> Save a vibe today and send an IM instead of an email thread.
I would rather the email honestly. IMs usually have the expectation that I'm going to respond to you "soon", which is an interruption/distraction. And they don't contain enough information so I have to start going back and forth with the other person.
At least with email, most people recognize that you will respond in your own timing in the next 24-48 hours. With IM I've found that expectation out the window.
Unless it's a close collaborator (we're working on the same project daily and interacts often, as in decisions are taken together), email is a much better medium for conversation.
Some people absolutely do not expect a 24 hour response and will reply all in 30 minutes if you do not acknowledge it. Some of us work support development work that demands you cut all focus on your problem and start to write an email response and break away from what you were already working on.
That sucks... for me, I tend to check email about twice a day... usually at the start of the day, and towards the end of the day. During the day, slack/teams is the way to go.
Aside: I REALLY hate the direction teams has taken more and more... like separating the various chat channels and activity notifications for calendar invites that are months away.
Wish I had meeting invites months away, all mine are “get in here virtually” despite going into the office to “work together in person” and it not changing a darn thing about how I work lol we call each other to work things out whether remote or in person. Nobody wants to walk over to an office and burn 5 to 15 minutes of small talk.
I actually miss that the most about being in office. My vision is no longer in a good enough position that I feel safe to drive, though given other people driving, I'm not so sure.
I miss the ad-hoc meetings and lunch with co-workers.
Want with one hand, shit in the other. See which fills first -- expectations, heh. IM can and will wait. Especially "hi".
Down with ever-expanding threads. I try not to engage with them at all, preferring a briefing that explains why I'm being involved and the change in priority. If dragged in with a simple "see below"; looks messy, best of luck.
Thanks for being unprepared and showing your interest in staying that way. Helps me keep a safe distance.
I prefer email as well. Good luck to search in IM for old conversations where you decided something.
Also I have a rule to never answer right away. Have at least 15 minutes cool down, asking person may figured out the answer by themselves. Unless it's my direct manager...
Too much domain knowledge for an IDE to catch. I'm self taught as well, and it comes down to spending more time thinking about the code than writing the code.
It's a fairly simple thought experiment to ask yourself what if there was 10x items in this array? 100x? That is essentially what the O(n) notation is trying to quantify. You just don't need to do it that formally.
This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it. And the opposite, doing what Ring is doing and simply streaming it to the police directly, might be easier but I still believe a major privacy concern.
>This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_ have inside of it.
From the article:
>Therriault said he and other officers now frequently seek video from bystander Teslas, and usually get the owners’ consent to download it without having to serve a warrant. Still, he said, tows are sometimes necessary, if police can’t locate a Tesla owner and need the video “to pursue all leads.”
Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. I did not see anything about the expense of retrieving the car. You took the person's car so there is definite expense of getting there. Did you force the person to miss a flight, a meeting, a date? WTF do these people think they are so above and beyond rational thought is ridiculous.
>Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something.
If the police has a search warrant for your home and you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any different.
I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched. Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. You've now made an innocent civilian incur ridiculous fees to get their car out of impound when there was no reason to impound it to begin with.
You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. It's not like this was a long term parking spot. There are just so many options other than tow this innocent car.
No, I'm suggesting that there are other ways to get to the footage than just impounding an innocent person's car. Leaving someone stranded when they've done nothing wrong is absolutely a dick move. It's not like they can leave a note in the space where you left the car. There's also no signage with a phone number of a towing company. You don't find out your car wasn't stolen until you call to report your car stolen.
Again, they could quite easily boot your car and have a patrol unit wait for you to return. Or not boot the car, but still have a patrol unit wait. They have the license plate so they can look up the owner. They could try to contact that owner. There are so many other things to do than tow someone's car and leaving them stranded. The fact we are so willingly okay with the cops stealing your car is very strange to me.
