sergeyfilippov

Nowness is my Netflix, glad to see its content on the HN

you can see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCeYTysLyGI

"Difficult conversations" [1] would be the best direction, to my knowledge. It is written by creators of Harvard Negotiation Project that deals with conflict resolution.

Audiobook version [2] is narrated by authors, and it's great.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Difficult-Conversations-Discuss-What-...

[2] https://www.audible.com/pd/Difficult-Conversations-Audiobook...

Just repl it. Seriously, there is a command line.

The Dream Machine by Mitchell Waldrop [1] is an exceptional book documenting the early times in computing. Being a scientific journalist (Science and Nature magazines), he provides an unbiased account—which is not an easy job, to distill from first-person recollections—from Alan Turing up to the Mac.

And you will read it like you don't know how it's gonna end. Because that's how things happened.

(Really appreciate Patrick Collison and Stripe Press for re-publishing it)

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Machine-M-Mitchell-Waldrop/dp/1...

thanks for Disney's Imagineering-in-a-Box!

How would you compare this book to the first part of "Deep Learning" book (by Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville)? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262035618

...and even more amazing one by Ari Versluis (also Dutch): http://www.exactitudes.com

loosely related, but here is an amazing project by Dutch photographer Hans Eijkelboom (20 years in the making) that explores the topic of 'homogeneity': https://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/20-years-of-photos-sh...

(the book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0714867152)

Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

I like how in this context it sounds obviously flawed, and yet, funny enough, we still have no better political system than for everyone to express their opinion and then count them — no expertise required

How to measure the clickbait coefficient of the headline:

A: imagine the situation the headline literally describes ( Bitcoin mining heats homes for free in Siberia)

B: read what the article describes (A cottage that’s heated for free with bitcoin mining)

clickbait_coefficient = the distance between A and B

Just keep a boilerplate handy

I've helped a friend to publish a one-page website over the weekend, and I believe it follows most of this checklist

"Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius

https://www.amazon.com/Emperor-Rome-Marcus-Aurelius-Meditati...

"We may now be living in a “golden age” where, in spite of the world-wide feeling of malaise, the quality of life is, on the average, higher than ever before in history and higher now than the future offers."

Well, all offices in SF "Are Surrounded by Homeless People"