gcc_programmer

It's a she ;)

I recently started a new job and it goes a bit like this: the 5 weekdays I average about 11 hours per day (office time only, no commute). My commute is about 45/50 minutes in total (2 ways). I usually spend at least 2-3 hours on each weekend day, but sometimes it can be as much as 7 hours. When I am on holiday I usually login 2-3 times for a few hours (2-3).

I work definitely more than the average in my company, although not by much, and the weekend/holiday bit not many people do, although some do it. I find it that I am extremely productive the whole time: I constantly create new things and I get a lot of ground covered. It often happens it is 6pm, I have an idea, and instead of going back I push it. 2 hours go by but the idea is finallized and I know tomorrow I can start something new.

I don't feel burn out, but genuinely interested in my job. I read a book every night before sleep, exercise for 30 mins after work, and spend time with my partner. I thoroughly enjoy weekends, I often work on side projects and hobbies, and I do chores with my partner, and also speak with relatives.

The only reason I would ever need more time is if I have kids one day. But otherwise if I had to work 9 to 5 I would feel like shit because I will be watching netflix for like 3 hours in the evening, which is what I used to do in my first job. So constraining myself actually is great for not wasting: I am direcrly converting my time for knowledge and money, until I need to have kids.

Long story short, some people find extra free time pointless unless they have something meaningful like kids to spend it on. I do believe a lot of people are not willing to work so much, but to those that want free time, I will tell you this: be honest with yourself if you are making the most of it.

any file is executable on linux, if you are brave enough

Setting a goal for yourself and following it through to completion.

Delayed gratification and hard work.

Doing the right thing, when everyone else is doing the easy thing.

I tried to read this article, I really did. I tried to read the comments and to be emphatic. I really tried. I just do not feel pitty or any empathy towards anyone in the comments, or the author. I think I am emphatic towards the people I love because I actually deeply love my partner of many years, and my parents. But somehow the idea of homelessness disgusts me: I do not feel any positive emotion towards people who have experienced it, or are experiencing it. Maybe it is my upbringing: I did not grow up in a developed Western country (although I live in one one) but a developing country, where everyone is struggling to some degree, so the homeless there to me always seemed like they are homeless due to their own bad choices. The ones that beg are truly repulsive and I have my own experience of why I will never give them money: when I was a little kid I saw a drug addict begging and I stopped to give him cash out of pity. When I took out my wallet he became aggressive and wanted not only to take what I gave him but all my money. I was very scared, it was dark and late, and people around pretended nothing was happening and would have let him do it if I didnt board a randomly arriving bus! This lesson taught me that no one will help you in bad situations, bad people want to hurt you, and people who stop you for money want to scam you and exploit your naive pity. I was also mugged, twice, arround the same time by teenage boys who threatened my life both times. So I really cannot understand how people can feel empathy towards the not-well-off, especially as I myself was poor as my parents were struggling at the time and yet they didnt steal or beg or do dodgy things while the drug addict and those teenagers did. So either I am a psychopath, or everyone here truly is a Western naive person who has no idea how the world works even if they were homeless (to me being homeless in a Western country is something my brain cannot understand given that most such countries in Europe have wellfare states). Can someone help me understand? I am not trying to start a flamewar, I just want to know how can my opinion be so vastly different? Am I missing something here?

I read your wall of text. You make some interesting points. But I will be honest with you: I also used to think like you, in these long convoluted ways where I was trying to explain everything I saw via programming and all sorts of mathematical extrapolations, and I for a time I believed my own bit. But then I realised: it was all cp and youthful arrogance.

In a nutshell, you are nitpicking. You can always define an arbitrary scale at which nothing matters: you used time in your rabbit example very effectively to discount the usefulness of the "rabbit category". Or you used these XX males as a counter example to a rigid definition of gender. You even yourself realise that this way of thinking is completely useless as you yourself say that the category of species is extremely useful:

So strictly logically speaking, this definition is useless. Nevertheless, the concept of species is clearly a useful concept that helps us communicate things about the real world. How do we explain this?