> I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched
Yeah but you no longer have a front door or window when you get there (the person spoke of them breaking in if you're not home), so you have to make other types of arrangements
>I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched
They could however, break your door (if you're not there to let them in), and AFAIK they're not responsible for getting it fixed.
>Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something.
That's irrelevant. The standard for a search warrant is "probable cause" regardless.
>They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts.
...because the ring footage isn't in your house, it's in the cloud. Moreover, if you have an on-premise system and you're on vacation or something, it's plausible that they get a search warrant and break in, especially if they think time is of the essence (eg. your system has limited retention and the footage is going to be wiped).
>You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return.
If you read the article the police claims that it's only used if they can't locate the owner. It's unclear what that exactly means, but it's not like they're towing every tesla near the crime scene.
"If you read the article" is such a lame comment. In other comments in this thread, I've literally quoted the article. How in the world could I have pulled a quote without reading the article.
It's clear you and I have polar opposite sentiments regarding this. So I'll leave it here as you are quite tiresome
>"If you read the article" is such a lame comment. In other comments in this thread, I've literally quoted the article. How in the world could I have pulled a quote without reading the article.
Unlike some commenters I don't check a commenter's entire comment history before making comments. In fact, I don't even keep good track of what everyone said in a particular thread, so forgive me if I didn't do enough due diligence before making a vague implication that you didn't read the article. That said, you need to chill out. If you can't handle a vague implication that you didn't read the article, maybe online forum commenting isn't for you.
Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to compel production of certain evidence. This includes breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how towing teslas should be singled out.
Towing cars at all without a very crucial reason should be illegal in general.
Taking someone’s transportation that they assume they have access to, without their knowledge, and without them being able to find out until the very second they need that transportation is dangerous. Emergencies happen.
If you’re taking someone’s car you better have a damn good reason. And “you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot doesn’t clear that hurdle. That’s what tickets are for. “Really wanting to see the recordings from your car camera” doesn’t clear that hurdle either.
Regarding #2 is that not an OPTION that may or may not get turned on?
Regarding #1 you are correct that DRIVING is a privilege however property ownership is a RIGHT and I'm assuming we aren't talking about a vehicle in motion when we are talking about the police unable to contact an owner.
Imagine trying to go to work and you don’t have your car. Are you going to say “well I guess driving is a privilege and not a right so its fine that the police repossess my vehicle at random times” or are you going to be livid like a normal person?
I think the difference is historically the average person wasn't doing a lot of surveillance where as an office place did.
Many people do not want their cameras in the doors, property, cars, etc being used by the police for cases that do not directly impact them.... they do not want to be involved, same as many "witnesses" will simply say they didn't see or know anything and be uncooperative.
As cameras start becoming more and more built into every day items many people suddenly can find themselves thrust into situations they want nothing to do with, so sure search warrants have existed forever but the chance of it impacting the average non-involved party were pretty slim, that chance is growing and people dislike it.
There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away.
>There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it".
The cops had a warrant. Moreover, search warrants are granted if there's probable cause. Whether someone is a suspect is irrelevant.
>The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers, not towing the car away.
Is it even on tesla's servers? According to the article it's stored on a USB drive in the car.
Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a search warrant was warranted, based upon other investigation. From what the article said, this sounds more like a "fishing expedition".
They did investigate. A guy was stabbed nearby, and the car was suspected to be recording. On a more practical level, the car was recording a public area (ie. the road) anyways, so it's not like that much privacy was lost by granting access to the video.
So they say in the interview. Irregardless, if I own a car and it is legal for the police to take it so they can hold onto it until they have a warrant of I give in? No thanks.
My car isn’t a Tesla, and the dashcam has a “parking mode” that records everything while parked. So, do that, don’t get a Tesla, and never get towed to access the camera.
If the police sees the dashcam and suspects that there's footage on there, they can apply for a search warrant and seize that footage as well. It's unclear why they needed to tow the tesla in the first place. The article says that the footage is on a USB drive, so presumably they could just pull it out and make a copy. If they're towing it because they couldn't locate the owner and want to open the car non-destructively, then your suggestion of not driving a dashcam and using a tesla probably isn't going to save you either.
