seankimdesign

In case it wasn't absolutely clear to you, I'm in full agreement with you on how ridiculous the decision to suspend the gifted program is.

Speaking of racism in the U.S., however, nothing you say will change the dozens of firsthand experiences that I endured as a minority immigrant growing up in this land. I say this not from a place of bitterness, but from a place of sadness: I too wish racism wasn't real or as heavily perpetuated as it actually is. Working in SV almost makes me forget the shit I had to endure because it's much less visible from the ivory towers of the west coast. But my friend, racism is very real, and it is very alive. I'm not here to say whites are evil and we are noble - it's simply that being in the place of power gives you many more avenues with which to abuse.

Let me say this one last time: shutting down a gifted class due to its racial make up is the wrong way to go. It's the lazy way to "establish social justice". I say this not because I believe racism isn't real - I say this because this is reverse racism. If what we want to build is a world that is accepting of all individuals regardless of their race, we should accept that racism exists and devise reasonable solutions to combat it. Punishing white kids is not the way to go, nor is denying that racism is alive.

Did you miss that part of the article or have you intentionally excluded the presence of Asian students in your reply because it makes your argument stick better? I don't think it meets the definition of segregation when a subset of multiple groups are given special treatment due to their aptitude on topics that are inherently race-agnostic. Yes, those with money and power can better educate their kids compared to the poor, but so can those without money who simply value education higher (speaking as a 1.5 gen immigrant who grew up extremely poor). Why are we always the first ones to be penalized in the name of racial equality?

Another day, another Asian gets the raw end of the stick.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" they said. "Reach out and grab that American dream" they also said. So many of us listened and found a tiny slice of success in the academia despite being systematically opposed and ridiculed... and now what? We're somehow treated in the same vein as the 'oppressor' who have been enjoying their undue systematic advantage and our success must now be supressed?

We're still heavily underrepresented in Hollywood, most major sports leagues, the government, and practically most forms of leadership - yet we're finding ourselves constantly lumped in there as "whites and asians" when it's convenient for the narrative of racial inequality to construct a heart-wrenching story. Do people not see how backwards it all feels?

Is your ultimate goal to break into the tech industry? If so, I'd spend a bit more time getting some actual working pieces of code on your GitHub. Editing documentation is a noble deed, but as an interviewer it wouldn't do much for me in assessing your skills.

I know it takes a lot of effort as well as luck in landing that first entry-level job so all I can say is to keep knocking, but also be prepared to show something tangible. Anyone can talk all day about their awesome work ethics but it's another thing to be able to prove it by presenting a polished (for a junior) software.

I've been dealing with a similar condition for a while. I've learned that it's impossible for me to "not think". Any attempts at emptying my head will only invite more anxieties and problems to be solved. Instead, I've learned to fill it with trivial, creative challenges that occupy keep my brain busy enough to ward off negative thoughts yet introduce no stakes.

Some examples include:

- If I found myself stranded on an island, what kinds of challenges would I have to overcome and how?

- If I could improve the magic system of Harry Potter, what changes would I introduce?

- If I were given a device that I could use to turn back the time to 6 am once everyday, how could I use it to my best advantage while avoiding any pitfalls?

- If I were given a small 12x12x12 room with an unlimited budget to create a living space for me to be confined in, how would I use that space?

These would be the kinds of things that I could think about for a while before finding myself fast asleep. Not sure if this would work for anyone else, but maybe you can give it a try?

Can you please elaborate on bad actors absuing the appeals process? Is your point about how everyone will automatically appeal, making it difficult for genuine queries to receive the human attention they need? Or is there another vector of abuse you were thinking of?

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. It depends on what you're looking for in your career. I too have made a similar move from UX designer -> Junior engineer a few years back. The paycut hurt at the beginning and it took a lot of self-learning, but looking back I'm very with the decision I made. We spend so much of our lives at work, so what's wrong with aligning it with something you love?