I can explain this for you: you are thinking life is logical and "discreet" because you are a programmer and this is what you were taught. It is not: life is... continuous! Like the integral: each point has measure 0 but when you "add" a transfinite amount of 0 measure points you get... non-zero area! This resolves your rabbit paradox: each generation of rabbit is a point with measure 0 since its "difference" is so small with the generation before and after that it we can model it as 0...

Or second model: Rabbit_n = 0.9999 * Rabbit_{n+1}

After 100 generations: similarity is already 0.99

After 1000 generations: similarity is 0.90

After 10000 generations: similarity is 0.36

Tadaa: problem solved. So don't think so hard about this, use your common sense and realise that most people are men and most people are women and a few edge cases do not matter for practical purposes. And this is the crux of the matter: we need to make decisions. Hence we do what you very well describe: we categorise the particle soup around us and we act. So the usefulness of categories/abstractions CAN ONLY EVER BE MEASURED BY THEIR USEFULNESS FOR DECISION MAKING (sorry for caps I but want to emphasize). When I say decision making I mean almost everything: from deciding what sandwich to eat to deciding on how to prove Fermat's last theorem. If categories help you to do things, they are useful. End of story (for me, you can go write a book about this, make sure to send me a free copy).

Finally, this is also all bs so don't take it too seriously: I am a person on the internet.

It's not a side project, it's a production database owned by a company... I hope I never have to use products you buils either...

The maturity of the article is laughable. I'm sure my age is the same as the people who wrote it, but this is unacceptable: dropping databases in prod is a serious issue, not a joke. I think the culture of the company is toxic and not professional at any level. #change-my-mind

Listening to Warren Buffet is as useful as playing the lottery.

I am on your side: I fix it by disabling javascript.

I think the author is arrogant and closed minded. He underestimates the levels of complexity of software systems and strives for some utopian "elegance of design" which I think doesn't exist. The only thing which matters is to deliver results and move forward. Requirements change: back in 1990 the internet existed in a much much smaller form, and WWW was just about to be invented. Linux had yet to be invented by Linus. Unix and Linux survived and adapted, VMS (or whatever it was named) didn't. Also the argument about "speaking English" is again so arrogant and closed-minded: not all of us are native English speakers. To me rm or delete or del or banana doesn't really matter...

Europe is as you described.

If the person went bust, it is. If he didn't, it's not.

Why is that not surprising? Maybe we are used to different types of technology companies though.

It's funny how most people think that 1000 out of 4600 employees having admin access is "not misleading" and counts as a "limited" group. It shows how in the public mind, technology groups should not be held accountable for their actions.

For someone like ray dalio, the fee is nothing. But for a much smaller firm, the $25k/year for just a single unit is not insignificant. The raw historical quote data can be purchased from the exchanges and ued any way you like instead of only being restricted to the terminal. There are many firms that sell such data.

Of course. It's just that I believe that unless you are willing to pay >= $100k for a developer's salary you can't do the same as the terminal. If you have a budget for a dev then by all means get the data yourself and do your own stuff ;)

Buffett's number one rule is not to lose money. Sometimes pithy quotes hold lot of wisdom.

I'm glad his wisdom helps you. I think it's a marketing slogan since to me it conveys no information, or no more than stating the desired outcome without giving you an idea of how to do it, which is not useful.

Also, I did get a downvote for expressing an opinion! Only a few more and I'll be out of this platform ;)

Nonsense. It's just a data subscription service. Are you speaking from experience or you are just trying to virtue signal ?

even though the experts struggle to beat the market

Most Bloomberg Terminal users today are traders at the big investment banks. They don't try to beat the market, they make money on fees and through market making, which is Millions (tens or hundreds) per year, so $25k per employee is a small cost for them to keep doing that.

