jt2190

7 ms·

31.
by jt2190 3mo ago
I strongly suspect that they used oil, not grease, so they could flush the dirt out of the gears, and that this would have been done very frequently.
32.
by jt2190 3mo ago
There’s a credit agreement that will spell out those details: > To turn cattle into trusted financial guarantees or collateral without requiring inspectors to visit the property, Cowmed equips cows with an AI-powered Smarty Collar. These
33.
by jt2190 3mo ago
It would find it clearer if: - “up” and “down” was explained. If I bet “down” I’m betting my stock will underperform the monkey index? And if I am correct, I will make money (short the asset) or simply loose less than if I’d invested
34.
by jt2190 3mo ago
That’s “Sysadmin work teaches you the value of stacks” from May 20, 2013. AI hallucinated a post named “The Stack” from August 19, 2013.
35.
by jt2190 3mo ago
Why did you leave out the “strong opinion” part?
36.
by jt2190 3mo ago
No because “strong opinions” mark you as “aggressively conventional”: Nobody can tell if your opinions are “weakly held”, and most people won’t try and find out. Instead you need to find like-minded people who are willing to challenge their
37.
by jt2190 3mo ago
The housing market is highly dependent on the job market so no, it’s not “being fussy”, it’s “I need to live here so I can have a job and income”. Unless you’re suggesting that people should quit their jobs and go get that cheap house in th
38.
by jt2190 3mo ago
No, but I will bet you that QQQ will not loose 1.2% of its value due only to SpaceX going to $0.
39.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> There is a massive downside to premature inclusion of a stock that is initially overvalued Define “massive”. SpaceX is only 1.2% of QQQ.
40.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> … internet fame / personal branding. Also known as “social proof”/“social credibility”, and it’s a common mistake to assume it has no value whatsoever.
41.
by jt2190 3mo ago
These don’t already exist? https://cricketmedia.com/childrens-magazines https://rangerrick.org/
42.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> If people find vim, emacs, or whatever genuinely good and productive, I’m not going to criticize them for using it. People are most comfortable with what they know. But for the people I am discussing, that same familiarity blinds them
43.
by jt2190 3mo ago
The article discuses that specific subset of users who are into puzzle solving, so we should ground this discussion around that point and not fall into the “tool x is good/bad” pointless debate.
44.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> … discretionary friction ; designers or product folks adding features or complexity. This is far more precise. The article talks about this from the users side, how there is a class of user who enjoys learning all of these “extra” fea
45.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> What baffles me is that so many people treat that friction—the effort of working around a tool’s limitations—as the “fun” part, and then advertise it as evidence that the tool is great. I think it’s fine if that’s your hobby, but I agr
46.
by jt2190 3mo ago
I would have called this “strictly typed” I think, not “strongly”. Maybe my terminology is off.
47.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> Strongly typed and weakly typed do not seem to have good definitions. Is strongly typed not “I compiler/runtime guarantee the bytes I read adhere to type T”?
48.
by jt2190 3mo ago
I don’t think this is anything new, really: Businesses have been running software that we’d call a “big ball of mud” [1] forever. A common way to market to these firms is to be very easy to find when their software starts to have serious is
49.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> In America, at least, the school curriculum spends a lot of time talking about dictators. I don’t think this is actually true. What’s your source for this? States set K-12 curriculum.
50.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> … deterministic processes… Just to be clear, software development itself is not deterministic, though? The software developer pushes a given business process from less-deterministic toward more deterministic? When we say we’ve “abstr
51.
by jt2190 3mo ago
Why can’t my firm react if we find out we’re being undercut by a competitor? Or are you saying that we “know” only in a theoretical, “we can’t prove we’re not being undercut” sort of way, but without “proof” we can’t take action?
52.
by jt2190 3mo ago
> link aggregators This is definitely manageable: canonical meta tags and other metadata; update the URL to a canonical permalink that encodes the language preference; a banner that informs people that there is an alternate version, etc.
53.
by jt2190 3mo ago
Isn’t the client-side case something like “the banking app you’re entering your account password into is the binary the bank created and not a compromised binary that will drain your bank account”?
54.
by jt2190 3mo ago
Why is attestation always bad, all the time? When two people interact there’s a trust/risk calculation on both sides. Isn’t attestation just a means of reducing risk for both parties? (We can debate who should control the attestation p
55.
by jt2190 4mo ago
> Shell is not a programming language, it's an interface to the OS, and thinking about it like a programming language is just asking for frustration. I guess this just isn’t obvious to me. Where do you see the boundary between “inte
56.
by jt2190 4mo ago
> Overall the evaluation of success was one of the most challenging parts of the project. As a developer, I’m used to building features that either work or don’t and there is often an objective way to measure how well a feature performs.
57.
by jt2190 4mo ago
But the larger point still stands: Limited liability was granted “on the front end” without the entity needing to demonstrate a minimum amount of capital. You’re only pointing out that in the U.S. that it’s possible that “on the back end”
58.
by jt2190 4mo ago
> [L]eadership thinks (likely correctly) that implementing them would just hurt company’s bottom line. Exactly. There's little "win" here for the business, especially when the simpler "just cap at n requests" sol
59.
by jt2190 4mo ago
The playlist is hilarious and really helps nail the feeling of driving around in circles! Love it!
60.
by jt2190 4mo ago
Counterpoint: I’ve had recent support calls with two large corporations, both with humans. In both cases the humans lied about what could be done to address my issue. In one case I was literally repeating back to the human what I’d just b

More ›