When I originally looked at it, I assumed that there was going to be some collaboration or other form of discussion tool to help others navigate your spec file and provide feedback. As it is, it doesn't feel like its adding the much value.
We'll update the docs to make our dependency on vacuum / spectral clearer - fair feedback. We do more than this though, we also use LLMs to help us identify other issues and recommend fixes.
RateMyOpenAPI is really designed as a quick litmus test to help people get their OpenAPI doc (and thus their documentation) in a good shape quickly, vs the hassle of setting up of individual rules.
People find it quite helpful to quickly build a todolist of things to do with their OpenAPI doc to get it into a much better state.
That's a pretty broad statement to make, especially with the implication that the only way you can become rich is by basically committing borderline fraud.
If you want to get rich, spend less, save and invest more. Nothing about that is fraudulent, and many would argue you'd have a more fulfilling life in the process.
Marx-dogmatics are stuck in a dumb peasant mentality and think that making a profit is inherently fraudulent, and that everyone else should just break even.
Spending less and investing isn't going to make you rich. It can certainly help, but it's definitely not going to get you rich unless you have a large amount to begin with in saving and investing.
Secondly, any of the "holier-than-thou" wealthy people that primarily just have good jobs seem to overlook the fact that they are enabled by an entire cadre of people stepping on others and committing those grey area border-line frauds. Much like how we overlook the sordid conditions in foreign countries to enjoy cheap (or expensive) products. It's extremely unlikely that there exists a major corporation that isn't exploiting loopholes, maintaining a legal team to skirt regulations, and engaging in practices that are legal but ultimately not beneficial to their customers.
It's not wrong to make a profit, but there's a level that's fair and reasonable and in many cases the profit margin is correlated to the morality of the provider. The willingness to harm others for profit is a necessary component to become rich in all but a very few edge cases.
Price is what you pay, value is what you get. If a contractor has a brand new truck, never hire them. Without fail the best work I have had done was by the businesses with the worst presentation. The shoddiest, felt like a scam, was always by the flashiest companies.
Advertising at its core is a way to create a falsely inflated sense of value to justify a higher price. The primary way to get rich is to prioritize profit over providing a fair value.
Even Doctors are provided with their high salaries only by an artificial limitation of supply and a variety of opaque exploitative practices.
Yeah, that's reasonable. Assuming the game isn't exploitive or loaded with dark patterns and things like that. How often does that happen though?
It's always possible to dig deep enough and find questionable moral things, in this case, it would be about the platform, how customers are reached etc.
But that's far from my point, it's not reasonable to expect someone to avoid all creations derived through profits.
It's that the overwhelming majority, 99.99% of people who become rich are directly engaging in these questionable practices or are very directly supported by those who do.
Even making the video game likely makes you dependant on Microsoft, Apple or Google and the ills of their rise, but I see that as far enough removed that yes the solo developer could be considered reasonably ethical.
But again, how often does it happen?
In the US there are 1.4 million people with a net worth of over 10 million. How many of them were solo developers with a non-exploitive products that didn't sell out to someone who made the product exploitive?
I agree - they are exercising the principle of opportunity cost. While most parents probably would make more than the $700 / month, the value might simply not be worth it.
I remember a study that concluded that in reality, there is a cap on how much additional money improves your day-to-day life. And if a family is already past that on one income, why do you need two?
The exact number doesn't really matter. The point is that the difference between the cost of childcare and what a parent may make as a second earner has a significant opportunity cost that may not make working outside the home a good deal.
Can’t put a price on those years. They're just incredibly precious. I can’t imagine people send their kids off to daycare because they want to. It’s just such a loss you can’t ever get back.
