dtdynasty
dtdynasty on Hacker News
I've worked on anti abuse systems and people always say just ban spammers. Just is doing a lot of heavy lifting. People feel the low percentage of spam that gets through is already too much. And when the classification messed up on the low percentage of real users that's also a terrible experience.
The precision and recall tradeoffs are difficult and all scenarios lead to people being unhappy. Not to mention the politics of big corporations where anti abuse systems usually stand in opposition to company goals which makes getting any change through difficult.
Seems like an anti spam measure. Bad actors ruin all features where links can be placed in front of eyes.
The skill to distinguish on whether the extra work will help you get paid more in the future is essential. Developing this skill makes it a bet instead of just working more.
Don't you think it's a good thing that hacker news isn't a monolith on their beliefs?
When the cleanliness doesn't serve existing or future requirements.
It's just convenient to mix in shaker bottle and have food sometimes. I feel like for people who eat to live [1] it's clearly saves time.
[1] as opposed to live to eat
I agree if the money was given to organizations which would actually effectively use the money to make road safety changes. But with this form of claim I always come back to the idea this was originally funded by corporations. I don't think the opportunity cost of corporate funding is public infrastructure unless it's profit motivated. So if it makes safety improvements at low safety per $ I still support it because its opportunity cost is more likely ads or other corporate investments.
Anecdotally I find the ones into protein at least have a moderate amount of physical activity. So probably not too big of a deal? I find articles using dramatic words for an article without any metrics on effect sizes the epitome of modern journalism.
I would describe them as pessimistic rather than irrational. They just believe that instead of going with an option like you proposed, companies will push toward unregulated options.
Since I don't know their backgrounds and don't have any background working with video game company executives it's hard to tell which options are more likely.
The console price point will go up too and set different expectations.
I do think the general purpose screens of today are doing a disservice for education. There are too many possible distractions a child isn't prepared to resist yet. But it could enable more advanced workflow for personalized learning.
I think the k-shaped economy where some people are financially succeeding while the rest go through hardship is a reflection of a k-shaped education system where those who are able to ignore the distractions and succeed are doing well. The top of the k can use more edtech as they just need tools for further educational attainment. Things modern edtech can bring. The bottom of the k has different needs.
Isn't this normal? I thought that's how it typically works when an employee leaves a company with any method.
My interpretation is that the studies supports theories of intersectionality for risk tolerance and competitiveness.
I was also one who spent their time playing dota in high school. In my experience one can learn more from playing dota than the average social media experience. Understanding team dynamics and emotional regulation to negative experiences outside your control. If you take the game seriously even prioritization and deliberate practice.
Of course not everyone learns from playing dota but at least it's a focused experience that doesn't steal focus away like short form videos.
I agree with this. I guess you already believe they follow a bell curve.Then from your former comment you also believe it's worth it to lose many PhDs that don't contribute to also lose the few that do.
I guess the conflict is my value judgement that it's good to keep PhDs that don't contribute if it allows US to keep the ones that do contribute. I believe so for 2 reasons.
- Distinguishing between contributors and non contributors at scale is difficult.
- the value of research can be large from a few contributors.
Why wouldn't stem PhDs follow some bell curve of quality? I'm sure many PhDs that are leaving don't contribute but some of them do. I personally don't see a reason for it to be skewed for only PhDs which don't contribute to leave.
It's essentially an inline function with only 1 client. Can be a preference for inline readability and automatically enforces there are no other clients of the "function".
As someone who works in this space. A large org like Google often separates the feature work and counter abuse teams. The org structure leads to unintended feature consequences. It sucks when your trying to provide value to people and it's taken advantage of by bad actors.
For some games like dota 2 cheats only make them marginally better at the game but much more frustrating to play against. The most common cheats are map hacks and instant action scripts both of which can be useless without the game knowledge for correct play. But both of these cheats make playing against them frustrating but they wouldn't rise to the top.
I think there are a couple of underlooked points for weightlifting's contribution to sustainable weight loss.
- the weight that you are gaining with a surplus diet turns into muscle instead of fat. You can take diet breaks and just gain muscle faster which will help when returning to a deficit.
- the increased 100-200 calories from lifting can make a 100 calorie deficit easier to adhere to as it's a smaller proportion of your total.
- weightlifting reduces stress which is a common cause for over eating.
Overall I agree with the point that people don't take the effort to change themselves and connect with another human being.
> The only way to establish relationships is to be real
Personally, I found emotional dissonance when people tell me this phrase. For a long time, acting like myself has ostracized me from other people and built shallow relationships. It's only when I didn't act like myself and faked it until it became a habit did I build deeper friendships.
It's emotionally difficult when your natural way of acting is not accepted.
I think all philosophies are easier to adhere to with basic needs met. Living life without basic needs makes everything difficult.
I think the article creates a false dichotomy between top down and bottoms up approach to understanding a topic. In the end, looking at a project from multiple perspectives will give you clarity.
A quick top-down view provides scaffolding to latch onto. A follow up deep dive will poke holes in your assumptions or reinforce your current understanding.
As the article mentioned, always staying at a high level can provide a fake understanding but I think just doing a deep dive slows understanding higher level abstractions and purpose. Constantly undulating between the two or having reports who can provide the right details are the best approaches I've seen from mentors.
> Programmers are much more likely than the general population to have hyper-mobility.
This does not seem intuitive to me. Why would this be the case?
Most things people want to do are not skills which are financially rewarded. It's possible to build a career doing their passion, but it would also involve activities they don't enjoy to get there. They decide it's not worth it and use their existing career to fund their passions.
> What basis would you have to do otherwise, and if there is something (like TLD), why wouldn't "resetting to zero" in terms of past content just mean resetting to that zero?
Fair enough, but I'm not sure it resolves "haunted" domains as a TLD which is often abused could have a lower "0" reputation and thus by default is "haunted". Perhaps it lessens the impact though by how much is quite opaque to us.
> Whether the TLD itself has some reputation is orthogonal to the reputation of one domain in that TLD relative to another one in the same TLD.
I think this depends on how reputation works and is not so clear. Registrars for these TLD also have a responsibility but have no incentives to stop abusers. If TLD domain reputation is not orthogonal to reputation individual domains on that TLD then that could be an incentive for them to also crack down on abuse as their domains have bad SEO etc.
> If the primary goal is to reduce engineering effort then the obvious solution is to delete the entire reputation system so it doesn't have to be maintained anymore. If the primary goal is to make it work well then you have to, well, you know.
I think this is the most uncharitable interpretation. The eng effort could go to features that improves other customer experiences affecting more people.
3 assumptions that from my read are baked into your comment.
- Any empty domain starts with the same reputation
- Registering a new domain is a 0 cost action
- The eng effort to reset domain reputation is 0
Certain domains are used by abusers more often, usually due to them being cheaper. Forcing them to move domains is extra friction to the abusers which "haunted" domains force more than the proposed new system.
For the last point, I think it's simplifying a complex system change. Even if the new system was marginally better, it could be a large eng effort and not worth pursuing.
edit: styling
> Ideally, search engine algorithms would give new domain owners a fresh start.
Sadly, I think this would be instantly gamed by abusers. They would release the domain name and attempt to register as a new owner or start repeatedly doing handoffs. It's difficult to tell who the owner is changing between and whether or not the new one is a better actor than the former.