Volume 4 issue 4 introduced the Alpha architecture and includes an article describing the effort to port OpenVMS: http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/vol4num4/vol4num4art7.pd...
This should be interesting when they get done. OpenVMS had a reputation of not going down and having amazing storage clustering. I found it a bit odd when I used it in college and years later on a job. I wish it had been open sourced, but I guess it makes me feel good to know its still going regardless.
The company I was an early employee of (that ended up being a "unicorn") was not a cool kid, and we certainly were begging people to invest both at the angel stage and (especially) the series A stage. And those people got a really really good return on their money.
This isn't to say there aren't valuable signals perhaps involving "cool kids" status, but there are a lot of diamonds in the rough.
> I figured it would be more fun to be the beggee than the beggor for a change, and I was right about that.
As a much smaller time angel investor myself than the author, I'm still the beggor. You are only the beggee if you are writing 25k+ checks (and more like 50k-100k to really be the beggee). If you are writing 5k or 10k checks, you are going to be begging people to take your money, cool kids or not cool kids. So if you are looking to get into angel investing today without allocating 6-figure amounts to your hobby, I wouldn't advise doing it for ego reasons :)
I really do question this. The "problem of induction" comes into play when you start talking about pattern matching and learning from "experience". That is, there's no guarantee that the future will look like the past.
Before Zuckerberg was Zuckerberg, I wonder how many people would have said "Hey, I recognize in this kid the innate capacity to be an NBT"? Of course they got funded, but I believe most of it was after they already had demonstrable traction.
On that note, one of the things that makes fund-raising such a drag, is that so many angels (at least in this area) want to see "traction" before investing. Even though, typically, you would thing that angels are investing at such an early stage that nobody would really have traction yet. Maybe it's just that the angels here on the East Coast are more risk averse.
For me, the most important thing that Ron conveys is that being an entrepreneur is an incredibly foolish thing to do. Silicon Valley created myths of passionate geeks who worked in their mom's garages and went on to make billions. Who doesn't want that?
But the reality of Silicon Valley today is that because of these myths, most people work their twenties away for a chance to buy a lottery ticket...
However, something that I think the essay modestly overlooks is the non-financial elements. The investors made a huge difference in my life & that of the others that worked for FathomDB. I like to think that we moved the industry forward a little bit in terms of thinking about modular services (vs a monolithic platform-as-a-service) although it turned out that the spoils went mostly to the cloud vendors. Many of the ideas developed live on in open-source today.
Of course, this all serves Ron's point in that it doesn't make for a good investment. But that doesn't mean that no good came of it - and it makes me want to work harder next time so that it is both a good outcome and a good investment.
So: thank you to Ron and all our investors. It is no accident that you are called angels.
The #1 thing a startup can do to survive is to be as stingy as possible with their capital.
"And this is how I made 42 investments in my first 3 years. All are now bust, and I am out 1.4 million dollars"
Obviously not fun to tell the world how much money you lost, but it would help to add color to the people behind the VCs, that developers love to see as the frenemy (terrible people out to screw you, but man their money is nice sometimes).
I'm somewhat biased when it comes to angels because most of the experiences I heard (http://etl.stanford.edu/) were almost always homeruns. Sure there's the down in the gutter claims every investor tries to sob about where they lose money but let's be honest wouldn't it be great if someone gave a talk and said how much they lost (and how much they're continuing to lose) by attempting to get rich quick.
So far bootstrapping appears to best way of weeding out the shitty angels who haven't been in the game for a minute.....it's a pleasure to not deal with someone wanting to give you a check while telling you what their expectations are for YOUR business not their 10k+ check.
A VC once told me that there were "good angels and bad angels" Too many bad ones and he wouldn't invest. A couple specific bad ones and he wouldn't invest. To that, there are also good angels that will make introductions, spend time coaching, and really help beyond what I'd call a "hobby." It seems like there are good people out there with money and knowledge and they really want to help out others in an angelic sort of way knowing full well they will likely lose their investment.
And it is the same for stocks, many people think they will make money by investing in a specific company because their logic says it is good idea.
Investment is a job, and to win you need experience
Any guesses on the second way?
The best I could think of was: find dumb investors to pump it full of money and hype it. Then rely on all the hype to get it sold.
I'm hoping for a less cynical answer!
Is he implying some sort of unethical behavior as the second way?
It's 222-2222 I gotta answering machine that can talk to you
Can anyone give me such examples?? I am curious.
What I take from this is that this person doesn't have a grasp if high school math or is not being honest.
Also if you listen closely to a lot of investors they'll basically tell you their metric is "can I sell this to a greater fool?". This is why there is so much investment in 'hot' areas when, in reality, those are the areas to stay away from as the unicorn shares are likely already over-priced.
That's a pretty specious statement. I don't know how he came up with that; it certainly doesn't match with a lot of reality.
Anyone figured this out?
I'd love to hear from other angel investors with (perhaps) different experiences and opinions.
Much better news: I do believe that it'sfairly obvious that there are goodsolutions to the most important problemmentioned in the OP.
First a remark on scope: I'm talkingabout information technology (IT) startupsbased heavily on Moore's law, theInternet, other related hardware,available infrastructure software, etc.,and I'm not talking about bio-medicaltechnology which I suspect is quitedifferent.
Second, a remark on methodology: When theOP says "almost certainly" and similarstatements about probability, sure, (A) inpractice he might be quite correct but(B), still the statement is nearly alwaysjust irrelevant.
Why irrelevant? Because what matters isnot the probability, say, estimated acrossall or nearly all the population, or allof business, or all of startups, or evenall of IT startups. Instead, what isimportant, really crucial, really close tosufficient for accurate investmentdecision making, is the conditionalprobability given what else we know. Whenthe probability is quite low, still theconditional probability -- of success orfailure -- given suitable additionalevents, can be quite high, thus, givingaccurate decision making. So, net, what'skey is not the probability but what elseis known so that the conditionalprobability of the event we are trying toevaluate, project success or failure,given what else we know is quite high.
So, back to the OP. We can start with thestatement:
> The absolute minimum to play the gameeven once is about $5-10k, and if that'sall you have then you will almostcertainly lose it.
Here for the "almost certainly" to be trueneeds to depend on what else is known.Sure, if not much more is known, then"almost certainly lose it" is correct.But with enough more known, the firstinvestment can still likely be a bigsuccess.
The big, huge point, first investment or101, is what else is known.
> There is a small cadre of people whoactually have what it takes tosuccessfully build an NBT, and experiencedinvestors are pretty good at recognizingthem.
I agree with the first but not with thesecond. From all I can see, there ishardly a single IT investor in the US whoknows more than even dip squat about howto evaluate an IT investment. E.g.,commonly the investors were history oreconomics majors and got MBA degrees.Since I've been a prof in an MBA program,I have to conclude that a history oreconomics major with an MBA has no startat all evaluating IT projects.
Here is huge point:
We can outline a simple recipe in justthree steps for success as an IT startup:
(1) Find a problem where the first good ora much better solution will be enoughnearly to guarantee a great business,e.g., the next big thing.
(2) For the first good or much bettersolution, exploit IT. Also exploitoriginal research in high quality, atleast partly original, pure/appliedmathematics. Why math? Because the ITsolution will be manipulating data; alldata manipulations are necessarilymathematically something; for morepowerful manipulations for more valuableresults, by far the best approach is toproceed mathematically, right, typicallywith original work based on some advancedpure/applied math prerequisites.
(3) Write the corresponding software, getpublicity, go live, get users/customers,get revenue, and grow the revenue to asignificant business.
So, right: Step (2) is a bottleneck: Thefraction of IT entrepreneurs who can dothe math research is tiny. The fractionof startup investors who could do anevaluation of that research or evencompetently direct such an evaluation isso small as to be essentially zero.
So, net, the investors in IT are condemnedto miss the power of step (2) and, thus,flounder around in nearly hopeless mudwrestling in a swamp of disasters. And,net, that's much of why angel investorslose money.
So, the main problem in the OP was losingmoney on IT projects. The main solution,as both an investor and an entrepreneur,is to proceed as in steps (1)-(3).
For IT venture capitalists (VCs), theycan't use step (2) either, e.g., can't dosuch work, can't evaluate such work, andcan't even competently direct evaluationsof such work, but they have a partialsolution: Likely enforced by their LPs,in evaluating projects they concentrate oncases of traction and want it to besignificantly high and growing rapidly.
So, with this traction criterion, and someadditional judgment and luck, some of theVCs get good return on investment (RoI),but they are condemned to miss out on step(2).
So, what is the power of step (2)? As wewill see right away, clearly it'sfantastic: Clearly with step (2) we cando world changing projects relativelyquickly with relatively low risk.
The easiest examples to see of the powerof step (2) are from the US DoD for USnational security. Some of the bestexamples are the Manhattan Project, theSR-71, GPS, the M1A1 tank, and laserguided rockets and bombs, all relativelylow risk projects with world changingresults. Each of these projects, and manymore, was heavily dependent on step (2)and met a military version of steps (1)and (3).
More generally, lots of people and partsof our society are quite good atevaluating work such as in step (2) andproposals for such work, just on paper.We can commonly find such people asprofessors in our best researchuniversities and editors of leadingjournals of original research in the moremathematical fields.
