anthonygd

Why do you think that would be relevant?

As long as you are satisfied with the productivity of that employee, what does it really matter if they produce their output in 10 hours or 40?

I have different expectations depending on whether you worked 10 or 40 hours. The _reality_ is that you and your employer need to come to an agreement on expectations.

There's no excuse for repeating this. It takes seconds to see where the money actually goes:

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

There fundamentally is going to be conflict in any system of checks and balances. Neither the SCOTUS nor POTUS get to unilaterally decide the limits.

Trump hasn't been following convention, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. We also can't just assume he's right. Having the 3 branches hash out a balance is perfectly reasonable and confirms the system is working as intended.

I would assume because you're just trying to change the topic.

If you know what fascism is then you are nearly alone in the world. Read over the Wikipedia definition of fascism and you'll find it starts with a comparison to "nailing jelly to the wall".

The most solid explanation is in this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascist_as_a_pejorativ...

It is extremely difficult to take seriously.

I'm mostly seeing people who voted against this continue to grumble.

What of the people whose jobs aren't WFH compatible? "They get what they get?"

What's your proposal here? Should I be forced into the office because it increases the chances I'll buy coffee instead of making it at home?

Macro economic changes are always painful. This is a gross simplification, but cities exist because of an economic network effect based on proximity. Network effects tend to be somewhat stable because they tend to change slowly, but they do change.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but not the implication that NYC value is obvious.

You really don't see the value of New York beyond its office buildings?

I like to visit NYC a couple times a year, but absolutely don't want to live there. If the number of people who physically work there goes down, so will the reasons it's nice to visit.

I don't think I can properly explain my thought process here, but I do think of big cities as anachronistic and little inhuman. All those nice things in a city depend on a large number of lower income people being forced to live there by economic opportunity. That's not necessarily bad but frequently lower income residents don't get to enjoy the services they provide.

I say anachronistic because as people increase in economic freedom, their desires adjust and they frequently move, e.g. everything else being equal people will choose a 700 sq.ft. apartment over a 180 sq.ft. apartment. If the ratio of high income to low income residents shifts too far in either direction, cities go through a painful re-balancing process that may or may not land on it being good or pleasant (by some subjective standards) place afterwards.

the US should have universal public healthcare. It's basic function of a competent nation state.

Why do you say that? What do you mean by "healthcare"?

Food is much more fundamental than healthcare but isn't really provided by any nation state. Where do you draw the line between what the state provides and what citizens are responsible for? How do you pick that line? Why is your opinion worth any more than another random persons?

being able to think critically.

That was strongly discouraged long ago when I was in school. Completely unheard of when my daughter was in school. Sounds like you're grasping at straws here; standardized test scores are pretty terrible but you're suggesting kids are able to think more critically now that they can't do arithmetic?

Primary implies the lack of localization

No, it doesn't.

I tend to optimism it skews to rational over irrational

I agree with the words, but don't think they mean what you think they mean :)

People like to belong and be part of the "in" group so tend to think their views are more popular than they are.

The truth is that based on actual sales numbers, Tesla is just fine: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/business/tesla-sales-q4/index.... Growth is slower, but that's true for EVs in general and there is a lot more competition than there used to be.

There's just no evidence that car shoppers care about Elon. I'd say avoiding Tesla's because of Elon's personality is the irrational take anyway. Don't buy them because they aren't built very well, don't not buy them because he's a jerk.

This is just another one of those sexist memes that needs to be forgotten. A person can have a therapist; a parody of an insecure man can have counseling from a coach.

Reminds me of when Dove tried to sell a "man scrubbing tool" because someone in marketing thought men were too stupid to buy loofahs.

The Tesla likely has even more features, but the idea that you can just jump in to a brand new car and understand everything about how to use it seems far fetched.

Tesla's just have terrible UX. Quit making excuses.

I bought a 2021 Range Rover with all the safety features of a Tesla. It has sophisticated software with a big touchscreen but it also has knobs for the normal stuff. I was comfortable using the car immediately and found cool new features for a couple weeks. It was pleasant getting used to it.

Of course, I'm cynical enough to believe that they, too are about reducing pushback against security procedures from the sort of people politicians actually listen to.

I completely agree with this, but at the same time I paid for Global Entry. It feels ok to me since it's really a government program that helps with a government requirement.

