Niksko

If you want to coon food, the internet is near dead at this time

This is a wild take, as someone that cooks a lot, and largely from the internet (though I do own a lot of cookbooks)

The reality is that just googling for recipes was never good to begin with. People have been complaining about SEO spam and ads on recipe sites forever, but those recipes were always trash even before they got to the absurd state they're in now. Serious eats, bon appetit, food 52, smitten kitchen, chefsteps, all have great recipes. Some of these have paywalls, although you can get around them. Serious eats though is totally paywall free and has a pretty wide range of recipes. There are other sites for more niche cuisines.

You'll still have ads, and you'll still have a wall of text before the recipe. But the ads are slightly less obtrusive, and the wall of text on the quality sites is why those SEO techniques exist in the first place: a recipe that is just "list of ingredients + instructions" and doesn't include any context is ultimately a crapshoot. The thinking that goes into a recipe shows that you're not going to be wasting your time because it's been tested and optimized.

All of that is easy to account for, all of the metadata you need is available. This also applies to the sibling comment about rounding up to charity at the grocery store, the data is all there, even if it's e.g. the fraud analyst at the bank or credit card company instead of the fraud analyst at the grocery store.

Two of these things are not like the others. Pork rinds and ranch both vary in quality from mass produced crap that I would actively avoid to delicious products that I would seek out. In particular a really tangy buttermilk ranch (or even a really lemony ranch) with lots of black pepper and freshly minced herbs is supremely tasty.

If you click the Glacier link, it seems like it's some sort of standalone service and API that's very old. The page says to use S3's Glacier storage tier instead, so no change for the majority of folks that are likely using it this way

All of the short summaries of the theses sounded reasonable when I read them. Then when I looked at their expanded descriptions it became clear that this is just more whinging from the right that their viewpoints are not adequately represented.

As always, you have a right to free speech. There's no right that we have to listen to your nonsense.

I see what you're saying, but IMO beer is both a bad example AND similar to coffee in many ways.

It's a bad example in the sense that the flavors you get out of fruited beers tends not to be as 'funky' as in coffees because fermentation is controlled so closely. You can get some incredible flavors out of adding adjuncts to beers. Yes it's interesting and cool that you can get some of those flavors out of yeast, but there are also flavors you just can't get from yeast that can be delicious.

It's also similar to coffee in that adding extra things is not somehow new or novel, it's actually very old, we're just rediscovering it.

FYI to all commenters, take 5 seconds to google Brendan Carr and you will see how much of a partisan, anti-free-speech hack he is. The man wears a gold Trump head pin on his lapel ffs.

Spot an American at a hundred paces proposing that you either have the money to buy batteries yourself, or else you should just eat it and suffer

Not OP but I definitely sympathise with them. I don't know how practical it is to implement or how profitable it would be, but the problem I often have is this: * I have something I want to buy and have specific needs for it (height, color, shape, other properties) * I know that there's a good chance the website I'm on sells a product that meets those needs (or possibly several such that I'd want to choose from) * my criteria are more specific than the filters available on the site e.g. I want a specific length down to a few cm because I want the biggest thing that will fit in a fixed space * crucially for an AI use case: the information exists on the individual product pages. They all list dimensions and specifications. I just don't want to have to go through them all.

Example: find me all of the desks on IKEA that come in light coloured wood, are 55 inches wide, and rank them from deepest to shallowest. Oh, and make sure they're in stock at my nearest IKEA, or are delivering within the next week.

Tried it when I was in Chicago. If you enjoy bitter amari like Cynar or Averna you won't find this particularly especially bracing. It's an interesting local curiosity, but it's sort of _just_ bitter with not much else in terms of flavour.

I get what you're saying, but it's merely because Trump has shown that he's easy to manipulate and can basically be bought. If it were any other Republican coming into office this wouldn't be happening. Not to spout off too much, but as usual, the right shows that all of their nonsense posturing is just projection. "Drain the swamp, stop government corruption", and yet the powerful are literally buying Trump's support.

And if you look to places like Meixco City and Bogota, their bus rapid transit is very fast and efficient. But good luck taking away a single lane of traffic for dedicated bus services anywhere in the US.

My guess at what it will look like:

* Ruthless budget cutting. Import social programs that (purely by coincidence) don't alight with the far right's ideology will be cut because e.g. only 1% of the population uses them, ignoring that 1% of the population is still 3 million odd people.