I started some risky projects, e.g., anapplied math Ph.D. from one of the world'sbest research universities. From somegood history, only about one in 15entering students successfully completessuch a program. The completion rate ofapplied math Ph.D. programs makes the NavySeals and the Army Rangers look likefuzzy, bunny play time. With much of myPh.D. program at risk, I took on aresearch project. Two weeks later I had agood solution, with some surprisingresults, quite publishable. Later I didpublish in a good journal. I could haveused that for my Ph.D. research, but I hadanother project I'd pursued independentlyin my first summer -- did the originalresearch then, in six weeks. The rest ofthat work was routine and my dissertation.While working part time, the Navy wantedan evaluation of the survivability of theUS SSBN fleet under a special scenario ofglobal nuclear war limited to sea, all intwo weeks. I did the original appliedmath and computing, passed a severetechnical review, and was done in the twoweeks. Later I took on a project toimprove on some of our work in AI fordetection of problems never seen before inserver farms and networks. In two days Ihad the main ideas, and a few weeks laterI had prototype software, nice results onboth real and simulated data, and a paperthat was publishable -- and was published.My work made the AI work look silly; itwas. Once in a software house, we were ina competitive bidding situation. I lookedat what the engineers wanted and saw someflaws. Mostly on my own, I took out aweek, got good on the J. Tukey work inpower spectral estimation, wrote somesoftware, and showed the engineers how tomeasure power spectra and how to generatestochastic process sample paths with thatpower spectrum. As a result, my companywon sole source on the contract. So,before I did these projects, they all wererisky, but I completed all of them withoutdifficulty.
Lesson: Under some circumstances, it'spossible to complete such risky projects,given the circumstances, with low risk.
But IT VCs can't evaluate the risk beforethe projects are attacked or even evaluatethe results after the projects aresuccessfully done. So IT VCs fall back ontraction.
I confess: It appears that the IT VCs arenot missing out on a lot of reallysuccessful projects. Well, there aren'tmany IT startups following steps (1)-(3).
So, for IT success, just borrow from whatthe US military has done with steps(1)-(3).
The problem and the opportunity is thatnearly no IT entrepreneurs and nearly noIT investors are able to work effectivelywith steps (1)-(3), especially with step(2).
The IT VCs have another problem: The knowthat for the next big thing -- Microsoft,Apple, Cisco, Google, Facebook -- they arelooking for something exceptional. Andthey know that those for examples havevery little significant in common. Stillthe IT VCs look for patterns for hottopics at the present or recent past.That's no way to find the desiredexceptional projects. E.g., when the USDoD wanted the Manhattan Project, theydidn't go to the best bomb designers ofthe previous 20 years; doing so would nothave resulted in the two atomic bombs thatended WWII. Instead, the US DoD listenedto Einstein, Szilard, Wigner, Fermi,Teller, etc., none of whom had anyexperience in bomb design.
>To make a product that fills a heretofore unmet market need, and to do it better, faster, and cheaper than the competition.
This is an insane sentence. Let's make it only slightly more insane to throw it into starker relief:
>To make a product that fills a heretofore unmet market need that nobody has expressed or even thought about until the company announces it, and to do it absolutely perfectly, instantly without any development time, and make it free for the consumer, while getting money from a sustainable high-margin source and having a proprietary moat that makes it impossible for any other market players to enter even a similar market. Also I'll add that the company must have such strong network effect that the utility of any competitor's product is negative (people would regret getting it even for free) unless the competitor is able to get at least 98% market share.
That's pretty insane, and if you re-read what I quoted you will see it's the same kind of insanity.
Why do people even write stuff like this.
Downvoters don't understand my objection. I'm not going to edit this comment. If you don't get it, you don't get it. This investor literally named "good, fast, cheap" (except as: better, faster, cheaper) as three of four requirements that must be met. (The fourth named requirement being "heretofore unmet".) You cannot get more insane than this except in magical la-la land where there are no trade-offs of any kind. It's absurd.
Unless it's in your background and in your DNA, it seems that angel investing will end in tears.
plenty of good entrepreneurs have great angel investing track records doing it part time (Elad Gil, David Sacks, Aaron Levie)
In China however, they throw away that pride of creating the greatest and shiniest. Instead, they start off with an "inferior" product but use the scale of their population to bring down costs and they try to ensure everyone has access. The top example is smartphones. In the article itself, "Even the buskers were apparently ahead of me. Enterprising musicians playing on the streets of a number of Chinese cities have put up boards with QR codes so that passers-by can simply transfer them tips directly." China starts off with a product that gives every citizen a chance to get in on, not just the wealthy, and they build up their economy from the bottom up, rung by rung.
The way I see it, we have democracy in politics but in products, its authoritarian because its guided by the billionaires and wealthy. In China, they have an authoritarian political system, but democratic economy space because they can actually vote with their wallets.
Thus, in the US, I suspect that mobile payments haven't taken off as much because they are only very slightly faster to use than a credit card, as opposed to cash, which is much slower with people counting out amounts and cashiers counting out change. Before Android Pay came out and there was Google Wallet, I tried using Google Wallet but was super disappointed - it failed about 5% of the time, where my credit cards almost never failed. Lately, though, I've started using Android Pay and I've been really impressed. Just one tap with my phone and it's done, and it's very reliable. Still, though, it's really only slightly faster than swiping my credit card, especially for small amounts where a signature isn't required.
- Low transaction fee & minimal barrier. For merchants taking WeChat pay, the transaction fee seems to be a flat 0.6%, compared to 2%-3% in the U.S. For the food cart vendors and similar one man shops, they just use the person-to-person payment feature (like Venmo), which has no transaction fee and does not need a merchant account. While Square helped somewhat in the U.S., the transaction fee, for many, is perceived as a rip off.
- Cards are a pain to use. In the U.S. you sign. In EU you use a PIN. In China you do both. Usually, it seems slower than cash! Mobile payment, comparatively, is a breeze. However, it's quite difficult to argue that taking out the phone, unlock it, open the app and show the QR code is easier than using a card in the western world.
There are some deeper historical reasons for these two conditions, which I would not dive into in this comment, but needless to say, it's a much, much more fertile ground for mobile payment to blossom.
Without having used WeChat's approach with QR code scanning, it doesn't seem that different for the end user in practice. Either way, you're scanning an object you carry against some target environment and a merchant is processing the transaction for you. It's even closer once you use eg: Apple Pay with your CCs loaded into the Apple system - you're tapping your phone rather than scanning via the camera.
I'm guessing that the CC infrastructure simply wasn't there and pushing out EFTPOS units was a far higher barrier to entry than simply running an app on your newly acquired cheap chinese smartphone. As such, the CC merchants missed the boat whereas the big phone app companies got in on the ground floor. On the flipside, many Western countries had all the EFTPOS terminals already, so contactless just became the next iteration on that.
I don't really necessarily agree with the problem of the country building their commerce systems around Tencent, etc. as 'private companies' since most of the west hinges on Visa, Mastercard and to a lesser extent Amex. They're all private companies too. Maybe the government will step in and standardise the QR code system eventually to reduce the risk. I don't really see it playing out much differently to how the West did with CC contactless.
Oh and yes, When I leave the house I don't even take my wallet, everything is paid using wechat.
Ever since I could tap to pay with my card in AU, I have been going months without using cash. I usually still have money, but never use it. I've gone almost 2 months with literally 0 dollars in my wallet.
That's probably more traction than Google Pay or Apple's payment system ever got.
"Alipay, leader in online payments. 400,000,000 Users."
The article mentions that not everyone has access to it though, if you just sign up why is that (they don't want it or something else)?
And what about privacy? Obviously everything you buy is being fed into a big government database somewhere. Do people in China not care about that (has privacy been eroded so much)?
People who don't want to get a Google account already get a degraded product when using Android phones, and I'm not even sure an iPhone works without an Apple ID. That Google Wallet flopped is just a happy coincidence in this regard, but Apple Pay so far hasn't, and then we have the same situation there as with e.g. Alibaba.
Some nations like Switzerland at least have a unified national mobile payment platform (Twint in this case) carried by an alliance of banks. This doesn't put all the power with just one or two privately owned US or Chinese companies, and it brings banking regulations into the game. Maybe that approach should be copied, but it only works in countries that have those regulations and banks willing to cooperate.
Fundamentally, a wechat/alipay transaction is traceable. Traceability is great for expense reports, but a non-starter if you're a drug dealer -- especially with China's draconian drug laws.
Even if you were to launder the money through fronts or a series of transactions, a state level actor (i.e, China) would have no real difficulty in tracking down such activity. With cash, this becomes much, much harder in cost, time and manpower. Not impossible for a state, but certainly an effective deterrent from casual or low level investigation.
This difference in traceability will keep cash and other compact tangible mediums of value (precious gems and metals, ivory, drugs, etc) in use by subsets of the population for as long as people value the relative anonymity and are willing to put up with the costs and risks a physical medium entails.
With digital wallets, there's zero need for credit cards and their predatory interest rates.
China is just absolutely crushing it. The Amazon Self Serve store that's still in testing in USA? Tao Bao pushed their version and it went live last week.
People are using Alipay and Wechat pay for everything, being online shopping, restaurants, supermarkets, train tickets, electricity, water, even some tax declaration. So it is not just a replacement to cash and bank cards, it is starting to go beyond that.
I go for months without having any cash or bank cards on me. Unfortunately everything falls apart when my phone runs out of battery.
People paying in cash is a small minority
Speeding up lines, they also can have more clients for less cashiers
In France, most people pay with a bank card, the rest with cash. The process is longer and less user friendly
When I heard about it several years ago, it was, effectively, the largest bank in Kenya.
And while it's hard to connect your Wechat account to your bank account as a foreigner, it's like everything in China: If you have Guanxi it's no big deal. You just give cash or bank transfers to your friends and they send you Wechat money.
However, I realize that column is almost 50 months old. At the time it was part of a worry, because it was very difficult for anyone to understand what was going on in the Chinese economy and therefore which economic policies would be harmful. (Eg. stimulus during bubble, or tightening during stress)
Has cash really become a lot less popular in the past few years?
Difference for consumers is minimal. Cards can be faster to use.
CurrentctC never made it out of test marketing and I don't think Walmart Pay is taking off.
The difference is that these two are from big retailers and the Chinese versions are from apps or online retailers.
In practice, scanning and paying is much faster than shown in the video. He is using an old phone, on a newer one scanning the barcode takes around 0.5 second and the verification takes 2-5 seconds (not 15 seconds as shown in video).
Paying in stores works differently. The WeChat app has a wallet section with your personal payment QR code (which changes every time you open the app). To pay in a store, let the clerk scan it like this https://wx.gtimg.com/pay/img/wechatpay/intro_2_1.png then enter your six digit payment passcode (optionally, you can scan your fingerprint). After entering your passcode, it takes around 5 seconds to process and verify. You get a receipt as a WeChat message (last screen shown here https://www.royalpay.com.au/resources/images/retail-example.... ).