I find CLEAR offensive because of the way it blurs public/private boundaries.

The most wealthy and powerful are generally immune to inconveniences, so don't care.

The most poor are completely and totally helpless to change things.

It's the group between those extremes that sign up for CLEAR; as a group though they could push for removing the need for CLEAR.

Isn't the common denominator of a midlife crisis a yearning for the past? Overwhelming nostalgia?

I don't think so. I'd describe a midlife crisis as more of a fear you don't have enough time to do what's next. I've always wanted a Ferrari; if I don't get it now, when will I? I discovered bouldering in my 40's and hate the fact that I can never be competitive; if only I had started 20 years earlier... at this point, every year limits how much time I have left for those new adventures I haven't discovered yet.

I think Uncle Joe just complains because he's crabby.

most people go through several crises in their adult life. As a rule of thumb you have one every seven years or so.

That's terrifying. I haven't recovered from the crisis 5 years ago. Not ready for another.

In particular divorce might work out well for somebody like Bill Gates or Elon Musk who can trade in their tired old nag for a hot young thing

That just sounds sad. How lonely do you have to be before it makes sense to trade in your closest companion for eye candy?

I would have said they loved 3rd party developers.

Apple likes to build platforms and let 3rd party developers figure out the application layer. After a third party finds a big enough market Apple will crush them and take it. It's essentially just outsourced R&D where Apple doesn't pay for the bad ideas.

Well, obviously you ask the CEO.

Python might have nice features, but it also has terrible features. Like using dicts for everything. It's not enough to allow good practices, you have to prevent (or at least reduce) bad practices.

Yet, I never see this when discussions exists about node libraries or other languages for that matter.

Huh? It's the first comment for pretty much any of these stupid performance comparisons. Does someone really think node performance is great, or pick node because of its performance?

I still write my logic in Python and get this benefit anyway.

That's part of the point. Writing your logic in Python is fine, but then your app performance isn't winning any comparisons. No one cares about the performance this article is explicitly talking about.

Thank you! I've never been called really cool before :)

(a) We're talking about how immature environmentalists are. We're not talking about whether changes should be made or what those changes should be.

(b) We should draw attention to things that can improve the environment or things that are harming the environment, e.g. building more solar, wind and nuclear power; how much waste goes into retail packaging.

Their actions aren't "too extreme" they're too _arbitrary_. Attempting to vandalize paintings isn't helping anything. From what I've seen the media attention has been on how immature environmentalists are, not anything related to required environmental changes.

There is already widespread awareness that something needs to change and these tantrums are just noise drowning out any useful signal.

Please educate yourself on the scale of youtube.

Please be less smug.

YouTube has no right or requirement to operate at that scale. They've consciously decided to scale past what they're able to manage well. This is no different than a developer who produces terrible non-functional code but defends it to their boss by pointing out the line count is really high.

I'd be impressed by their scale only if they managed to maintain some level of quality also.

I would agree with the author if the question was "ONLY pair programming" vs "ONLY individual programming", but that is a stupid question.

I think there's some unstated context when people talk about pair programming. Everyone occasionally wants to pair (maybe not with the term though). Pair programming didn't have a name until it started being mandated. As soon pair programming gets a mandate of some sort (% of time, part of codebase, day of week...) it becomes a stupid mistake. It's pretty useful up until that point.

Pair programming is like keyboards. I'm skeptical of anyone who brings up the topic: it doesn't need to be discussed.

We might be talking about different things then. Or maybe not.

You want people in government making long term strategic decisions that steer society. They should be listening to the will of the people as to what direction to steer it. I hope we can agree on that much.

I think people forget that "regulators" though are really just large organizations that enforce/interpret laws. The obvious example is the SEC; it has 4200 employees and none of them create laws, their rules are an effort to enforce the laws created by congress using their technical competence in finance.

You want competence for strategically sound decisions to achieve a goal, but setting it should be done with input of people that have not been groomed that advertising is a human necessity.

That's the world we live in. Congress has been completely incompetent when it comes to regulating finance and I'd expect them to be even worse when it comes to technology.

There absolutely has to be a layer of industry specific competence (from "insiders") to make any sense of industry specific laws. I don't want insiders choosing direction though; I want congress to be less reprehensible idiots.