Besides, it's not like software engineering doesn't pay. Even before I landed by current SV big tech job, I had more than made up for the initial paycut I took at a local startup.

Right, and given HN's policy towards preserving the original title when you can, it's especially puzzling as to why the title was edited to introduce this shade of negativity.

I love this story. I can intensely relate as I too have made the pivot from being a UX professional to software engineering a few years back. Sure I hadn't achieved anything close to being the director of design for a known tech firm; My design career was just starting to flourish when I'd made the move. But so much of the sentiment regarding confidence and self-doubt were the exact emotions that I had experienced . It felt as if there was this huge gap in knowledge that I'd never be able to fill. It took a lot of effort from me to overcome that fear of inadequacy and make the jump, so I know it must've not been easy for the author either. It's also funny how the activities she chose to express her desire to code - tinkering with Arduino, participating in Ludum Dare - were the exact stuff I was doing too!

Huge congrats to Kristina, and I hope her engineering career brings her as much joy and fulfillment as it has brought me.

Google has already decided to cancel Stadia

I believe you were going for hyperbole, but it reads more like misinformation instead. Please reconsider saying misleading shit like this, especially on HN.

I found My old gmail account placed under a flagged status one day. It would not allow me to purchase anything on the play store. Turns out, it was because I used an old Google service called Google Checkout(?) or something more than a decade ago to purchase a few hundred dollars worth of clothes overseas. The clothes were purchased from an H&M equivalent, legally operating stores of course, and no payments were deferred or anything - they just simply said something about my account being associated with possible fraud and disabled all Google Wallet features suddenly many years after, citing my purchase history. Wanting to purchase a $2 game on my phone, I inquired about removing the restrictions placed on my account, but the response I received were quite haphazard and they finally stated that they would not accept anything short of physical copies of my IDs before removing any restrictions. No, fuck off.

I guess it's easier to throw out blocks and bans, placing the burden of proof on their customers rather than to have people looking into why completely innocent accounts were getting flagged in the first place. I've made my peace with it and I'm happy not spending a cent on your damn play store for the rest of my life.

I'd argue that if anything, people who have difficulties paying bills and buying groceries have even less capacity to perform daily online searches for COVID deaths.

Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.

Maybe. But even in gaming circles, people often cite "Google may discontinue it" as one of the main reasons for avoiding Stadia, which is a Google gaming service. I believe their reputation goes well beyond the HN tech circle.

Here's a quote from Robert Redfield, the director of CDC.

We are not defenseless against COVID-19. Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus -- particularly when used universally within a community setting. All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

I trust his expertise and judgment. What's the basis for ignoring his advice and not wearing a mask?

I think she still uses it when there's no alternative. I don't know much about it myself, but from what she tells me it's a fine service for when she needs to go to the library on a lazy day, but meeting a friend or having to make a schedule on a certain time? It's practically a coin flip.

Kudos on that moral victory California. You robbed my mobility-impaired younger sister of her legs without providing any alternative. Fuck your sorry excuse of public transit filled with gawkers and requiring her to wonder whether there will be connected sidewalks for her to solve her last-two-mile trip on her chair.

"Oh, but Uber and Lyft were brought down by their own greed" Well, where is the non-greedy alternative in this market, employing legitimate full-benefit workers and serving their community while making earnest profits? If there really exists a market that is sustainable via the terms outlined by the court of California, why the hell isn't anyone competing in this market that famously yields no incumbent benefits?

If, on the other hand, if the math doesn't check out and there isn't a viable market, then what is being accomplished by this ruling? It's both shutting down an extremely useful service while taking jobs away from people who need it most, when they need it most.

This is a terrible decision that is so far removed from reality that it's almost laughable. While I admire the idealistic worldview of those who rule from above, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved by good intentions.

You mean the same taxi-service market that Uber has been notably unprofitable and bleeding investor cash for years in? But smaller and more niche? With more legal hurdles regarding accessibility and mobility requirements? Operating with only non-gig, full-benefit workers?

Yeah, sounds like a market ripe for picking.