Many stores (usually restaurants) have a nearby QR code you can scan to follow the business's WeChat "Official Account". Follow this account to earn loyalty points, discounts, and freebies whenever you pay with WeChat wallet at this business in the future. The business can send you chat messages about promotions too (you can mute them if you like). This feature ties in really well with WeChat pay.
There are other uses of WeChat Wallet too, most of which are shown in this promo video:
At timestamp 0:09, that sign/sticker signifies this store accepts WeChat Pay
At timestamp 0:24, watch the clerk scan the customer's barcode
At timestamp 0:30, the customers scans the store's payment QR code and types in the amount they want to pay. More at 0:50
At timestamp 0:38, this store has a dedicated QR code scanner
At timestamp 0:50, it's the same as 0:30 where the customer types in how much they are paying. Paying like this is common at street stalls.
At timestamp 1:00, two friends use WeChat Wallet to transfer money to each other
Opening WeChat wallet on your phone is very easy. On iPhone just force touch the WeChat app and a quick menu for the QR code scanner and WeChat Wallet appears. In my opinion, it's much faster and more convenient than paying with credit card.
There's an incoming audio channel and some metadata [caller id]. You have no idea whether the metadata [email recv from] is spoofed. All you know _really_ know for sure is the carrier you're receiving the call from [sort like an IP address] and whether or not you "trust" them not to lie about the authenticity of the metadata.
If the FCC wants to tackle this problem, as another HN user said, we really just need the equivalent of DKIM and SPF signing of the call metadata.
Despite the TCPA Act outlawing the calling of cellphones... robo callers in the USA rotate phone numbers very quickly, so as to prevent anyone from figuring out who and when placed a call.
"The constant reassignment of phone numbers creates further problems in determining which calls are legitimate and which arent."
I find that hard to believe. Shouldn't the phone company know up to the second exactly which numbers it has assigned and which it hasn't. And couldn't it pass that info on to peers?
For my cell, Google Voice's spam blocking seems to work pretty well.
Why bother fining a single guy $120 million? What purpose does that serve?
Asking about being put on a do not call list often ends up just them laughing at me or hanging up right away. I tried the national do not call list, even was submitting every instance of these calls to their database for a month or so, but it didn't make any difference.
I was going to try pretending to be interested in their service then trying to find their company name or address. But then I heard that's not that easy, their either don't give that away easily (expending people would do this) and once you do that it's hard to sue them because then you have established a "business relationship".
If they are in another country altogether, then anything like small claims courts is just a joke and don't work either.
With the way the caller ID easily spoofed I don't see any obvious solution.
If only more founders thought like this too.
That discipline is healthy. There are very few companies that have the hyper-growth that allows them to forgo profitability in the short-term and everyone wrongly assumes those examples are the norm, whether its a Facebook or a YouTube."
I think more Silicon Valley CEOs need to internalize this. They may have heard it, but from the looks of it, they have not internalized it.
> I dont have the same pressures of a fund in liquidity, timing or the need for 100x returns. If I can consistently get 5x to 10x Id take that all day long.
How many investors, angels, VCs or otherwise, focus on the 5x-10x return deals?
And are 5x-10x deals safer, meaning that more of a sure thing, than the 100x deals in terms of return? I.e. are VCs being rational by focusing on the 100x deals since 5x-10x deals aren't safer, or are they forgoing safer and better returns of the 5x-10x for the chance to become movers and shakers of the largest players?
That said, the docs around implementing resources still needs some improvements. Whatever I learnt was from cloning and modifying existing resources.
- Truly a pipeline based stages. No messing around with git branches/tags for each environment release.
- Ability to combine multiple builds together.
- Build dependencies. Ability to trigger project-B build when project-A build succeeds. (Docker Cloud Builds have something like this.)
- Use the same artifact across multiple build stages.
- An option to promote a build to the next step either manually or automatically.
Amazon's internal Apollo system was amazing. AWS Code Pipelines kind of does some of these things but it's every limited and hard to work with.
This is rather annoying if you want to run a copy on your local network say at home. Its very frustrating because the fly command solves the biggest issue with IWOMM (it works on my machine) by allowing you to run code and tests on another machine before committing anything.
I think from memory I tried using self signed certs and this also had issues for one reason or another.
That said it is still the best CI system I have used to date.
Concourse also isn't really made to work well with the Git Flow, there is no builtin way to run the CI on multiple branches (there's a git-multibranch community resource which requires redis at some point). we're basically thinking about changing our workflow to trunk-based, but it still feels weird to me that we might change our workflow to fit our CI better.
that being said, I personally still really like concourse and it's fun to work with.
The main criticism I saw on Jenkins and Go.CD vs. Concourse was that Jenkins Pipelines aren't first class and that it's easier to export configuration(in that regard Concourse > Go.CD > Jenkins). On the other hand Jenkins and Go.CD supports extensions, which Concourse touts as a feature.
I also want the CI builds to create my base boxes with packer in multiple steps. And I somewhat want to be able to hand over the stuff to ops at some point to be able just stay alive for the next 5 years or more. Would anyone know if it makes sense to even consider concourse or go.cd or some other CI/CD solution and if so which?
Obviously the boxes need to be used as artifacts and everything has be on premise as well.
Perhaps ironically, we ended up doing some development around the edges of the CI product we ultimately selected (GitLab).
Even on the Linux side I have seen a drop in the number of full blown media players being developed, they are mostly front ends to things like mpv and mplayer.
I suppose I'll try out MPV.
On Linux/macOS I use mpv - I recommend it!
It reimplements mpc-hc UX using qt for the UI and libmpv for the heavy lifting. The issue with this one is that it doesn't have public builds yet, but it has been in active development for years.
MPC-HC is just a DirectShow frontend, or at least, that's how I used it. Filters do most of the work.And no one seems to care about DirectShow anymore but that's mostly because everything works fine.
It will die eventually, because Microsoft is trying hard to kill DirectShow (to replace it with something inferior...) and the opensource guys mostly go to mplayer, but for now, updates are not really necessary.
$ brew install mpv $ mpv ~/Media/my-movie.mp4
A computer with 7 GTX 1070 graphics cards should produce ~230 mh/s and draw 1 kw. This would cost approximately $30/month in power factoring in kw demand + cooling.
The above setup will currently generate $385/month in ETH.
So basically for miners who are in the right spot with the right facility, this is still profitable. The question is of course for how long. You also need to factor in the cost of equipment, datacenter, employees and difficulty/price.
But even if you dont have a facility in washington and just mine from your apartment, your power cost would probably be $100 a month. So its still 'profitable', just not nearly as much as it was in the run up.
Cliffnotes: 'professional' miners dont care. Even with the 'crash' today, they are making more per day than they were before the entire run up. For instance the 'worst' time for mining was December 2016 where you would only make $7.50 a day gross in ETH.
One cryptocurrency crashes, another gets hyped up, and the computational cycle repeats. When will it end.
What I would really expect is an overreaction to the price crash, which means the difficulty rate might drop a lot. At this point, doing what a lot of people do with bitcoin - mining small amounts for a long period of time and just holding it until it reaches all time highs to cash out - is probably really easy money.
Probably most relevantly is how crypto valuations are bound together. Bitcoin is also down about 20% from its ATH, and will certainly drop more as long as eth pulls it down. The entire market will rise and fall on the hype of just one blockchain. Coins nobody even cared about like peercoin saw 5x returns on miners during this eth bubble.
(Source: I run a mining operation.)
Unless I'm missing something, there's no huge flood of video cards on ebay. There's maybe ~20% more than there was a week ago. All told, for the in demand mining hardware, you're only talking about a couple thousand cards.
150 ETH/USD would mean that you can get 150 coins per 1 USD. On the other hand, 150 USD/ETH correctly captures the mathematical relationship.
High levels of correlation with BTC and ETH, along with other cryptocurrency, but a floor on how low it can go.
Pays off while holding by mining coins. Much like a dividend.
NiceHash, MinerGate, Awesome Miner and others - many have an affiliate program and fight against botnets (and antivirus often block the actual mining programs they download).
There's another phenomenon here. Almost by definition, average developers are not going to get big raises. They'll get average raises. The average developer raise is probably 3-5%, which is not big but it's more than the average raise across all professions, at least in the US.
This leads to an interesting question: why can the average developer get a big raise by switching jobs? I think at least part of the answer is that companies simply have more information about employees who've been around for at least a few years than they do about potential hires still on the market. It's a lot easier for a company to realize an employee is about average once that person has been on the job for 12+ months than it is during the interview phase, where the questions are heavily sandboxed and generally focused on basic problem solving ability rather than the candidate's ability to convert that into business value.
Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average. So average developers with big egos being offered average raises will often very vehemently argue that the problem is all with the companies they've worked at and never with themselves.
Another point worth focusing on here is that raises are really determined by the business value that you're producing, not your raw intelligence or passion for coding. Very smart coders may or may not be any good at converting that talent into lots of value for the company. It may even be that sometimes a less talented coder gets offered a much bigger raise because other skills allowed them to create significant value.
I think this explains why so many folks are average but think they're above average. It's because they might indeed be above average in some metrics, but not the metrics that matter to their employer.
As I went from "no" experience to my current position my job switches (every ~2 years) always were for 10%-25% (in one case, 100%, but that was Midwest to Bay Area so other factors are at play). I never got more than 5% merit increases otherwise.
Most of my friends who have been at the same place for >10 years in engineering (not software) are just now reaching parity with my base salary (CoL-adjusted) and they didn't spend 6 years in academia before transitioning to industry.
