I've never heard of candlepin bowling before this, but now that I'm reading about it, I'm surprised it's not more popular. It looks like a lot of fun. The fact that fallen pins are not cleared seems like it would lead to some interesting strategies.
An honest question: why is this being downvoted? I thought that downvoting is meant to be used when someone is trolling or bringing the level of discussion down, not when you simply disagree with someone's point. I mean sure, it's stated a bit sarcastically, but my gosh if we're going to downvote every sarcastic comment, that would include a good portion of HN comments.
My read is that the parent is immature and needs to be reminded that "starting at the top" means the people in charge. What does it add to the discussion?
I probably failed to account for the differing backgrounds of HN commenters & the resulting overly-literal interpretation of sarcasm, to be fair to the downvoters. Of course the owners & managers should take responsibility for poor corporate performance.
Thanks for being so thoughtful about this. I think you made the right decision, although I can see how others might feel otherwise since the guideline is so subjective.
This sounds like a good technique that can be fully automated. I wonder why this isn't the default behavior or at least something you could easily request.
Ceaseless, decades-long propaganda that US is being taken advantage of and that America should come first certainly played a part in inflating that number in minds of a lot of people. When it comes to stuff like this I think that most people just go off the vibes and don't really have any reasonable idea how the budget is divided up.
Russia’s foreign aid is also primarily development assistance, though much less than the US, UK, EU, and China.
Moreover, the US’s larger defence budget also reflects its self-assumed role as the global stability guarantor of the post-war order it built for its own benefit. It’s that order that made the dollar the world’s reserve currency, requiring most of the world to invest in American financial instruments, and which gave it and its companies an outsized advantage for decades.
That was not an international order built for benevolence or which harmed the US. Americans are going to deeply regret how their place in the world and personal wealth shrinks after this administration is done.
I can't parse what you mean by "China and Russia whose GDPs are far larger". Larger than what? China's GDP is about 3/4 that of the USA and Russia is about 1/10th.
I wonder if the surge in productivity would hold up if you also take into account the productivity of delivery people, who are with the move to delivery apps as much a part of the kitchen-to-table pipeline as the people working in the kitchens. I don't have any data on what they typically make, but my very anecdotal evidence suggests it's usually not much, especially when you take into account the gas, wear and tear on the car, etc.
As a group they may actually lose money, though they might not realize it. The big thing that nobody factors in is insurance - personal auto insurance policies generally don't cover business use, and if your insurance company finds out you were driving for DoorDash when you rear-ended someone, they won't pay out.
You can get a commercial rider for your policy, but then you won't make any money.
A buddy of mine was trying to make one of those companies his full time job, and it just didn't work out. There are too many hidden costs.
Agreed. I feel like the right test would be: "OK, you can use AI to easily generate these pac-man prototypes in an hour or two. But once you get past the 'wow I was able to get all this with so little work', you still have a basically unplayable prototype. Nobody would seriously want to play these or pay for them. How about you make a full-blown pac-man clone with all the nuances of the original? How long does that take? Do you even start converging to the solution at some point or do you keep playing whack-a-mole with bugs and issues?"
This is a tough question since what's best for the team and what's personally best for the manager's career may be in conflict, at least when it comes to the long-term. A manager who doesn't do any coding will over time get rusty and get further and further away from the current best practices, latest library/framework hotness etc. This can lead to awkward conversations of the type where the manager suggests "let's do/use X" where X was the best practice 5+ years ago and then it has to be diplomatically explained to him/her that's no longer the best practice. It can also be dispiriting to the manager if they got into software development because they enjoy coding, but now they have to deal with planning, people management etc., which they might be good at, but it may not bring them the same level of job satisfaction.
> This can lead to awkward conversations of the type where the manager suggests "let's do/use X" where X was the best practice 5+ years ago and then it has to be diplomatically explained to him/her that's no longer the best practice
I wish managers would understand that it's not their job to do that any more - I've had a few technical managers in my time and the best one was totally hands off, except when he recognised a scenario that had caused him grief in the past (e.g. boolean fields in a database or anything completely over-engineered). The other ones have just rapidly descended into "I'm the manager therefore my opinion is final" (including one who had never worked with Java, PHP, MySQL, serverless or AWS but didn't let it stop him from having strongly held technical opinions).
