HN user

spa3thyb

97 karma
Posts3
Comments30
View on HN

It's the article's title, for sure, but it feels misleading to call a reduction in incentives from a successful program (rooftop solar generating 11% of California's power is amazing) a strike against the goals of that program.

LEDs/CCFLs being subsidized until consumers switched over to them (I know the story is more complex than this) made sense too.

This might be a naïve idea and you didn't ask for any advice, but have you considered doing free/reduced cost work for children or the impoverished? I'm sure you'd face a similar range of responses, but that last line - "no good deed" - made me wonder if using your considerable skills for a bit of charity work might help with the burnout.

Side note: I've had to prepay for appliances and night guards in the past when the cost exceeded some threshold - the latter wound up being supremely disappointing considering it was ~$600 and broke within a fortnight, but I didn't bother complaining to the dentist since the staff would just have to argue with the fab.

Almost like cropping tables from a study isn't a sharp way to present data...

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8467199/

Simonin et al. [72] assessed caffeine consumption in 80 patients with HD and it turned out that among people who consumed a caffeine dose greater than 190 mg per day, the risk of earlier HD was higher. [As parent referenced]

Tanner et al. [79], based on their study results, concluded that only caffeinated soda, but not other caffeinated beverages, was associated with Huntington’s disease risk, nor was a combined caffeine dose associated, but this finding may be spurious, or not related to caffeine.

Of course it's luck based - it's mastermind with a preset number of mnemonic arrangements. I struggle with it too, but the problem with systems thinking is that you don't get to enjoy the magic which drives the fad.

Just a suggestion - I tried to look this up in HN search (there is an unrelated YC company, Bonsai, that I thought this was connected to) and didn't get a hit as the title doesn't include the name of the project - so please consider including it next time. I love the direction you're going here!

There is a month and day, Feb 15, in the header, but no year. I can't figure out if that's ironic or apropos, since this story reads like a thriller from perhaps ten years ago, but the post date appears to have been 2020-02-15 - yikes.

I would hope a philosopher would choose his words more carefully. However, 'crazy' is only used in the article one time, as a modifier to the word 'partisanship'. Partisanship is exactly what Washington warned us about more than two hundred years ago:

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

President Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

The author of this article goes on to admit that compulsory voting isn't a solution to partisanship, but rather provides sufficient political ballast to stop the center from shifting away from the otherwise apathetic.

I would love to see a fresh analysis of term limits.

Support and community management are less scalable in the sense that the relationship between user interactions and time needed from staff is fairly linear. Each one is therefore less valuable, but collectively (no pun intended) essential when there are other, hungrier alternatives.

At it's current stage of maturity, the Kickstarter platform needs maintainers (SREs, Security, etc.) and staff to interact with creators and backers. I don't know to what degree new features or efficiencies will help Kickstarter become more profitable on 5% than it has been since 2010 - the product is essentially the same.

I'm with you on the theory, up until your last statements - the vote to unionize was 46 to 37; 55% in favor with no breakdown in the roles means we can't be sure the dissenting voice wasn't the development staff.

It could be the support and community management roles (or any other 'soft skill' role which is less scalable and no less valuable but perceived as more easily replaced) carried the vote.