Two year tenures isn't job hopping. It's a reflection of how this industry works. Very few companies offer sufficient breadth and depth of product complexity, career advancement, or other similar things to make it worthwhile. I'd say the sweet spot is 2-4 years, except at very large companies (e.g. Google) (EDIT:) or companies which are developing complicated products with physical engineering or regulatory factors complicating development. Anything longer, especially if there is a lot of long-term stasis on a resume (e.g. "tech lead on product X" for more than a year or two), is an indication to me of someone who either isn't capable of stretching himself or doesn't want to. Anything less, especially if more than one project per job exists, indicates an inability to see a project through to maintenance or someone who is easily bored.
Sure, it is good to be highly paid, but the situation just reinforces the idea that people who wear suits are paid far too much.
Though I find myself i the situation of wanting to earn more, so I am seriously considering switching to SAP. Sell my soul, buy a house, live with my conscience formthe rest of my life?
I would never have increased my from $68k to $115k in 5 years.I probably would've been somewhere at like $80k right now at best if I was didn't switch jobs twice.
If it means some hiring manager is going say some snarky opinion, then yes I'll take my extra money.
Seems perfectly plausible to me that the more confident candidates are more likely to be poached by other companies, for example.
I stayed on the same team, 6 years, but multiple promotions. Only 20+k in salary different.Jumped teams twice in next 3 years, +20k.
Now I have doubled my salary I started with. Been with company 10 years.The only thing I regret is not jumping teams earliar.. a few years max. Great learning experience through different roles on my original department... But didn't help me financially
My current employer 401k contributions vest at 3.5 years- would I be out of line insisting that my 'next' employer make a one time contribution equal to what I sacrifice?
Amazing, thanks Forbes. I never knew that if you started out on minimum wage and then moved into a mundane professional role, you'd earn considerably more!
How does he get the UI working so fast and looking so good? How do you reverse engineer an API - this seems like some hacker stuff you'd see in Halt & Catch Fire, in my mind anyways.
I'm sure I'll get there, but right now there's a major disconnect between the C investment calculator text program I made, and these super functional, beautiful works of art.
Just a thought. Tell me why I'm wrong / horribly naive / etc
On the other hand, for best iOS/Mac podcast app, I haven't been completely happy with any for years. New ones with smart speed - great feature, but I like one feature above all else.
My favorite app was Instacast for iOS because it let me add time stamped bookmarks/notes. Audible has something similar. None of the apps mentioned in Product Hunt or his blog post seem to support this. Such a bummer. I paid for Instacast 5 before it was removed. It started crashing at launch on iOS 10 however.
Edit: I recognize not many people, likely a single digit percentage of podcast app users would care for bookmarking/notes (thanks Void_)
It sounds like Pocket Casts are rather overstating their case. The dev put a lot of work into it. Unless they get a lot of traction, none of the concerns seem to matter much. And if they do get traction, it informs Pocket Cast what they should be building.
Slightly off topic, but I'm a recurring voice actor on the NoSleep Podcast, featured prominently in the imaging on this post. Thanks for Listening!
It would be amazing if someone came up with a free or one-time-cost macOS podcast app, and it would be even better if it were open source.
I tried Overcast and really loved the features (smart speed, etc.) but I didn't love the queue handling. It's not that there was anything wrong with Overcast in that regard. It certainly works fine (it's a great app), but it didn't map to the way I listen to podcasts.
Castro is ideal if you only have a few hours a week to listen to the occasional podcast and you don't always listen to every episode of every podcast. All other podcast apps (disclaimer: that I know of) have an on/off relationship with podcasts. You are either subscribed or you are not. If you are, you can specify how many of the podcast episodes to automatically download and put in your queue. So if you like to listen to occasional episodes of, say, a hundred podcasts, you will use a TON of storage.
Castro has a triage model. When you subscribe to a podcast, you can have the app automatically either queue it up immediately (like the traditional method) or have it appear in your inbox (along with a notification), which is a kind of temporary time-based view of recent arrived episodes, or you can have it put in the archive, which is where all of the older episodes eventually go. You can always queue up an episode from any of these locations.
The best part is that only things that you put (or specify to automatically add, which I never do) in the "listening to now" queue are actually downloaded. So if you keep that list at 5 podcasts, then only those 5 are downloaded. Very nice and a perfect match for my use.
2017: You are the training data.
https://twitter.com/chrisalbon/status/857609299731791872 - 27 Apr 2017
I thought it was interesting to see the history of this.
I agree with the comments about KDB/Q - tried to look at it but could never understand it. Maybe cos im not fulltime dev, nor in that field, but KDB just always becomes too hard. AT least hobbes looks like i can work it into C++. Looks at first 'parsing' to be a case of right tool for the job of working on high volume discrete data which one would expect from an investment bank.
Kudos to the bank for releasing this part of their secret-sauce.
Though it doesn't build with 4.0. (And is now in the AUR.)
Nice to see first-class parsing in a language.
I think that's drawing a lot from one quarter? SF has a significant drop in %, but it's still an outsided leader (Almost 2x the next category) and has been for half a decade.
"But the San Francisco VC boom is also increasingly looking like it might be something else: a bubble that has begun to deflate"
Not sure invoking "bubble" is that useful in this context.
That said, living in SF and working in SoMa, I do feel the pressure of infrastructure needing to catch up. I often wonder if we've just hit a physical limit with the city as it is today.
"In the first half of 2017, ICOs have outstripped traditional blockchain venture capital funding, raising $327m of funding."
Long term both cities will dominate and I don't see this as a structural change, this just seems like a shift based off of what is popular in VC funding right now.
Slightly off-topic is Uber now "too big to fail" for the VCs invested in it?
Further, the founder's reward despite having a slight smell is really not an unfair way to structure something like this. Significant resources were put into Zcash well before it was deployed, are the founder's supposed to just eat that cost? Why shouldn't their success be tied to the success of the coin they created over a period of time? Would a Satoshi style pre-mine be more fair? These questions are complicated, but without an ICO driving the development, this doesn't seem like the worse case scenario for a commercial entity.
(Monero doesn't require a trusted setup, doesn't have a founder's tax, isn't run by a US company, and address balances are private.)
Fun fact: NotLD was immediately placed in the public domain upon release, due to a notice mistake by the distributors, which was required at the time for copyright.
Most people who aren't into the genre think that horror is all Jason-style slasher flicks. Horror is so much more than that. If you want to try something that I recommend, The Void was just released on Netflix, which is genuinely scary in a non-slasher way (although it has a lot of that too).
RIP George A. Romero
Its about learning how to survive the zombie Apocalypse because of his zombie movies.
(fan video of the song.. All I could find)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urvL9wUTg24
" It's the end of the world We could gather half a dozen friends We'd live in hiding over at JC Penney Construct a wall to keep the mutants out
When it's the end of the world We'd land a helicopter on the rooftop Somebody breaks in through a boarded entrance Maybe we could make a run for it
I know all I need to know...
I know all I need to do...
I learned everything from George Romero, Dario Argento
Maybe Tom Savini, Stuart Gordon, and Sam Raimi"
I didn't like their work but appreciate what they did.
Well Romero's earlier work. His latter movies were just crap.
PS I'm a big fan of the genre of Romero's.
Just like there is an industry advantage of the poor segments of the population - lottery, liquor stores, cash advance places, rent to own, etc. There is a parallel industry geared for the wealthy. It is specifically designed appeal to them, to stroke their ego. It can't sell something that's a necessity so it was brilliant to focus on that just a little extra "feel a bit better", "be empowered".
It really is an art.
> Similarly, Goop has also recommended vaginal steam cleaning, which is
And as if Hollywood and pop culture in general hasn't done enough damage, just couldn't resist preying on the insecurity and tell women their bodies are yucky. Someone evil there went through the use cases and the detailed analysis and decided that no matter how wealthy or successful, that's one thing they could tap into and monetize.
The scheme was probably supposed to includes its own insurance against a lawsuit - embarrassment. Which powerful or wealthy woman is going to launch a lawsuit against them saying they've been hurt by this product?
The homeopathy bit in there is also not random. It is designed to filter through only clients who would think that stuff works. That's a bit like scammers claiming they are all from Nigeria. It's a counter intuitive bit but it's very important.
You gotta wonder how much are these celebrities involved in these scheme. It is hands off just someone managing their wealth or are they all micromanaging. I know someone who worked for one of the well known Hollywood celebrities and you'd be surprised how different they are in private compared to their on screen persona.
I saw a sign once that said, "My hope is to die in a staff meeting: that way, the transition from life to death will be subtle." I understood the sentiment 100%.
Even by Silicon Valley terms, I had a great income and a good career. But I will never return to it.
Before my current job, I spend about 2.5 years trying to get a PHD (in physics), and I quit. There were several reasons, but a major one was that I didn't feel I had any successes.
Since then I've been doing software development, and there are small successes and wins every day, or at least every week. A feature is finished, a bug is fixed, a colleague tells me that something I wrote saved them time or hassle, or even that they enjoyed in the new UX.
My wife told me I was a different person in the new role: much more relaxed and happy. I agree.
Now I have two children, and it's another source of a stream of small successes that I can enjoy. First steps, first words, first shoe laces tied, first cucumber cut by themselves etc. They are not my own, but I'm sufficiently emotionally attached to them to derive happiness from theirs.
Not sure if this helps answer your question, but I felt truly, blissfully happy the first few months of my arrival at America (from India).
I'm not sure what it was, maybe the fact that I achieved the 1st step of a childhood goal / dream. Or maybe it was the new experiences, living in a foreign land, finding cleanliness, orderliness, and a very efficient system in everyday life that was largely lacking in India.
But I really had nothing. Just 2 suitcases and 500 $ in borrowed money. I learnt on the 1st day on my job (on H1B visa) that I was there only for 2 months to fill in for an American woman who was going on her maternity leave and that I would be sent back to India * after that. I also didn't know anyone here, was told by the company that brought me here that I need to vacate the hotel they put me up in within a week, had no credit history, nothing.
I think that fact that I had no obligations -- financial or otherwise -- was part of it. Didn't have a mortgage, loan on a car, was single, no dependents to take care of, and very little physical possesion.
Nearly 2 decades later, I'm still trying to get back to that state of happiness. Like others have stated here, I don't think money has much to do with achieving 'happiness'.
