himalayan_yak

No, it is not. If A -> B is Not logically equivalent as If Not A -> Not B. Many make this mistake. It is equivalent to If Not B -> Not A. In this case, if a writing that sounds bad is less likely to be right - leads to - if the writing is right the writing is likely to sound good, (and only that).

Different take - it is pointless to think life as short or long. Life just is. You ARE in this moment of conscious time (to borrow Descartes). Anything else is either memory (history) or future yet to be.

You, your 'self' are defined by your memory that is the consequences of the paths you took and not the ones you could have, and just like that your future will be the paths you take in this moment. Some try to make effort to be the best version of themselves, some try to live in this moment and many are in between. I do not think there's anything wrong with either extremes as long as you consciously and willingly do it, and sign up for the consequences. But.. idk.. I find this 'life is long vs short' debate a bit besides the point. I mean we do everything to fit the curve of 100 years of life - first quarter: education, second quarter: career, start family etc. May be its a perception thing - you're 40 and suddenly you realize you didn't become the astronaut you thought you'd be when you're grow up: how quickly life has passed by. To me personally, framing life as short vs long doesn't provide much solace in this situation but rather the one with culmination of past choices does.

Perseverance.

For some reason, we do not talk much about perseverance and grit. May be some of it is getting lost in the (what I perceive to be) increasingly cynical views on meritocracy (not that questioning the status quo on this topic is a bad idea, just that many seem to outright dismiss the idea of hard work and merit).

Barely half way through the interview with Apple for an internship position - which itself felt like a huge win after getting rejected by all the companies I had applied for - I was sweating profusely, couldn't say any coherent line, and was internally just praying for the embarrassment to end. After spending weeks in preparation for the interview, it was a huge blow. Also, since I didn't go to a top-100 (US) school, I didn't know if I could ever even get to the second round of interview with another H1-B sponsoring (~big) company ever again. Long story short, rejections continued but I eventually found a break in a small local company - which did wonders to boost my confidence after being able to write "real" code for money. Later, went on to do Masters in a public university where I could work as a TA - which meant so I didn't need to pay the (almost impossible out-of-state) tuition. And yes, found a job a H1B sponsoring company where I am quite happy now:).

Its not that my story is any special or anywhere close to the success of like the one mentioned in the post. I guess my point is we can only play the cards in front of us. Being able to find a joy in doing so well (which I think is a secret to persevere) goes a long way not just for success in career but in other aspects of life also.

Trying hard not to be political. But POTUS speech seems to make things lot worse than better along anything.

The efficacy of this travel ban is questionable (given all these exceptions such as one for UK. Can people coming from other parts just have a layover in UK and be get permission to enter the US?). But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did so in good faith.

It is what's not in the speech that was very very concerning. - No mention of how / when / if people can get tested. - No mention of any plan to handle the economic situation. What happens when businesses in Tourism and restaurants run out of their runway and have to layoff people? What happens to hourly workers who get sick? - No assurance to encourage undocumented residents to go for testing if they experience symptoms. - No mention of large public events. Many local governments and private organizations are doing so in an ad-hoc ways. A consistent voice would literally save lives here.

Their team seems to be singularly focused on 'winning the narrative' or 'spinning' properly than anything else... Well, I guess this is just my opinion.

A team with a mix is best if it's not a mix just in terms of personnels but in projects and the way incentives are structured.

The culture within the team can go south sooner than one realizes if the 'process' types feel they're constantly cleaning up the mess of pioneers (who tend to get more attention in general for their shinny projects). And on the other hand the pioneers may perceive process-types folks resist any new changes and are stuck supporting outdated technology. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

> What is it about Americans that make them believe that things that work perfectly well in many other countries (publicly funded television, gun control, universal healthcare) are impossible?

What gave you the impression that I am an American? I, unfortunately, am one who had to endure the non stop propaganda perpetuated through state run media in my country.

> reporting is much better than the commercial news

How do you decide it is 'much better'? Could it be that you just happen to agree with it? (or not). Since you mentioned America, there are lots of people in America who take Fox News as sole source of truth. And perhaps equally large group who regard MSNBC as such.

And it's pretty interesting to observe that you pulled the conversation right into politically charged topics of healthcare and gun, when I was merely pointing out that news is indeed valuable, and there is always bound to be this friction between the profit oriented but free of government influence vs state run media.

Lots of respect to the man Swartz. Not a big fan of news (mainly the cable) myself but the absence of it is pretty terrifying as well. Whatever is left of little accountability will pretty much vanish.

I'd argue that the problem isn't the news, per se, but the fact that news is a business, with a primary motive of maximizing profit and not necessarily 'informing' the public objectively. But on the other extreme, state run media that do not have the same objective of making profit are even worse.

We'll pretty much have to live with it :)

I think lots of HN readers here are missing perspectives from Facebook users in 'third' world countries, where there aren't a lots of alternatives for information sharing and discovery.

As someone who grew up in one of those countries, I found Facebook incredibly useful to find alumni of my high school in US universities and ask them questions on how they got here (LinkedIn was not a thing then). There weren't, and still aren't, any alumni network or guidance counselor. I didn't even know where to begin (say to Google things).

This is, of course, just one use case but the point is that Facebook does provide value to some people. Back home, for many people of generation before the internet, it is the only way they stay in touch with their several kins on other countries. We can debate about what 'value' / 'meaning' it adds to their lives. But that is a separate conversation.

And yes, there are concerns about privacy. But that is the tradeoff you make in life.