> but I do know as a user that they appear to be a confusing mess.
I'm a very tech savvy person, and understanding the ins and outs of passkeys has been a time investment, and that's the problem. Technical and security merits notwithstanding, they're a confusing mess. I understand how they work, but what I don't really understand, is how to recover when they don't work.
Selfishly, I end up being tech support for my extended family, and I don't have the stamina to try to explain to them how this works.
I've been involved in successful and unsuccessful platform builds. In the successful ones, I either had absolute authority or I built for the desire paths, even if they weren't the "perfect" ones that I desired. I anchored on the non-negotiables, which I kept to a minimum, and then optimized to get people on board, even if that meant deviating from my perfect vision.
One way to keep myself honest in being on the desire path was to go from win to win (win = someone using platform and being a satisifed "customer") iteratively as part of the full build. It also helps avoid platform fatigue, and ensures that should some priorities change, we've gotten some value out of the effort.
I'm the same. As a student, I could vividly picture the page of the book containing the details of whatever problem I was working on. I have close to zero artistic and design ability, but am very strong in engineering and spatial reasoning.
I've wondered about this: if you can hold an image clearly in your mind - e.g. the Eifel tower - wouldn't you be able to reproduce it well on paper? I know that's not artistic ability in the creative sense, but still..
People often can't reproduce what is right in front of their open eyes well.
Conversely, I have aphantasia but can draw reasonably well from memory (at one point well above average, but I'm about 30 years out of practice).
There are people who can "trace" what they imagine, but it doesn't appear that being skilled at drawing is that closely linked to ability to visualise.
An interesting thing, though, is that if I draw from memory my lines are more precise, while if I draw from something I can see, I will sketch out and refine. I think the two are quite different skill sets - drawing what you see often requires paying attention to spatial relationships and transferring those to the drawing to get proportions right etc.
We're building out our NYC-based API platform team as our API-based business rapidly grows. We're a European -based company, so you'll enjoy the best of both worlds with competitive compensation, 30 days of PTO from day one (your manager, me, will make sure you use them all) "work from anywhere" days, addtional compensation for on-call shifts (including additional time-off if you actually have to do something after hours)
FWIW, I worked on map rendering in a past life at another large tech company. General policy was to show "official" names and borders based on the user's country. It wasn't quite that clean, but IIRC there were a surprising number of disputed borders and place names in the world.
Means nothing. Google changed before government data was updated. It was deliberate support of the change. Google is buying what they want by playing ball. It's time to break them up.
I don't know how to tell you this, but... pretty much the only reason why Apple/Google/Microsoft have escaped breakups comes down to their obedience to the feds.
Most countries with a modern bureaucracy actually do maintain an official database of geographic feature names of some sort to ensure consistency in government documents. But their naming is not binding to anyone else, of course.
What was the point you were trying to make by linking the executive order? The actual law simply states that the "Secretary of the Interior shall provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography throughout the Federal Government".
Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if there is a case to be made that by renaming Lake Ontario to something that nobody actually uses, the President has violated the law that requires "uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography". Not that anyone would have standing to actually get anywhere with that.
I grew up in a house with little to no sugar and never really developed a "craving" for sugar. I'll absolutely eat it if it's there, but really only consume it if it's zero effort, and generally in small amounts since many sweet things taste overly sweet to me.
There is a genetic component to disinterest in sweet food. It quite evidently runs in some families. These are people who never eat any sugary food or often even fruit regardless of availability because they actively dislike things that taste sweet. It isn't a matter of environment or self-control. To them, a donut is about as enticing as a bowl of plain oatmeal.
Anecdotally, people that don't eat any sweet food always seem to gravitate toward salty/bitter flavors instead.
...and Coinbase directs you to send a physical letter when their voice chatbot fails. Seriously. I had a login issue preventing me from accessing tax forms and the phone tree eventually got to the point where a sane provider would hand you over to human chat.
When the Coinbase voice agent gave me an address to mail a letter to and hung up, I was so shocked I had to call back and go through the process again. I was told to mail a letter describing my issue to an address on 5th Avenue in NYC.
> Buying a house can be an investment, but it's also buying a place to live.
I'm a strong proponent of both owning and renting, and each has tradeoffs vs. the other. I've moved between renting and home ownership a couple times, and I appreciate the customizability of ownership along with the very real financial advantages.
On the other side, I've also enjoyed "freedom" of renting, where I didn't have to spend any additional time, energy, or money on maintenance tasks. In my HCOL part of the country, I could also afford the rent to live "downtown" when owning anything remotely similar was out of the question.
Your "also a place to live" line is fantastically underrated. When the housing market was flat or declining, I'd always get annoyed when people said something like "I've owned this house for 5 years, but now it's worth $20k less than when I bought it!". That also means if they sold it right now at that $20k "loss" then they effectively paid $333/month plus upkeep to live somewhere for 5 years!
> That also means if they sold it right now at that $20k "loss" then they effectively paid $333/month plus upkeep to live somewhere for 5 years!
This also ignores the costs in buying/selling, including agent fees, lawyers, etc. You should probably only buy if you plan on living in a single place for at least a decade.
That isn't true. States levy taxes and buyers brokers are a thing in some states, and in some cases they're less fully paid by seller (less than the customary 2.5-3, leaving buyer to provide 1 or 1.5).
Closing costs include mortgage costs, too.
I've only ever heard of that stuff paid by seller if seller was a sponsor, and the market was a down market. Think new build in 2020 or in a depressed housing market today.
Except from compulsive shoppers like me that can't walk into a Staples without buying $100 worth of stuff.
reply