You can get all the other stuff for free using thinkorswim and other services

I highly doubt this. Bloomberg is not about the services but about the data: the breadth and depth of it. They have been collecting data since the 1980s, which is like dinosaur era for finance. It doesn't matter what services they provide, it matters they have data! Your are missing the most important point of what makes Bloomberg useful as a vendor.

Reddit's Wallstreetbets is free to join and it seems people there have a knack for beating the market and knowing what to buy before it becomes really big

At this point I am starting to think this post is some low quality bait, you are young/naive, or simply too arrogant.

They have been bullish on tesla and amazon for a long time

Great! Did you buy any Tesla or amazon when it was cheap ? Good for you.

Like any community, part of the challenge is filtering out the noise from the signal.

Blanket statement which tells you what you need to do without saying how. "The only rule of making money is to not lose money". Such wow. You can do better than this :P

I expect a downvote, but maybe this time I was constructive enough not to get one, lets see if hacker news will disappoint me again!

Write down & summarise everything you read. It doesn't have to be thorough and you don't even have to read it again, but somehow putting it down in words clears up any unknown confusions for me.

and I got downvoted for not contributing meaningfully to the topic! The set is full

The thread comments didn't dissapoint:

someone defended gcc

someone attacked it

someone who just started learning C or C++ made a comment

someone mentioned clang did it right

someone mentioned Rust

This

I hope this is the final nail in the coffin of Silicon Valley: this place has been, very well deservedly until 2010-2015 but completely undeservedly after that, at the top of VC's investment list. But nothing innovative is coming out of that place anymore: the magical days of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter are over. What was my 'aman' (enough) moment? That startup with the juices and the juice squeezers (I forgot their name): to me that was the sign that the place is running out of steam. Hopefully this economic crisis will do enough damage and the investment focus will shift to more promising industries and locations. Awaiting the downvotes : I btw realise the irony of the fact that I write this comment on a website owned by ycombinator, but I am here because sometimes interesting things are shared :)

The end of the EU.

105 data points (patient pairs). Linear regression. Not conclusive.

I know I will be downvoted, but I don't care: why are people using Twitter? To me it's the most vile and disgusting platform: no signal, just noise. On top of that, the people that run it are effectively coming up with arbitrary progressive left-wing policies on restricting free speech: for proof, watch this: https://youtu.be/DZCBRHOg3PQ after seeing I realised Twitter/Facebook/Google/Apple are evil corporations taking away your freedom with you cheering to it. Why are you using Twitter's platform? For business? Do you want to make business from Twitter's users which are mind-numbed angry, twitching zombies? Are there no business opportunities elsewhere? Anyone who is doing any sort of business related to social media is wasting their time: it's a broken system that deserves to be boycotted. To anyone who would call me angry: I am saying this so you open your mind about the pointlessness of social media: I dont use it, and I seem to live a nice life, only time I get angry is when I think about social media, like in this post. Oh well, this is HN after all, born and bred in silicon valley where such blasphemy will not be tolerated. But lets see.

TL; DR; Einstein said sth along the lines of "Don't let your education get in the way of your knowledge." Finish uni with high grades then spend the rest of your life learning.

Would you write code with syntax errors and blame the compiler for not understand how smart you are, or would you just learn the language and write correct code? Your frustration shows lack of understanding and appreciation for mathematics, when in reality maths and computer science are two sides of the same coin. If you can be good at one, you can be good at the other :)

Please, could you suggest an alternative to capitalism? How would you implement it? Are you also likening people in extreme poverty to cows? Is that not extremely vile? I would like to have a discussion with you, but I fear I can't really hear you from your moral high ground: could you please come down to my basic level and try to explain? English is also not my first language, so lets keep the phraseology simple.

This is one of the most self-righteous, narrow minded, inflexible, and delusional things I have read on this platform.

I invite you to walk at 1am, everyday, through the dodgy parts of London with your smartphone in your pocket. Please, report your mugged or stabbed rate in a year.