I think the pursuit of happiness is purely a western-culture phenomena...
[ * hustled and extended my stay beyond the 2 months by doing the work of another citizen co-worker who offered to get the manager to extend my contract beyond 2 months if I "fixed" her code... 18 years later... I'm still here :) ]
The fact is, money in a bank account, once you get enough to live, is just digits. Add a 0 at the end of it, that doesn't make you happy. And shopping therapy is a very short fix.
I find I'm much happier running projects with 0 expectations of deriving $ value. E.g. free games, free software, happy hacks. Once money is involved, expectations jump.
"Money" won't likely drive your happiness. Not entirely.
"Increasing shareholder value" also won't likely drive your happiness. But enjoying the camaraderie, or seeing your leadership improve peoples lives, or the sense of accomplishment that comes with setting and achieving goals... those things can lead to happiness. And a lot of times, you can achieve that kind of happiness even if you miss your quarterly numbers, or a startup hypothesis doesn't pan out.
"Reading all the books by Author X." "Getting a Ph.D." "Coaching a little league team." "Completing project Y." "Publishing paper Z." "Taking a 2 month RV trip across europe." "Earning the respect of my spouse or partner."
Money, shareholder value, "assets"... are only a means to certain kinds of ends.
Those people often see that helping others is a true source of happiness.
Matthieu Ricard is a quite famous monk having published a lot of interesting stuff:
This one is on the topic:
It has been discussed in great detail in book The Power of Now if I remember correctly, that there are two types of happiness, pleasure and joy.
Pleasure is short-term and results usually from external events. Winning a lottery, having a party, making your first million, and etc, these will bring great pleasure to you. However, pleasure fades away fast, and you will not feel any difference after some time, no matter a day, week, or a month. The life goes on, and you still have all other things to make you stressed and feel miserable. This is why people say money cannot make one happy.
Joy is, on the contrary a skill that can be learnt. It is an attitude to be content with your current state, and be just a little bit above that "neutral" mood, no matter in what adversity. With this skill, you would not worry about if you would succeed in your job, because it is irrelevant to your happiness.
Both The Power of Now and Stoicism stuff like A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy can give you some hints on how to live a joyful life.
Yes. More than anything else.
It's not the money part. I don't make much. It's the influence and seeing my work actually shift how people act and live their lives - especially seeing where it will lead.
I have three kids and when I talk with other parents, they say that they get the most joy out of seeing how they can positively influence their kids.
What about positively influencing millions of people, consistently over the long run with your work? You do that through impactful, meaningful work. Maybe it's software or maybe it's building houses, or providing access to capital for low income people, or working on vaccines, or any number of the millions of things that influence people at scale. That's the difference, at scale.
You can't do scale with personal relationships, you do it with work. Define work however you like (charity etc... it's how you spend your time)
How could that not be the key to happiness?
Some people will feel miserable after achieving some professional success (either for having used much time pursuing what they now consider vanity, or for still finding they're not successful enough). And some people will seem happy regardless of anything that happens to them, professionally.
If you feel miserable because you're not a successful founder making tons of money now, we can't really tell you whether achieving that will make you happy or not. There are all kinds of stories.
I guess it'd be good to understand why you crave for professional success in the first place. Is it to please your family? Is it for self esteem? Is it to make money so that you can party a lot? Is it so you can make money to give to charity? Is it because you want to spend time with smart people who value your decision and make you feel good? Is it to be more seductive? Is it because you love working? Is it because you want to make your dent in the universe?
Professional success is only a mean to fill something else. For me, I couldn't care less about changing the world, or success for self esteem. But I am still fairly driven to make money. My goal is to be more free and still have some comfort. As in, i don't want to depend on anyone: have my own place, have enough money to not have to make decision because I lack of it. I could reduce my needs, but I also like my comfort, living in a nice city, etc. So right now, i'm playing the professional game, but only because I'm looking for a way out.
My quality of life improves constantly albeit quite slowly because that's something I work on. I found work that's challenging and rewarding without being stressful. I am working towards a long-term plan and it's going quite well.
Having a certain amount of money, social standing, and meeting goals will generally help enable this.
But so too can one feel trapped in particular professions, if you don't feel you're adding any value, or if you lose that sense of active goal setting/valuing/achieving cycle, then it doesn't matter what other people's impression of yourself or your job or success are...a tendency towards depression in such a state would not be peculiar...
I am of a personality type that I don't think I could be happy without creative success (loosely defined as, having done a good job on creating things that would not exist if I hadn't made them). In a previous phase of life, I was not successful at making things, and I was pretty unhappy. Now I am successful at making things, and am much more happy (though I have also developed several mind-management skills as well).
If you are talking about "1m+" as the sole gauge of success, I don't think that means very much.
On the other end, people winning the lottery also reverts to their pre-lotto happiness level after 6 months.
I guess the point is that you probably won't find happiness in work success if you're currently miserable.
There's some newer studies that helping other can make you happier, like this one published in Science:
The effect is not huge though. A meta study on this showed that it's only about 1 point on a 10 point happiness scale.
If you really are not happy, consider these common and proven recommendations:
- Get plenty of good exercise, at least 30 minutes, 3-4 times a week
- Get enough rest, 8-9 hours a night
- Check your vitamin D levels and supplement if needed.
- Eat healty and avoid alcohol and sugar
- Spend time building social support, do not neglect your circle of friends and family
- Get into a routine, for example go to bed at the same time every night and wake up at the same time every morning
And of course if you feel like this for more than 6 months, see a psychologist.
Everyday workplace successes like good reviews, raises and promotions don't make me happier. If they did, I would work hard and try to be successful.
I also don't get a kick out of winning, or satisfaction from completing a project, or a sense of comradery from pulling all-nighters with people. If I did, I would go seek it.
Instead I work 35 hour weeks and keep a moderate, negative vacation balance that I fix through pay cuts whenever possible. I go home to read good books, cuddle my girlfriend and go on long hikes with my dog.
It's worked, and I'm very happy.
I worry about my health and my family/friends' health. Otherwise, I'm care free.
Work? No. Friends make you happy. Good colleagues, good customers, good neighbors.
The difference is, you can't let the failures and external factors bring you down. Money won't bring you happiness, it'll give you some stress relief to go make your own happiness, but if you're in a bad situation and making $20K, $120K, or $1.2M you're still going to be unhappy.
Take pride in your craft, in doing what you're doing to the best you can- but once things are out of your control, it's useless to let those things affect how you feel about yourself.
The only times work failures have gotten to me are when I thought that I didn't do a great job, or I could've gone over and above and that it might have had a more positive outcome.
More importantly, you're entire self worth and happiness can't be derived from one thing. If your personal identity is centered around your career, your significant other, or your sports team, etc., you're fucked. We're complex animals, you should be getting your self worth and happiness in bits and pieces from everything you do and all the important relationships in your life.
Have hobbies. Anything, try shit until something sticks. I woodwork, ride my bicycle, shoot archery, and fish. I have my own start up and am in the office by 630, have a family with 3 kids under 5, so I get creative to find the time. Ride my bike to work, teach my kids how to build stuff, shoot archery mid day at the range while I'm noodling over work stuff, and the fishing- well that involves a lot of pre-planning and buttering up the wife.
Here's the thing: I'm not really good at any of those hobbies. I mean, I'm above average at best, but I'm generally barely knowledgeable. I'm okay with it, it's a no stakes learning situation, unlike all day at work. It feels good to learn and not have it cost me thousands of dollars, or to eat dinner on a dining room table I built with my own two hands.
I would think it's important that you get satisfaction and happiness from your professional successes, but I think it's more important you're getting it elsewhere too.
That was nearly six months ago. Now, working at the same company I am not very happy, probably because of burnout, lack of senior developers or decrease in the learning rate or possibly because of how confused I am right now.
Professional life can bring you happiness, but I am doubtful if it can do that for a very long time. It's always the personal life that determines how happy you are.
Unfortunately, a side effect of this has been more frequent engagement with groups of people who, inadvertently by virtue of their own success, have optimised "talking about building things" over actually doing so. This has reduced my happiness somewhat as I struggle to improve my communication, without succumbing to imitation.
Of course, other people might feel like it matters to them and if so then I don't think there's anything wrong with that. However, I think it's really important to see that there are many things beyond your control, so if you try your best and still fail, I like to think you should still find happiness in how you hopefully grew as an individual.
"Success is being in charge of your lifestyle and creating something you're proud of, surrounded by people you love."
And unsurprisingly, not liking what you do will deprive you of happiness
My job as a software engineer is not particularly meaningful or fulfilling in the grand scheme of things. But it pays well, which will at some point allow me to retire and work on something meaningful to myself and society.
For me, I'm happy when I'm pushing myself to get deadlines done and to achieve goals that I set for myself... but also focusing on self care when I need to, and giving myself creative outlets outside of work (which for me is music and cooking).
So, success contributes to happiness, but it's important to try to strike a balance and not let that be the entirety of your life. There are some people who enjoy throwing themselves into their work, so for them it's a matter of working somewhere where they feel like their efforts are rewarded.
Beyond that dollar amount, there's no increase in happiness.
Now, salary isn't necessarily predictive of "success," (as per your question...) so the above fact may not necessarily be relevant... but I present it for what it's worth.
EDIT: I haven't evaluated the study I cited (perhaps erroneously) as fact. But I'll leave this comment here for it to be evaluated.
Seeing my kid win his first bmx race? Yeah, that totally did.
Success at work usually makes me feel temporarily satisfied, but rarely happy as such. Happiness sneaks in of its own accord.
I am generally pretty happy (in a long-term sense), and to be honest, I'm unemployed and job-hunting at the moment, hoping to sign an offer this week. I certainly make far less than $1M per year. I quit my old job because I was unhappy there and starting to be unhappy when I went home, too: I was working long hours and trying to be very good at what I did, and I didn't get the sense that people around me (and my management in particular) valued the things that I was trying to be good at. That is, to be clear, not a criticism of management: they needed different things out me than what I had gone into the job expecting them to need. But it took me a while to really get to terms with how much I had let my sense of self-worth become defined by the value system in place at my work, even though my engineering skills and mindset had remained largely as they were. That dissonance got to me very badly.