My two year old is awesome and says/does new funny things every single day. She's been a hoot since maybe 1-1.5. I'm super lucky to get to spend all day with her right now while on leave for my 1 month old. Being able to pop out of my room and see her during the day is also one of the best perks of remote work. She's only recently started to notice/take interest in other kids, and the other day we went to the park and the playground was empty, and she goes "Where's my friends? FRIENDS!!!!! My friends are hiding." She's also decided our cats' names are mama meowy and dada meowy (they're both male).
Yeah, kids start to become significantly more fun once they can talk. Watching a child's personality emerge is probably one of the most rewarding parts of having kids.
Seattle is 2200-2500 for young kids. That’s post tax money so add 30%+ to account for that. 70k a year is what you would pay at a private equity run child care facility
Being pro-Small Business doesn’t meant you have to be pro-Advertising. Facebook makes a killing taking money from small businesses through advertising, yet it is consistently one of the lowest ROI marketing techniques, not to mention generally creates the worst UX.
Can you build a successful business on advertising? Yes. But I’d argue that you don’t need to. Almost every service I pay for came to me by word of mouth. That takes time and effort to cultivate, but it isn’t affected by a software update. Or me wanting to not share my personal data.
> Facebook makes a killing taking money from small businesses through advertising
It also takes a lot of money from governments and political campaigns. The micro-level targeting allows highly specific messages to be shown to people matching a specific segment and contradictory messages to be shown to another segment. It's disingenuous of Facebook to claim this is just about small business when it's arguably about undermining the foundations of democracy.
Word of mouth doesn't work for super niche services/products where e.g. there's a good chance no one who's recommendations you trust would be interested in the same type of service/product
It also favours more established businesses that are more known, making it harder for new businesses to gain any traction.
I'm not keen on advertising (I use adblockers on all my devices etc.), but there are definitely some (in my opinion) some compelling arguments on both sides.
> Word of mouth doesn't work for super niche services/products
Nonsense.
See, there are (were?) lots of niche specific publications and communities. They'd actually know about a subject, and provide informed and largely unbiased advice, and carry advertisement, of course. Similarly, there were regional newspapers, carrying information and advertisement of regional interest.
TV and other broad media could not steal their advertisement dollars, because that was the only way to reach the niche or region.
What Facebook is doing is to usurp all of that and monopolise advertisement, driving smaller niche and regional publishers out of business. Their hypocrisy is astounding.
> there's a good chance no one who's recommendations you trust would be interested in the same type of service/product
I think the trust problem has gotten much worse. As I said, there used to be niche publishers supporting communities (by interest or region) that were interested in keeping these sustainable long term, and therefore would not be interested in scamming their audience. Now, these publishers have been bled dry, and you have to find your information on the world wild web, where any scammer and fly-by-night producer can target you and link farm and buy fake reviews etc.
OK, but pretending that the world hasn't moved on from these niche publishers seems naive to me.
Perhaps I should have said "in the modern world, word of mouth doesn't work..."
Today, chances are those niche publications & communities are going to be online. And how do we determine the trustworthy ones from the ones that are just trying to exploit us? I guess we need to rely on word of mouth to determine which mouths we should listen to words from...
When you're talking about niche interests IME facebook just plain isn't good enough. You have to go to old-school forums, and from there word-of-mouth of the regulars of these forums.
Depending on the niche, you don’t even need to go forums. a simple YouTube search gets you reviews and opinions from niche professionals along with a comment section and a like/dislike count.
Right, but how do I find that tight-knit community (and begin to trust the people in it) if none of the people I currently associate with are interested in that niche & can introduce me to it?
Well of course, these types of communities aren't going to be paying for advertising because the communities themselves are generally going to be non-profit.
My point was if these communities are hard to find, targeted ads from small businesses in that niche might inform you of relevant products or services, not relevant communities.
Definitely not saying it's a perfect solution, or one that I like, just trying to point out it's not as black & white as people like to make out (especially on sites like HN)
They tend to cluster around a couple of websites or Facebook groups, so I would say Google. Reddit works as well, there are a lot of subreddits on any subject one would care to mention.