* Lots of brain drain. There are good people in government. I suspect the good ones won't much enjoy being told that they're morons who are wasting everyone's money. The actual morons won't care much, and the people doling out the firings won't be around long enough to figure who is who.

* Some low hanging fruit that requires a dictatorship and wide-ranging mandate to achieve. There's definitely inefficiency in government that can be solved by pointing everyone in the same direction and telling them their jobs are on the line. But not that much. I'm sure much fanfare will be made of what is solved though.

* Lots of corruption, cronyism and people under-qualified for their roles but over-estimating their abilities. This is a playbook we've seen from Trump and from Elon "I looked at Twitter's code for 5 seconds and instantly made 100x improvements' Musk. Thankfully, government projects span years or decades, so the effects of these terrible contracts and inexperienced leaders will be felt for years to come.

Doesn't sound like the author has any idea what issues plague them, based on what I read. Lots of plausible sounding ideas in this thread, if a therapist helps them figure out which ones are accurate, money can (probably) help them make the changes.

My read was they meant a fork as in a GitHub repository fork, used to fix bugs and then submit them to upstream. This isn't a fork of the language, it's a mechanism to enable collaboration. However 'to the casual observer' could be taken to mean 'someone who doesn't understand that GitHub forks are not language forks' and they'd end up in strife. Seems like a reasonable objection to me based on the letter of the law.

Google maps has this natively in Japan which was great for travelling there

Very interesting. Particularly their notion (paraphrasing) that SWEBOK attempts to record generally recognised knowledge in software engineering while excluding knowledge about more specific subdomains of software.

That over-deference towards general knowledge coupled with some sort of tie to a similar Australian effort probably explains why the software engineering degree I began in Australia felt like a total waste of time. I remember SWEBOK being mentioned frequently. I can't say I've gotten terribly much value out of that learning in my career.

It's much easier to find a group of Adventists that have an above average lifespan because Adventists form a community. People with blue eyes or people who are left handed who live in the same county don't all know each other and discuss their statistically insignificant longevity

Kudos to the author for trying this. My approach would be to ignore the junk recipes online and see if there are any patents that describe the process. I'll have a look when I have time.

My guess would be that there's some industrial process that completely separates any yeast from anything else so as to remove any potential hop bitterness. And that there's also likely been some updates to the process over the years. It may have started out as boiling things down in the 1920s, but may have moved on to an enzyme catalyzed process these days?

On the idea of using a stout: you will end up with even more bitterness than the version you made, more than likely. Stouts (especially higher alcohol stouts) tend to be fairly generously hopped compared to a standard light lager, in order to balance the sweetness of the added malt. You just don't taste them as being super hoppy because a) the hops are added early in the boil for bittering and most of the volatile aromas boil off, and b) because, well, they're doing their job of balancing the sweet malts to make the beer not taste sickly sweet.

A Google search got me the tail number. ADS-B data is easily accessible, there are APIs. Seems like some bigger sites like Flight Aware are already redacting info for her tail number, but it took me a few minutes to find another site that didn't seem to.

I think you can credibly make the argument that when these protocols were invented, the intent wasn't for the data to be this public or accessible, and that we could perhaps update the protocols to avoid something like this.

But from a technology point of view, saying that flight data is somehow private is like saying that if I set up an FM radio station and someone buys an FM radio and listens in they're somehow snooping on my radio station.

CAMRA's definition of real ale has nothing to do with temperature and is more about live yeast in the final product.

No offense intended, but all of your suggestions sound very stereotypically Italian, which is to say they put an enormous emphasis on the traditional ways that pasta and sauces are made in various places in Italy. There's nothing wrong with this, celebrate tradition and heritage all you want, but that's very different to what Kenji goes for in general and what Serious Eats goes for in general. Their goal is usually to provide techniques that are then used in recipes to achieve a desired outcome.

Whether that outcome is considered traditional or correct by anyone is not something that is considered. The techniques are a tool to achieve an outcome, and how much or little you use those tools is left to the cook, rather than being dictated by tradition or custom.

Pasta water contains starch, which helps to thicken sauces. If you want a thick and glossy sauce, it is one way to do it. End of story. It is a technique to achieve a desirable goal, nothing more. Whether anyone traditionally in Italy does this or not is immaterial.

Similarly, fats are flavorful. Adding flavorful fat to increase flavor in a sauce is desirable. Whether anyone traditionally does this is immaterial if people think it tastes good.

