I'd say the CEO acts as the primary role model and the employees/company often reflect the attitude of the CEO. Think of the workplace stereotypes of amazon - customer focused, google - side projects, spacex - mission, uber/oracle - aholes, apple - design, microsoft - developers , facebook - hackers, etc.. the CEO sets the tone and if you agree with it you'd probably like working there :)
While I don't agree with everything in this article, I have come to the realization recently that our society has has a real lack of compassion almost ingrained in it.
I can only really speak for America, but the pervasive feeling I get is almost 'every man for himself' or 'I've got mine jack'
Any sort of hand out is looked down on, getting anything for free is wrong. These are ideas that are just ingrained in our society it seems for better or worse
We spend a pitiful amount of money on basically every social service and it's easy to get a feeling for how low we value them.
I'm sure everyone feels the health care system does not really care about helping people. Insurance is tough to come by, people go broke paying medical bills. Health care workers are poorly paid. Even R&D investing is super risky and almost guaranteed not to pay off unless your investing in some new hair loss treatment or erection pill.
Education, also a place we entrust to teach our young to be the best is invested in the least. Being a teacher is not a successful or prestigious position. The support you get from the administration and parents is almost non-existent. Burn out rates are high. We value public education so low, we just don't care that anyone is educated except ourselves and our own children.
We see taxes as wasteful. No one really sees them as helping the common good. Or the more we pay the more we help our own society. We just see the potential waste, or if a single dollar is not spent the right way then all taxes are wrong.
This almost black and white thinking of right and wrong is the same attitude we instill on our law enforcement and judicial system. The compassion there is almost non-existent. Prison is not about rehabilitation it is about punishment. We don't care about criminals and they deserve to basically live in hell for their crimes.
Ok.. one more point. I've just had this feeling for a while and want to write it all down... Homelessness... In LA there are tent cities in downtown. It just follows the same line of reasoning as my previous points - as a society we just don't care about the 'collective' everyone else as long as we are good. Doing anything to help or comfort another human being that is not our direct friend or relative is not in our best interest.
The lack of compassion we have turned into a virtue - it makes us stronger, tougher, more resistant, but does it? At least that is the line of thinking. I am so ingrained in this society that when I see any sort of hand out I automatically think that is bad, that people should work for what they have, and anything else for any other reason is just wrong...
It is such an asshole attitude that we are basically a country of assholes. Some more that others of course. And it has now personified itself to the point where we 'a group of assholes' have elected an asshole as president. What is wrong with us?
It's the natural result of the glorification of greed and selfishness. I recommend checking out Chomsky's "Requiem for an American Dream" documentary, it expands on some of the ideas you've touched on here.
I feel like you're looking through a lens that filters out all but one color. You only see that which confirms what you already believe. At the end, you generalize what you see to the entire nation. There is so much evidence contrary to your blanket assertions that, while your comment has grains of truth, it makes no sense overall. You sound like you've been consumed by one point of view.
It's everything a scroll bar does and more. Yea you can kind of get to know the structure of your code which is nice and sometimes when I open up a file and the mini-map is dense I already know I'm getting into a big file.
One of the most useful features for me (not sure if VS Code has this), but when I double-click/select a word, all other words with the same name are highlighted in the minimap. It's crazy useful for me, like a double-click/search/find all instances, it helps me jump around code very quickly.
Playing around with the minimap now, and disappointingly it doesn't seem to render the text selection (at least not at my dpi). Was looking forward to that as well.
If you haven't tried vscode however, it's always had selection markers inside the real scrollbar.
Hi eduren, I'm on the VS Code team. The minimap this release is just a preview focused on getting the performance aspects of it right. You can read about what's to come at the bottom of the minimap section https://code.visualstudio.com/updates/v1_10#_preview-minimap
Tyriar, thanks SO much for minimap! I use multiple editors. I mark up some of my files with designs that can be seen from a "high altitude" minimap view, and I've had to use a different editor for those files until now. With minimap, I can also edit those files with VSCode and eliminate one other editor.
I hope you'll add a variety of preferences for it, so users can decide for themselves how much "weight" they want to bear and for which features. I'd like to be able to toggle it on/off, have it show highlights, keep the viewport highlighted even when the mouse is not in the minimap, and adjust the width (sometimes I have more room, sometimes I have a VERY long file, etc.).
SEPARATE ISSUE: I wish the "Panel" (output, terminal, etc.) could be positioned side-by-side with the code instead of being fixed on the bottom, where it covers up half of your code while leaving the right side of the screen empty.
I don't get the 'maintaining type definitions is hard' argument. It's super easy to do, especially when coupled with typewriter which will automatically generate types for your server side DTOs. Also having typings saves you an incredible amount of time with fast refactoring, auto-complete, and of course the type checking which saves countless hours of debugging the dumbest mistakes.
When you start talking about getting into code bases that you didn't personally write. The time savings and productivity benefits that TypeScript brings are immense.
Woo :) whenever I have to work with an old javascript code base now I always add typings to it first. It makes it orders or magnitude easier to work with and refactor after that.