I think that's the risk with trying to be happy by being successful at work: it's always an external metric. You can be very successful for years, and laid off the next day, and you always know that in theory you can be laid off the next day.
The things that make me happy now are all internal metrics, that is, they're accomplishments that I myself see as accomplishments, instead of hoping my management will acknowledge. I'm happy about the friends I have, about how much I've been cooking instead of ordering food, about how I've been getting better at singing, about the job prospects I have, about this video game I've been playing, etc. Some of them also have external measures (my voice teacher also says I've been getting better, the video game is letting me advance to new areas, etc.), but I can tell for myself whether I'm doing well or not, and - importantly - I'm continuing these things because I find them enjoyable, not because my voice teacher or the video game says I'm doing well.
Regarding money: on the one hand, I have enough savings that I could just quit my job and start job hunting, and that definitely made me happier than job hunting while staying at my job. On the other hand, I'm expecting a significant increase in compensation regardless of what offer I sign, and I don't think that's made me noticeably happier; I already have enough money that I can do things like quit my job without a new one lined up. I do think that you can feel unhappy from a sense that you're underpaid, but that again ties into external metrics: you know you're doing a job worth some amount, but you're being told it's worth less. I don't think being overpaid (for the work you do) is really going to bring you happiness, unless you have some plan to save up money and quit - and some plan for what to do with that money once you do and why you believe you'll be happy doing it.
I am quite happy at the moment, and it started back in 2004 when I wrote off my family and commanded them to never contact me again. It turns out removing negativity in your life, whatever the source, no matter how well intentioned you may be in helping someone, goes a long way to being blissfully happy. It is said that "you" are the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with. So consider if your relationships are a positive of negative influence on your life. Remove the negative influences, no one is immune from being removed despite what society tries to feed you about how important "family" is.
In 2008 I went to the CTO of the company I was working for at the time, told him that I was planning to quit even though I had just started 3 months ago and proceeded to explain how my manager could be doing their job better. I listed out how I would run things. A week later I had my manager's job and a $13k raise, several months after that another $20k raise. Needless to say, the student loan debt that plagued me since graduating in 1999 was paid off in 5 months. As were the rest of my debt. Never underestimate how not having any debt can lead to real happiness.
In 2011 I quit the last "real" job I've had at 36. I was not and am still not independently wealthy. I have no family to rescue me if I go broke. At the time I was planning to make an iPhone game, 6 months in coming up to speed on Objective-C, drawing graphics the job I quit needed help desperately I threw out a price of $7500 a week. To my surprise they went for it. So I put the game on hold and worked for 9 months. Accumulating $240k for the year. The money really did make me happy, because of how quickly it piled up. No scrimping and saving and gradually building wealth. Thinking of doing that makes me want to honestly eat a bullet. The old... yeah, save, work 40 years, 2 weeks vacation a year, plus having holidays when the rest of the country does too... die two years into retirement thing. No thanks... Anyways 9 months in and they try to hire me full time as the director of software engineering. 5 years earlier that would have been a dream job. But I really didn't want a "job" anymore. So I quit, took a 10 day vacation to Cozumel with my girlfriend and when I got back spent 2 years working on my game.
I was just about to release the game and then apple announced new ipad and iphone resolutions. So much rework, especially artwork. Then an old co-worker needed help, I told him I would if I could work from home. I was living on Lake Tahoe at the time and no way was I going back to the Bay. Especially since I was on the Nevada side and there was no way I was paying California a dime in income tax (Luckily it was a New York CO so they don't try to tax you out of state until you've made $1 million). The last year I was there I paid $18,600 to California for NOTHING. I got no benefit for that tax I paid to the state. Despite anyone who would argue with me to the contrary. As a note I currently live in Wyoming, and there is nothing more I want from the state, No income tax is glorious.
Anyway long story short, consulting gigs, where I work 100% from home drop in my lap every year or two. I make so much money on those that it pays for 2-3 years of not working.
The key to happiness is not working (for a client or a job, I like to work on projects of my own that have nothing to do with software). While simultaneously having money to do or buy whatever I want (within reason).
I never want to commute to a job ever again. After breaking up with my girlfriend of 5 years I have no interest in getting into another relationship. It's like "I've been there done that" and just don't have an interest anymore. When I'm working on my own projects I get so wrapped up in them I lose track of the time, I don't know what day of the week it is. I might talk to the neighbors or chat with an old friend once a week. I may not talk to or see another human being for a week and it doesn't bother me at all. It might be 10 days before I drive somewhere, it's amazing how long a car lasts when you barely use it.
As a side note, I have no interest in charity it does nothing for me, it's like the part that's supposed to fill me with joy is missing with regards to that. I don't want to contribute to society or do anything that makes the world a better place. And yet my happiness, contentedness, blissfullness has not lessened since quiting my last job in 2011.
So contrary to the frequently parroted "secret" to happiness that involves sacrifice, family, children, being part of a "team". I'm here to let you know, some of us have found happiness doing the opposite...
This is the same type of thing. In other words, success doesn't make you happy, but it's hard to be happy without some level of success.
Life is experience. Not numbers. And, as some of us know, it -- or our health -- can be taken away at any moment.
Living with some planning for the future means if and when you get there, hopefully you will enjoy it.
But don't forgo happiness now for some potential future. A successful life is enjoying now, the majority of the time.
(Nothing's perfect, and there will be down times. But too much down is a bad sign. And, it becomes self-reinforcing. Don't fall into that trap.)
All that said, having a decent income does help. If I'd moved around more in my career, I might have actually been happier and gained more financial security.
In short, take care of yourself, including your emotional self. That's probably the surest road to personal success, however you end up defining it. Positioning yourself to work from a position of strength, and with positive support.
From the email they sent out:
> We're updating our Terms of Service and Corporate Terms of Service. These revisions are the result of community feedback, along with clarifications and improvements to the readability of both documents. All changes are in separate pull requests in a new working repository, github/site-policy. Here, you can view, comment, and suggest additional updatesor fork a copy to adapt for your own site.
Please submit your comments by 5:00 pm PST on Friday, July 28. After that, well take a week to go through your comments and make changes to improve the Terms. The new Terms will become effective on Monday, August 7.
Pull requests welcome
We welcome you to look over our changes and share your input using the new Site Policy repository. Please follow our Contributor Guidelines, and let us know if you see anything you think should be differentwhether its a missed typo or a rule that might have implications we havent thought of.
Can anyone confirm?
When I first brought up how misguided people were for embracing React and projects with this license, I was downvoted to hell on HN. But really, everyone, THINK ABOUT IT. This is a company that glorifies and celebrates IP theft from others, and lionizes their employees who successfully clone others projects. Theyve built their entire business on the back of open source software that wasnt ever encumbered with the sort of nonsense theyve attached to their own projects. And this industry is just going to let them have it, because the stuff they are putting out is shiny and convenient and free?
Having known so many people involved with Facebook for so long, I have come up with a phrase to describe the cultural phenomenon Ive witnessed among them ladder kicking. Basically, people who get a leg up from others, and then do everything in their power to ensure nobody else manages to get there. No, its not human nature or how it works. Silicon Valley and the tech industry at large werent built by these sorts of people, and we need to be more active in preventing this mind-virus from spreading.
By the way, the fact that Facebook is using this on their mostly-derivative nonsense isnt what should concern you. Its that Google has decided, as a defensive measure, to copy Facebooks move. Take a look at the code repo for Fuschia and youll see what I mean. Imagine if using Kubernetes meant you could never sue Google?
It's tempting to consider the BSD license independent of the additional patent license. However, the OSI has not approved CC0 as being open source precisely because it expressly reserves patent rights . In the OSI's justification, permissive MIT and BSD licenses may provide implicit patent license, so by themselves they are open source. However, like CC0, BSD+Patents expressly exclude this possibility. Indeed, Facebook's licensing FAQ deems the combined work of the BSD+patents to be the license . Further, recent court case has shown that these licenses are not simply copyright or patent statements, but can be actual contracts .
Hence, we have to consider the BSD text + the patents file text as the combined license. This license is not symmetric and hence may violate OSI license standards. I've made this comment in the facebook bug report, https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191
 https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-...
I agree with this move.
There are plenty of OSS projects out there without patent thing attached to its license so no reason to use react.
So even if Facebook tries to patent that particular invention/innovation, it may not stand up to legal scrutiny depending on the filing date. AFAIK, Facebook didn't do a provisional patent for virtual DOM stuff before July 2012 (long after I released Blossom), because that patent filing would have become public AT THE LATEST on January 1st, 2016 and nothing has come to light that I'm aware of.
Soyou should be safe (IANAL).
 Ironically given the subsequent popularity of React, the SproutCore team rejected my virtual DOM approach which is why I had to fork it. Live and learn. I actually came up with the specific virtual DOM + diff design in spring 2008, but didn't get around to writing the code for it until someone paid me to do it (I had asked Apple and they declined). Eventually, the copyright owner of SproutCore (Strobe, Inc.) got bought by Facebook, though I don't recall when
There are two things here: The copyright license, and the patent grant. Copyright applies to the concrete implementation. You have to agree to the license to be subject to it, and to legally use the code.
A potential patent applies to any implementation. Even if you write a clean-room clone of React, if it uses the same patent, Facebook has a patent claim. But that means the patent grant is not specific to the code; it doesn't even require consent, Facebook could allow you conditional patent usage even without your knowledge! A corollary is that you are strictly better off with the patent grant, it imposes no additional constraints on you.
License with no patent grant: Facebook can sue you for infringing patents, even if you are using a clone!
License with patent grant: Facebook cannot sue you for infringing patents, unless you do it first.
Second, I think the philosophy behind the patent grant is twofold: 1) that software patents are not legitimate. Enforcing a patent is not seen as a legitimate right, but an annoyance, like pissing on someones lawn. From that point of view, it seems not asked too much from somebody to refrain from doing that. (I don't know if that was the idea of the people who drafted that license, but it wouldn't surprise me.)
