain level of overarching consistency. Almost every item has a situation in which the "correct" thing to do is exactly the opposite of what is recommended. How do you make that decision?
As with all of these lists, I always wonder whether this is what the author thinks now, after attaining success, or if these principles are what they relied on during the process? Or perhaps even what they wish they did now that they have more time to think about it?
A commenter below mentions "life is not an optimization problem" -- but isn't it? You're fundamentally making decisions every day that balance your constraints against your goals, interests, and passions. If you just let your life go by without making some real decisions, won't you just regret what you didn't do later?
The reason you have to optimize like this is because a lot of these principles, should you attempt to leverage them to make a decision, provide contradictory advice. Part of this is due to the subjective terms (ie, definitions of extreme vary), but if you're going to use this list as a template or an inspiration, eventually you have to resolve what these things mean to you. I certainly haven't figured that all out and don't expect I ever will; I don't see how anyone could without having experienced all possible things.
All that being said, there are definitely some items that are clearly beneficial and don't put you in decision making paralysis, such as 18 or 24. But there are others that leave me more confused, such as "Don't waste time" or "Don't worry so much". How am I to know if an activity is time wasted until after I do it or if worrying is excessive or warning me about a real issue?
Finally, if you don't identify as neurotypical, what items apply, don't apply, or apply differently? How do you live your life if what everyone else says to do doesn't (seem to) work for you?
Not trashing Sam's thoughts here for sure, but I've read dozens of these things and never came away without having more questions then when I started.
I can offer a personal anecdote here on my experience with code reviews, on both sides.
I was the primary architect and reviewer for a complex real-time mathematical application. When reviewing code, I was pretty much a tyrant: the code had to be correct, well tested, conform to the theory, interface with the rest of the system correctly, etc., in order to be allowed in. I remember leaving some pretty brutal reviews when the proposed design was different than what I thought it needed to be. I thought I was doing the right thing, the project lead thought I was doing the right thing, but maybe I was just making my teammate's lives hell.
In a subsequent job, I was on the receiving end: I was again the primary architect and maintainer, but still needed to seek review from a larger team (my component was part of a larger project they owned). The experience was not enjoyable: reviews sometimes took months (I sure wish I was kidding), sometimes were passthrough "LGTM! I don't understand it at all!", sometimes asking questions like "why is this mutex here" and then I have to spend 3 hours writing up an explanation for how threads and locks work in this case. I found that my mental model shifted: instead of committing small improvements here and there like cleaning up comments or renaming something I just... didn't. I didn't want to deal with a multi-day process of bugging someone to review (they were always busy), dealing with the roulette wheel of comments that might come up, the possibility that I might have to justify some minor thing that I don't even remember the reasoning for. It felt like making a PR opened you up to an uncomfortably invasive inspection, one where the reviewers look down their nose at you and ask you to elucidate why you chose to wear the red shirt today instead of the blue one, as if you're supposed to have some grand unified theory of shirt colors when the actual reasoning is "I thought red would work and it did". How are you supposed to justify why you didn't do all the things you didn't do?
I think an issue is that there's always a different approach that could be used and in a perfect world perhaps we'd iterate endlessly until we found the best one. I've seen plenty of systems that have a design very different than what I think I would do, but as it turns out those systems work too.
I've honestly become less convinced that code reviews are the answer. Is there a possibility for learning reviewer <-> submitter? Of course. Do some teams find code reviews to be hugely beneficial? I would assume so. But I don't know if an organization-wide mandatory absolutely-zero-exceptions is the way to go.
I share this sentiment about code reviews. Too often, they are time consuming discussion over trivialities and/or taste. Also, like you said, it's way to easy for someone to ask one-liner questions which require long and time-consuming explanations. I would be fine with doing code reviews with people who I consider reasonable (ex. I hand-picked them for a team). Otherwise, it is often a drag which doesn't improve the product that much.
I've noticed a number of sites now are doing something that interferes with the password manager (Lastpass in this case). Common problems are either that autofill doesn't work (even explicitly clicking autofill does nothing), or they put a button in the username/password field that's exactly where Lastpass puts its button, so it's impossible to click.
I don't get it -- don't the sites want users to use more secure passwords? That should mean encourage password managers, unless they imagine I'm gonna remember a 32 character random unique password for every website?
I contacted my credit union about this and they responded their auditors required it for security compliance reasons. Thankfully after many months they "fixed" it by removing the restrictions... but made the login a multipage ordeal which still breaks my pw manager.