I guess that's one theory: Uber, purely by existing, somehow managed to significantly reduce the number of secure employment opportunities available in the US and lured happily employed people onto a life that's inches away from homelessness. In the same vein, if we were to shut down Uber right now and went back to the taxi model we should be able to salvage our economy.

What a tasteless and tortured analogy. I'm sure the slaves hated being freed as much as my brother will be when they tell him that he needs to drive X minimum hours a week to keep his employment status with Uber/Lyft. More realistically, there probably won't be an Uber/Lyft left to drive for if this ruling sticks. God knows they're already bleeding funds as we speak. There's no way they'll stay afloat.

No matter how you want to spin this, it's not going to be a victory for the majority of the drivers. Let us, in our high and mighty chair, obliterate a burgeoning industry filled with people voluntarily making money on their own time. Let the taxi medallions flow back in its stead. Problem solved - slavery is no more.

Let's replace the term "billionaires" with "rational actors" then

That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on. These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as "derailing the conversation".

It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.

Thank God for people like PG who are brave and wise enough to be able to craft such beautiful and timely essays. McCarthyism may be fashionable again, but we'll endure unscathed as long as writings such as these continue to be written.

I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good, and other sensitive topics such as affirmative action damaging the "out of fashion" minorities such as Asian Americans. People are careful not to speak loudly about these opinions due to the fear that they're in the minority and will be branded as the enemy of the modern day "progressives".

Care to elaborate? I get that gun control is indeed an issue worthy of its own debate, but how do you go from discussing police brutality to legally armed civilians being the root of evil?

I do think that software engineering is setting a very good example of knowledge sharing and helping others grow their skillset. However, we definitely aren't alone in this effort. For example, I've been learning woodworking exclusively through dozens of YouTubers who have spent hours upon hours creating videos filled with valuable wisdom and advice for free. I'm certain we can find examples in various other fields as well. Perhaps our efforts are just most visible because we happen to be comprised of a bunch of internet savvy folks.

I think I read something a while back from the point-of-view of a Google recruiter or someone that described their reasoning for this. The reality is that most companies are okay with the possibility of rejecting a good engineer who has all the potential to be a good fit for them. There's really no shortage of candidates who want to work for them, so they are okay with false negatives as long as engineers are still lining up to interview for them. What they aren't okay with, however, is the possibility of accidentally accepting a bad engineer: a problem which is quite costly to remedy.

The current state of algorithm-heavy interview process is really just a hamfisted solution to the problem stated above. They are trying to minimize false-positives while accepting that it increases the rate of false-negatives, and their proxy for implementing this threshold is algorithmic knowledge. It's not fun for anyone involved, but I guess I have to assume it works.

That's more of a failure for the ux and product vision than it is a failure of project management. The trick isn't to just roll out new changes slowly, but to involve the users and figure out what needs to change and how.

No, the lesson is take a hard look at yourself before casting stones at "others". We can sit here and say that people who work at Google are so amoral, so are those at Twitter, at Apple, at Uber, at Microsoft, at Amazon, etc.

The truth is most for-profit organization will not have a flawless ethical image that satisfied everyone, and that probably includes your employer. I'm not saying we should all look the other way, but let's keep things grounded in reality. Censorship is a delicate subject, especially as it concerns expressions involvong multiple cultures. This doesn't make Google immediately evil for electing to / not electing to act one way or another.

Maybe your accusation is that Google is choosing profit over ethics in this case? Then the "Chinese hardware" argument has to come into play. Are you, yourself choosing price and convenience when you know it means your dollars are ending up in those poorly run Chinese factories? What are you going to do about it? Should Googlers quit their jobs before or after you source all your hardware from ethically run, blame-free factories?

No, your conclusion is flawed. If the goal is solely to fix the economic divide, why are we even bothering with race as its proxy? It's a terrible indicator for that purpose, especially when much clearer-cut numeric factors exist such as the students' household income. I don't think your reply addresses much of the original question.