Another, unrelated observation (and please don't invalidate the first observations if this one is wrong as internet commentators are wont to do):
I see nowhere in the license  that it requires you to take the patent grant. Is that true? It would be silly to refuse it, because you are strictly better off with it, of course.
After going to our lead dev, who in turn went to our project manager, we received an email from our legal department a few days later that simply stated we would not be using React due to "certain patent constraints."
Having not done any prior research, I looked into what the problem might be and was pretty floored with what I found. At first I scoffed when they said no, but after reading about the patent situation I totally get it.
I found this :
> FB is not interested in pursuing the more draconian possibilities of the BSD+patents license. If that is true, there is actually very little difference between BSD+patents and the Apache license. As such, relicensing should make little if any pragmatic difference to Facebook.
So what happens if Facebook doesn't change the license and in the future changes its mind?
Glad the long-term legal implications will be given serious consideration publicly, rather than the "this is not the droid you're looking for" I've seen nearly everywhere so far!
There is an issue with a related discussion about it going for more than a year:
Last update is interesting. Someone did a search and looked for any patents FB filed for and couldn't find any in last year. So somehow based on that they decided things are "OK".
US allows to patent up to a year after the publication, allowing to conclude that ZSTD remains free of patents (?) - suggesting this "The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice (...)" from PATENTS file has no legal meaning (?)
Anyone care to validate how true that statement is?
I don't think avoiding React makes you any safer. You don't know how broadly Facebook or the courts will interpret their patents.
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
The important bit being...
> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
But what people seem to be missing (as far as I can tell) is that you don't lose the licence to use the software. You just lose the patent grants. But with the BSD licence alone, you lose both the patent grand AND the licence. I really don't see how the Apache 2.0 License and Facebook's BSD+Patent Grant are any different.
Clearly the apache 2 license would be preferable (and what rocks db did), but I am puzzled the foundation accepts bsd code in their products, given their worry about patents.
There's already an issue  asking them to consider doing something similar for react, and Dan Abramov said he'd route the request internally on the next work day.
I can't imagine they'd keep the existing license without harming their community image. But even if they keep the license, many applications should be able to easily migrate to preact  and preact-compat, which provides a react-compatible API.
Hopefully they relicense the project. It seems like it's the first thing that gets brought up each time react gets mentioned.
Do you have a license to use Facebook's patents? Yes.
Do you have a license to use Facebooks patents if Facebook brings a patent case against you? Yes.
Do you have a license to use Facebooks patents if you bring a patent case against us? No.
If you do not have a patent grant, can you still use React? YES!
If you're going to down vote this, please say why. This is how I interpret the license plus patent grant. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why.
> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement?
Consider re-licensing to AL v2.0: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191
Looks like they're working on amending this issue, could very well be a case of legal getting involved and the regular engineers not realizing the change or simply not paying attention. Alternatively, maybe this is just crisis management and they were just hoping this wouldn't happen.
So say Facebook was infringing on one of your patent, you could still sue them, but you'd have to give up React if you did. Is that correct?
I cannot sue Facebook for patents in react or lose my react license, but I could some other patent I own e.g. fizzbuzz that Facebook is violating. Is this correct or is it any patent?
If it is any patent, I cannot believe that was the intent even if that's how Apache Foundation is interpreting it.
> As noted earlier, the availability of a GPLv2 license does not preclude inclusion by an ASF project. If patent rights are not conferred by the 3-clause BSD and required by ASLv2 then would not these licenses be incompatible?
> he has discussed the matter with FB's counsel and the word is that the FB license is intentionally incompatible. It is hard to make the argument that it is compatible after hearing that.
I wonder if such a clause is actually enforceable. Are there any actual cases where this clause was invoked?
The whole decision seems to have been taken by "not-a-lawyer" people with their own interpretations. Doesn't the Apache Foundation have some software lawyers they can ask?
I'm sticking with Vue, even if (and that's a big if) it might also infringe facebook patents.
One reason is that training regimes differ a lot - a single app is unlikely to be a good for strength training (training is build around 3-5 big movements with a few auxiliary exercises), body-building (more movements) and crossfitting.
Other reason is that convenience of pen and paper input is still hard to beat, and for reason or another, people don't get enough value from the digital views to their training history and performance.
That may just be for users like me who see the title, then go straight to reading the bullet points.
- Add goals and ability to track weight
- CSV export, take your data and use excel to make your own charts if you're looking for something specific
- Youtube links to videos for exercises for proper form.
A really cool long term feature would be to use some ML to allow exercise discovery / make workout recommendations based on goals.
All feedback is welcome!
- if I switch from kg to lbs via button I will see lbs only for new/re-added exercises with the same kg->lbs button (I can still convert but the label says lbs instead of kg)
- if I register I get error with registration (maybe because of 2letters as full name?) however I hit register again with same data and now account already exists error.
Good luck with your app!
> To convert from kilograms to pounds, enter the weight in kgs and hit the convert button. To re-enable the button delete and re-add the exercise.
> Account only required if you wish to save your workouts.
this is a WORKOUT LOGGER. What am I doing, as a user, if not logging my workouts? There is no other value proposition. Users do not benefit from entering their workout histories and NOT hitting save - and this site only does one thing. It would be like seeing in a food store "checkout only required if you wish to purchase your items".
As an effort to launch a product, it's commendable. Lots of checkboxes to hit, and not nothing to hit them. But if you're ACTUALLY trying to launch this as a real service... There is much to be desired - and it has nothing to do with CSV exports or using react to do it.
Honestly, I'd rather see more progress on the Emacs Lisp/Guile migration than on a putative C/Rust migration. At least with the Guile switch, it's something that will have an obvious (and probably positive) impact on the people that use the editor.
Leo Editor (http://leoeditor.com) fits that bill. It's been around since the 90's (and the web page looks like it's from the 90's). Even though it has many users, the documentation is quite poor. If I had another life to live, I would learn it well and improve the docs - and then port over everything I like in Emacs to it.
It is sorely in need of more tutorials. You'll find some in various people's blog posts, but not enough. I know enough of it to know that it is very powerful, but not enough to use it well day-to-day.
If it gets faster, I might give it a try again (in evil ofcourse, gotta have them keys).
If anything, it could be great if Rust is used to implement a faster Emacs Lisp compiler/interpreter, thus preserving all of Emacs Lisp source (and saving some implementation time.)
And make it fully multitasking so there are no more problems of key input getting stuck because of a process.
None of those ports ever see even the tiniest beginning of something actually usable (heck, even Climacs faltered), but I'm still all for it!
Question to the devs: are you planning on redoing how the gui subsystem works, to work with (for example) the gtk event loop? I've always wanted to try to put a qt frontend on emacs, but have always been horrified away by that subsystem.
It may have useful security properties over time. People use emacs for a great deal of arbitrary text reading and transform from things directly from email and the web. Elisp would largely be at fault for security bugs but perhaps this would help in areas.
Perhaps a binding to use Alacritty directly for a port to Wayland? Emacs has a pretty terminal centric view of its UI output as is.
A tight binding to Servo allowing a serious upgrade to Emacs visual and ui capabilities.
So opened - https://github.com/Wilfred/remacs/issues/238
See Allen's comment in the linked post, for example. It's direct ("I'm confused"), but polite. It's asking a question of the submitter in a respectful way that's likely to engender a productive conversation as opposed to putting people on the defensive. Allen's leaving the possibility open that his assumptions are wrong (and often our assumptions are).
It quite literally requires less effort - Allen didn't have to expend the extra effort to type out "this is stupid".
I guess I don't see what's so difficult about that particular type of kindness.
Sure, that's nice rhetoric. And yet the "kind" Bezos has presided over some of the worst working conditions in the developed world  while the "blunt" Torvalds has kept together the very scattered Linux team for decades without controlling their income or work conditions. Apparently the more money you have, the more you can get away with a "do as I say, not as I do" standard.
This is one of those statements that I think we want to be true but we have no evidence that it's true. Many contradictory examples exist in the real world:
You can yell at your team and insult them and be successful. (Famous examples are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates' "that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard!")
You can be soft-spoken and be successful. (Warren Buffet would be an example. He doesn't yell at the people in his Omaha office or his presidents/CEOs at Berkshire subsidiary companies.)
Likewise, you can be blunt & harsh and fail. You can also be diplomatic & nice and fail.
Same in other endeavors. You can yell at the football team and win the Super Bowl (Mike Ditka - Chicago Bears). Or, you can be soft-spoken and win the championship (Tony Dungy - Indy Colts). Likewise, you can do either style and still be the worst team in the league.
Doesn't seem to be much correlation either way.
My conclusion based on life experiences is that companies can have both the blunt and the diplomatic approaches. The blunt communication works well in upper management. (E.g. one VP tells another VP that "it's a stupid idea.") Everybody is a Type A personality and has a thick skin. However, the reality is that many employees (especially lower-level positions) feel demeaned by direct language. (As the endless debates about Linus' style attests.) Therefore, they require indirect language and those VPs have to dynamically adjust the communication to that personality.
Personally, I don't like the style of indirect communication the author uses in examples of Daniel, David, and Allen but I fully understand it's necessary in the real world for certain people.
You can certainly get a point across by being direct, but to make a truly lasting change you need to convince people it's a good idea. I've yet to see this happen without kindness and diplomacy.
So while the IT security officer can certainly get a strict password policy implemented, without also making sure people understand and agree that security is a good idea the end result becomes a lot of written down passwords hiding on postits under keyboards.
I'll submit that personal remarks like "only a fucking idiot would..." and such are bad not because they hurt feelings but because they are worthless and distracting. They make the conversation about a person instead of what people are supposed to be talking about, if only for a fraction of a second, and can disrupt conversation.
If someone is doing something that harms the objective, you tell them what they're doing, why they need to stop and possibly how they can fix/improve things going forward. That's effective blunt criticism, and there's no need for personal insults anywhere in the chain.