They take him seriously because his next move is to often start a company like CyborgX. In which he'll hire the best people in whatever technical field is relevant and have them figure out the details. Space, solar, cars, tunnels, etc..
Same here. They pushed me from voice to hangouts for all the group SMS and MMS support. So now I have some chat history in voice and some in hangouts which is impossible to search through unlike with voice. Now they want me to go back to voice.
What the hell is going on at Google? Is there anyone with an actual strategy for anything? I thought about getting Google Fi, but right on their page they said if you move from Voice to Fi you can't go back.
I would easily pay $5 a month or more for a company that could give me a single number and not be terrible. I think if Google actually charged for a lot of their free stuff it wouldn't be so shit/never updated/abandoned/etc.. - like an Amazon Prime type thing.
There are tons of companies in this space; have you considered actually doing the "pay for the service" plan and evaluate these options? What did they not do that you wanted?
I search for a replacement every year. I have never found a near competitor. Vonage used to have a desktop app that was at least in the ballpark, but they dropped support years ago.
Could you please list some? I've looked, and I did not find tons, and I was actually less convinced of the quality of what I found than of Voice! It's gotten to where I considered rolling something with Twilio et al.
I wonder if people actually think he's going to do what he said. The guy has a history of talking bullshit to get what he wants. He just said all the right things and made a bunch of promises to become president. He doesn't care about following through. Why would he? His promises were a means to an end. Trump has a history of fucking people over and now it's our turn.
On the other hand, the guy is obsessed with winning. He pulled off the craziest victory in a presidential election that anybody can remember. Now that he's there, I can totally imagine that he's thinking "not good enough, now let's be the best f-ing president! I'll show them!".
He got the keys, might as well try to do some of the things he promised and win again.
We need permanent daylight savings time. Yesterday sunset was around 6pm in LA. Today it will be at 5pm. At least I had a little bit of daylight after work, now it's just depressing.
Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8. By mid-December, sunrise wouldn't be until almost 8:30. In Seattle, it would be dark outside until 9am.
Losing an hour of sleep in the spring is rough, but I'd rather do that (and get an extra hour in the fall) than have to get ready in the dark all winter.
And yet even with DST, kids in Alaska manage to get to school despite the sun coming up at 10am. This whole "for the kids@ argument is the worst one.
Most workers today would prefer going to work in the dark and having daylight after work. Even farmers will tell you DST doesn't make a diffence to them anymore (or ever). The animals get up with the sun regardless of what the clock says.
I agree with OP -- in today's modern world we should just stick with DST all year.
You didn't actually make many claims to counter the "for the kids" argument. The fact that kids in Alaska do that is unsurprising, but how does it affect them? I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Alaska is not one of the most appealing places to live for most people, and all else being equal, I suspect kids and parents would rather the sun come up before school.
At the latitudes of Alaska, the length of the day shrinks very rapidly around the time of the daylight savings switch. A bit more than a week after the switch, sunrise has moved back one hour, thereby eliminating any further effect of daylight savings. Making a single one-hour shift makes absolutely no sense at all.
At the latitudes of California, the length of the day doesn't shrink as fast, and the effects of the daylight savings switch last over a month. There's a little bit of sense in having it here, but not a lot.
Europe lies much farther north than the US, and the Scandinavian countries are on roughly the same latitudes as Alaska. In the winter it is dark when you go to school/work, and it is dark when you come home from school/work. Seasonal mood disorders are a thing, but daylight savings time doesn't help one bit, there's simply not enough sunlight in the day, and shifting it back and forth doesn't do squat.
>there's simply not enough sunlight in the day, and shifting it back and forth doesn't do squat.
If you could move the daylight hours without breaking everyone's schedules, I would bet that filling 4pm through 8pm with sunlight would be very effective.
I would bet that's highly individual, some people would love the sunlight in the morning to help them wake up, others would like it on their lunch break, and some, like you, would like it in the evening. Tough cookie. :-)
I'm not really talking about when I want sunlight. I'm talking about the ability for sunlight to affect you. In the morning? That's half an hour through a window. At lunch? Slightly longer, still not much. In the evening? You can go outside and really soak in the sun. Evening is the only part of day where people are consistently both awake and able to go somewhere sunny for an extended period.
Alternatively we could shut everything down for a while starting midmorning.
Or keep going as we do now, with the sun not being a priority.
A small subset of society (school-children) needing to adjust is much less of a hassle than everyone adjusting though. I'd be curious to see how many subsets of society would prefer changing their clocks, vs keeping them the same.
It's not just schoolchildren. People on HN have a skewed perspective here because we generally don't get in trouble if we're not at work by 9:00 (or earlier). Those who do are more likely to appreciate the extra hour of winter morning sun.
And my point is that since elected representatives across the country and around the world have reviewed DST a number of times over the years and have usually chosen to keep it, the simplest explanation is that it reflects the will of the majority in those locales.
It's possible that it doesn't, but like I said, Occam's Razor makes the simplest explanation the default until evidence to the contrary is presented.
> Most workers today would prefer going to work in the dark and having daylight after work.
Daylight in the morning suppresses the action of the pineal gland. This helps you wake up. Getting up in the dark may sound like fun but it's fighting against your own body.