The degree to which you undercook is really about how scared you are of overcooking. The phrase I've heard used is that removing pasta from boiling water and putting it in the sauce is like "pasta bullet time". It slows the cooking enough that you now have lots of extra time to play with.

So it's not that you need to pull the pasta very early. You just can, for greater insurance. But pulling it just shy of al dente and then finishing it in the sauce over a few minutes will result in an al dente pasta. If your sauce needs lots of reducing, you're making a huge batch with an undersized burner, or anything else that would greatly prolong the cooking time, then yes, you'll need to pull the pasta earlier.

It's time for smaller, scrappier tech companies to be the place where innovation happens

I think this is exactly what is being lamented. There was interesting stuff happening for a really long time, and now there isn't. And companies that stop innovating tend to die long, slow deaths. It sounds like Google held out longer than most, but now runs the risk of going the way of the dodo. I'd lament that too.

I've been ghosted twice lately. One was someone reaching out via Hacker News for an initial chat where they said "let's put you through our interview process" and then ghosted. The other was for a startup, similar situation, "let's set up a chat with our CEO", then ghosted.

The commonality here is an inability to just be honest and say "doesn't seem like a good fit". Disappointing, and ironically, an indication that it really wouldn't be a good fit. I don't want to work with people who are unable to deliver uncomfortable news respectfully, or even, at all.

I don't have an iPhone and I don't really use text messages with anyone that does, so I can't speak first hand. But teenage bullying and status symbols / materialistic people aside, my understanding is that the big blue bubble / green bubble thing is group chats and photos and videos. Group chats "just work" via iMessage where as they can be strange via SMS, and photos and videos end up compressed and ugly via SMS.

If you don't group chat or send and receive photos or videos, then yeah, it probably makes zero difference. But e.g. for a family with a new baby, I think I'd be pretty upset if I was the Android user in the sea of iPhones and the baby photos group chat was janky and gave me 10x10 pixel photos.

It's not quite the same, but Home Manager feels a little like what you're describing.

My biggest frustration with Nix is the lack of typing. Writing anything more than the basics, I feel like I quickly run into an issue of not being able to reason easily about what structures I'm manipulating, and I haven't gotten very far by trying to lean on the editor I'm using either.

I disagree with GP. The impact on employees (junior or otherwise) and the hit to productivity exists, it's just a result of under investment in remote-first working practices. Anything between fully remote and fully in office / everyone in the office on the same days per week is going to be shown to be disaster.

I think the effects are going to start presenting now, but because it's a new phenomenon for most organizations, it won't be recognized for another year or so. The next 2-5 years are going to be littered with stories along the lines of 'progress ground to a halt and nobody could put their finger on why, so we tried a bunch of stuff that didn't work and eventually realized it was a lack of any remote strategy'

It's a good question, and the author explains it and the logic really well.

As someone going through this style of interview at the moment (but not having interviewed at Google, Microsoft or Amazon), two things jump out at me:

- If you're going to ask this question and get it done in 1 hour, does the code really matter? I'd argue that if you can get to a good or optimal solution, 99 times out of 100 you can write the code. If I got this question and didn't know better, I'd be stressing about writing the code within an hour. Knowing that we wanted to spend most of the time discussing the algos and data structures would be really useful to me. Maybe Google/Amazon/Microsoft interviews really stress this in their preamble, I don't know.

- The big "issue" I see with this question is that it relies on the interviewer knowing exactly how to steer the conversation. I think I could get to this solution with the hints, and the author seems to imply that it's ok to need a few hints. But an interviewer that doesn't know the right hints to give (or phrases them poorly) is going to turn this question into a train-wreck. This isn't an issue for the author, they clearly know this questions backwards and forwards. But giving this question as a 'standard' question that others will deliver? I think it could easily end up being too conservative and cutting out a lot of otherwise smart developers.

In general, that's my criticism of this style of question: they all claim that they're about 'seeing how you think'. But I think expecting interviewers to be able to elicit a conversation that really shows 'how a candidate thinks' is much more on the interviewer rather than the interviewee. You're expecting people whose primary job is writing software to be really good at delivering interviews.

Instead, you're going to have candidates who most of the time will do well if they can pattern-matching against problems they've seen in the past, and poorly otherwise. I can see how questions like this seem good on paper, and I'm glad this question works for the author. But it's the combination of interviewer and question that makes it effective, not just the question alone. A better title for this post might be 'My favourite way of interviewing candidates', because this post is mostly to do with the author's mental model of how to run an interview with this question.