Sure, but how do I know if I can trust a random community I found via Google or on Reddit?
At least with ads (on a platform like Facebook), it's obvious they're ads and what their incentive is. With a random community, it may be unclear if people within it/the community itself is being paid by some company etc. Or if they have some other incentive to misrepresent the quality of certain products/services (e.g. recommending only what they can get affiliate links for).
Yes, you don't know whether you can trust a forum that's been up since 2004 whose only reason to exist is to discuss $topic. The rockbox forum for example, how would you know those guys _actually_ like cfw for mp3 players and don't just want to scam your crypto away?
Ads on the other hand you can trust to lie to you 100% of the time. Ads are never honest, their only intention is to fool you to buy something you don't need.
I legitimately don't understand how _anyone_ would think he gains any value from reading dishonest corporate propaganda, less how he would think "hey, thats nice! I'll buy that!"
Ah of course, all niche communities have existed for 16 years...
Your example of rockbox forum seems disingenuous because I assume they're not recommending you buy particular products (maybe recommending some particular mp3 players that the cfw works well on, but I think they try to target a wide range of players).
> Ads on the other hand you can trust to lie to you 100% of the time.
Exactly my point. You know exactly what you're getting and what their incentive is.
Well actually, maybe not exactly my point - it's pretty clear to me that ads do not "lie to you 100% of the time". Some ads are going to exaggerate the quality of their products etc., but some ads literally just inform you "this is a thing that is available", which is typically an easily provable claim.
But the point is that yes, with ads you know that it's being paid for by the people who have a direct financial interest in you buying the thing. You can make an informed decision.
I know how to evaluate the quality of the discussions and contributions from my experience.
Also, we can discuss the quality of Internet communities, but I would tend to trust one of these quite a bit more than an advert, even targeted, which was where we were coming from.
As real life examples, I have got advice on stuff to buy from photography websites, modelling (railway and wargames) Facebook groups and blogs without any trouble, and I know where to find it when I need it. I know when to take a photography buff raving about a camera with a grain of salt ("but it has a better score with DXOMARK"), I have about zero confidence in adverts on the web.
Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible.
People quote literature they haven't read all over the place[1]. Implying its unique to the Bible means you probably haven't done your research either.
The difference being that for the Christian (a presumption when you see someone quote scripture) the Bible supposedly defines their worldview, as opposed to various pieces of literature.
Usually the Bible is taught via stories, especially the Gospel stories, rather than individual verses and the verses are quoted to make points.
While there are, e.g., yearly Bible plans to read everything, not many people these days have the patience to read all the numbers in Numbers and there's an incredibly limited theological value in knowing how many there were of the tribe of Napthali or what have you unless you're trying to pass a Bible quiz.
I mean, why would a modern day Christian want to memorize all the rules on kosher food when Paul explained at length why they're irrelevant to us now? Or the rules on making a potion out of the dust of the Temple floor of a temple that's no longer standing? Or the rules about wearing clothing with multiple materials?
Yes, there are yet some principles that might be extracted of some of these--take for example, not muzzling the ox while it's treading the grain as an exhortation to take care of your animals and anyone who serves you. Or the prohibition on harvesting the last bits of crop at the edges of your fields, which were then reserved for the poor, to always reserve something for the poor among you.
But these things tend to be explained elsewhere and it ends up as trivia that doesn't matter much unless someone is insistent that a Real Christian [TM] must know whether the witch of Endor is from Samuel, Sirach or Star Wars... which in turn depends on whether she's named Charal or not.
I would rather the email honestly. IMs usually have the expectation that I'm going to respond to you "soon", which is an interruption/distraction. And they don't contain enough information so I have to start going back and forth with the other person.
At least with email, most people recognize that you will respond in your own timing in the next 24-48 hours. With IM I've found that expectation out the window.
Save the distraction. Send an email.