I'm more and more convinced that most humans just aren't wired to wake up at the crack of dawn. The tech industry owes a lot of its hyper productivity to the fact that they have flexible hours for their engineers which tend to skew later into the day and night.
I drop my kid off at daycare at the morning - 7:45 is the earliest they accept them. I don't have to be at work until 10, really.
I've been doing a lot of thinking during my walks there, and I've concluded that school starts at 8am so that parents can drop their children off before then, and still make it to work on time. That's it.
This is an incorrect conclusion. The occurrence of both parents working has been around for less than 30 years. Before that, the mom used to stay at home, so she would take care of getting the kids ready for school, etc. And yet, school started around the same time then as well.
> school started around the same time then as well.
Do you have a reference for this? One story says schools started bumping their start times earlier in the day in the 1950's, so they could make multiple bus runs (high school first so they start earlier, then elementary).
If that's true, the ultimate culprits would presumably be the social engineers who forced kids to bus to distant schools when they previously had been able to walk.
No. School start could be shifted to 9 AM or 10 AM. The clock should show 12 at noon. The clock is not the problem. The problem is that people are required to start their day at a too early time. Fix: increment the time requirements.
> Why is starting work early in the day a problem?
It's only a problem if it requires you to get up while it's still dark. Otherwise, I agree with you - go to bed at a decent hour so you can get 8 hours of sleep before sunrise.
People have a natural circadian rhythm. It also matters when you sleep, it's not like you can simply shift your sleep by X hours without consequences.
And experts say that school age children and adolescents usually have a circadian rhythm for staying up till a bit later and getting up later. Our culture interprets this as laziness, because agricultural work had to start early so it could be finished before dusk, but neither the earlier hunter-gatherers, nor most of today's jobs fit that requirement.
This phenomenon is also called "social jetlag", when people are forced out of their normal rhythm and only stop being a zombie around 10-11 AM.
There's really no reason to do this, other than the kinda sadistic reasoning that "we also had to get up early and we survived, you kids also have to learn that life is hard sometimes, that will learn you discipline and build your character".
It's no coincidence that many young people like party late at night (or use the computer) when most older folks already want to sleep. There are some evolutionary hypotheses for the reason why young people have an "owl-type" rhythm: perhaps hunting and guarding their home in the dark was their usual nighttime activity.
But being at work/school by 8am is part of the disease. Do you think a 7:40 am sunrise is really too late for a 9am arrival? As long as it's not super dark by the time you're in transit, it seems fine to me (and yes, I realize that sunrise in December would creep up to 8:20).
>That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8
In what way? People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness. But if you really really can't, there's no reason why in winter, school couldn't start an hour later. Probably a good idea regardless.
> People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness.
I never claimed otherwise. To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year.
But to clarify my position, it's that when asked to choose between two hardships:
* Gain an hour of sleep every fall, lose an hour of sleep every spring
* Have an extra hour of morning darkness all winter long
Do you mean in California or somewhere else? If California, how do you explain the fact that Sacramento has considered this many times, most recently two months ago, and always decides to keep things the way they are?
There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
California's representatives haven't represented the will of their constituents in decades... Just look at how many ballot initiatives pass in spite of opposition from Sacramento or vice-versa.
I'm pretty sure if put to a vote we'd stop changing times twice a year.
> There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that.
First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule.
There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST.
Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST.
I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't.
That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best.
The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
> The question is what people would vote for in a popular election
I totally agree.
> with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic
You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion.
> you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion
Not at all. I'm saying that most people are uninformed, and that the ratio of votes would almost certainly be different if people were generally informed.
This goes for most topics! There's nothing specific to any opinion.
It could be that there's actually more anti-DST misinformation than pro-DST misinformation, and being informed could make people like DST more. I have no idea, I just want people to not be voting based on misinformation.
"Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8"
>To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year.
I agree. However, I didn't suggest that DST imposed any hardships.
The roads are busier in the evening than they are in the morning. So being able to come home in daylight is more important than being able to go to work/school in daylight.
Yeah, the parent comment seems like something a person who enjoys spending all their time in front of a screen might say.
For anyone who's in to any (most?) outdoor activities, the extra evening daylight is likely appreciated. Where I live we can be rock climbing till 8pm on a week night all through December and January.
I like to go running before work. That was really annoying this spring because it finally was bright early enough to do that and then DST came and ruined it and made me wait another few weeks.
We could get rid of DST and allow companies to decide for themselves whether to shift their working hours. Further changes to working hours can then occur naturally as cultural sensibilities shift, without requiring a massive overhaul of timekeeping tools.
> We need permanent daylight savings time. Yesterday sunset was around 6pm in LA. Today it will be at 5pm. At least I had a little bit of daylight after work, now it's just depressing.
I would like to decouple waking up earlier and leaving work earlier from changing numbering of hours such that midnight and midday happen at 1:00 instead of 0:00/12:00. But considering that some countries already adopted permanent DST for reasons you described I'm not holding my breath.
Now it remains to be seen if they will keep living like they do now or slowly drift back (in terms of solar time, not official time) to where they started from.