To paraphrase Charles Murray: "nice" is a moment-to-moment tactic for avoiding conflict, not a guiding principle for living your life. We should default to being nice amicable people, but being good often requires otherwise.
Unfortunately, niceness has been raised to the highest virtue in recent years. This is a mistake with civilizational consequences.
I don't think the examples given are examples of kindness.
Concretely, they're insufficiently direct.
If you think someone is doing something that isn't well thought out, and you think you understand the problem well enough to say that they haven't thought through it fully (which is a scenario that arises in workplaces), don't say that you're "confused". It's a variant on false shock. Just say " I don't think this change considers the following scenario:". You can soften that with a disclaimer of "perhaps I'm missing something", but saying "I'm confused" when you think the other person is consumed is mildly passive aggressive.
Likewise, if you think someone should do something, don't say "it'd be nice if we could". Make the request directly. You can still add "let me know if there's something I'm not considering that prevents that". It's frustrating otherwise, because it is unclear what is a request or nice-tp-have and what is an instruction that approval is contingent upon. In the long term, lacking that clarity becomes annoying, especially for non-native speakers or people from different cultures who expect different lvels of directness.
There is a position between aggressive "don't do that, it's stupid" and the indirect formulations in this post, and that's where you should aim. Polite and kind, but still clear and direct.
Honestly, if you just state the problems with the approach clearly and avoid words like "stupid" or "dumb", you're 90% of the way there.
As much as I like the ideas this post advocates, I feel like some of this is on a case by case basis.
It should always be a goal to keep criticism professional, not personal.
One other thing that should be kept in mind here of is culture.
I live in japan where you really can't even say "no" let alone "wrong". There's are extremes like: Linus and the other being many asian cultures.
Like any advice like this, try to look at the intent and the points that work for your situation not "Silicon valley startup only".
A good workplace culture is, essentially, leveling up from this. It's agreeing while diplomatic language is more comfortable and it's how we might communicate outside work, we're agreeing to suspend it to better achieve our shared goals. If someone challenges your idea, you need dispassionately and genuinely consider their objections and either defend your idea or acquiesce to the better idea. Some people just can't do this. Ideas are personal things and arguing about them feels uncomfortable and they don't like to feel uncomfortable. And, maybe getting a little carried away, but I think there is general societal issue where we think if you're uncomfortable something must be wrong. Good decisions are born out of argument not trust. Saying "I'm confused" or "Help me understand" when you already understand and just disagree is level 0 language. It kinda works but it's slow and inefficient and as engineers - this isn't good enough.
It's still annoying that becoming a manager is correlated with advancement, but that's life.
An environment of trust (and safety) allows open technical discussions and lets you come to decisions in a way that helps everyone learn and evolve without "losing face" and without breeding an undercurrent of anger and resentment. Knowing that each person is willing to listen to the other respectfully and that each person is prepared to say they are wrong, can improve the discussion rather than making it more wishy-washy.
You need to have this if you're going to be working day after day, maybe for years with the same people. Lose trust and the feeling that it is safe to make potentially "stupid" statements, and people will just blindly follow the loudest most belligerent person because it's not worth the emotional cost of trying to engage in "debate".
So maybe "Trust is Underrated" would be a better title for the original article.
Also, while I've been critical of Linus' approach in the past, I think given that his standards are well known and consistent it's probably not that hurtful if he rips you to shreds over a patch because its well known that thats just what hes like.
That explanation of kindness doesn't make sense. Some people try to be nice and, by mistake, end up being rude. And business people make deals quickly all of the time, using jargon and cutting out pleasantries while still being kind.
No, kindness is a skill of words and actions that must be developed over time. It's about navigating complex ideas and decisions effectively.
For instance, "no" is generally rude, not because it's too short, but because it doesn't provide good feedback on a complex idea. What is the proposer trying to accomplish? What existing alternatives exist, or what others might be explored?
If you don't have the time to give good reasons, then point them toward others that you trust to give good advice. E.g: "This proposal is unacceptable. Discuss with group XYZ and explore alternatives." Or even: "This proposal is unacceptable -- the proposed use case is not important enough to justify what you are trying to do."
Consequently Linus says he decided to go in the direction of communicating in the manner that he is now known for. (Which makes me wonder-- if he had a personal encounter early on with his sarcasm causing the same bad outcome, would he have decided as confidently to go in the other direction?)
Regardless, I think jaromil who maintains Devuan is a great counterexample. He's quite nice and non-sarcastic, approachable to newcomers, and he seems to be able to herd cats just as well.
The flip-side is that high quality maintainable code is the product of top-notch commits, and rejecting commits is sometimes necessary to keep the standard of quality high. A good maintainer shouldn't cave to pressure of accepting a flawed commit just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
This article in fact had what looks like a prime example of that. The comment mentioning a PR might "break a limit" but "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" was touted as an example of how to give guidance. I'd argue that code quality slipped right there as a direct result of social pressure to accept a subpar commit.
It's not easy by any measure, but I think it pays to be not only clever and kind, but also consistent and firm when it comes to reviewing people's work.
In my last job I had lots of hour-long arguments with coworkers on different topics, many of which I ended up conceding the point. I'm incredibly appreciative of them having taken the effort to help me understand the their views, and convince me otherwise.
I think there's a lot of stigma on disagreeing with people. But I don't see why that should be the case. If you have an argument with someone and you both end up leaving with a better understanding of the problem, why is that a bad a thing? I've had plenty of discussions where I fundamentally disagreed with someone, only to go and later drink a few beers them. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate or dislike them, and there's no reason to take it personally. It's fine for someone to hold different views than you own.
An example of this are hate-speech laws, which I'm thankful that the US doesn't have. Personally, I consider them horrible mistakes, but I respect that others disagree. FWIW, the reason I disagree with hate-speech laws is that I think you should be able to openly speak your mind on any topic, because it means you can have a discussion and learn from it. If you can't have an open discussion about some topic, you might never be presented with the opportunity to rise above whatever might've lead you to some terrible belief.
I've certainly said a lot of stupid things online, and every time I've been called out on them I think I've grown and learned a bit. I have no doubt I'll continue saying stupid stuff, because in many cases I won't know any better, and I fully hope that others will call me out on it.
I also get tons of free shit by just being nice to service workers.
Kindness actually triggers the exact opposite of the 3 things above: suddenly everything seems like no big deal and nothing ever changes. Just great: now youre setting yourself up for several more unpleasant interactions in the future, instead of just fixing something from the beginning.
There are a lot of other considerations too...
For one, the person yelling is usually not the only unkind person in the interaction, even if thats the most obvious one. It is unkind, for instance, to be a lazy person who goes into situations utterly unprepared, showing no respect; at that point, YOU arent being nice so why do you expect niceness in return?
And sometimes niceness gets in the way of well-understood, efficient processes. On a mailing list, say, youre better off making a direct statement that isnt wrapped in two extra paragraphs of polite tone for everyone to read through. And heck, when youre driving, you can create MAJOR traffic problems by being kind instead of just following the rules (ironically bubbling back and impacting 50 people for a mile because you wanted to be kind to one person; just watch some videos).
1- you can't be kind without appearing weak and
2- being blunt and being kind are two different things
If however you want well deserved respect and kindness, show that you excel at your job, you are able to deliver for me in a timely fashion and exceeding expectation.You can't handle being criticised ? You have no business being in business, go open a charity bookshop. One has to understand, developers like in any other creative industry can go off on a tangent by themselves if not given direction explicitly, sometimes that means being very much assertive and firm.If that is perceived as being unkind then tough luck.
Often, we are nice because we are afraid of hurting people's feelings. As a result, though, we sometimes end up stringing people along and the ultimately make them lose more time and energy than if we had breached their comfort zone early, and communicated our expectations when they weren't yet super-invested. And after all is said and done, if we string them along, they end up blaming us more as well.
This was a hard life lesson to learn, but sometimes, to be kind, one must risk not being nice.
My advice would be: before communicating a tough expectation, do your homework (research how it's done) and be diplomatic. Different cultures have different linguistic paradigms that help grease the wheels towards agreement. Use them. And at the end, be firm but offer support for the transition. If they want it, they will take it. In any case it's likely you will be respected and won't burn bridges that way.
Contempt is one of the worst regards a person can hold for another--perhaps even worse than hatred. It's a fundamental lack of respect for another's worth, either within a domain or more generally.
One can muster the will to express kindness for someone they dislike. But, it is virtually humanly impossible to be kind towards those one holds in contempt.
I view HN as follows: smart people upvote interesting resources. Among those resources are educational resources. These resources are potentially of very high quality. It's a good reason to upvote something into oblivion.
So whenever I want to learn something, I don't go to Google first. I go to Hacker news. I type in the topic I want to learn, and hope that there are highly upvoted educational resources.
Two things can happen:
1. The upvoted resource is amazing.
2. The upvoted resource gets burned to the ground in the comments.
In the case of 2, then there is almost always a good recommendation to find in the comments. Sometimes these comments are standalone comments -- a bit risky, but better than nothing. Sometimes these comments are well supported by positive raving child comments.
At one point, I thought about creating a feed for http://oppsdaily.com using this.
Also, "software that could"
For example, they never introduce you to how you can run the same algorithm on your own dataset
I actually think the tensorflow tutorial on CNNs actually runs through training and classification on your own set with inception pretty well.
You mention you're a CV student. Any particular area of focus?
I get really annoyed when such blatantly false statements are slapped onto a website. If you can't say that honestly then it is a great opportunity to be creative with messaging and say something that adds value.
This has been a pet peeve of mine for as long as I've been running online businesses. Our competitors are always #1... all of them, at the same time.
\pset linestyle unicode
In my psqlrc I also have a bunch of "macros" (unfortunately no parameters in psql) for common stuff like transaction handling and SET ROLE / RESET ROLE, lock monitoring etc.: https://github.com/hollobon/psqlrc/blob/master/psqlrc.confSome of it only works on <=9.4.
All these years I didn't know about this.
(edit: use + instead of asterisk to fool the markdown rendering)