ridicter

I actually forgot that there is solid evidence now that Austronesians made contact with South America. So that's even crazier!

do you know how far madagascar is from easter island? if you're talking about mediterranean and river travel, yes you're right. but the pacific ocean + indian ocean are utterly massive.

  Location: New York
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: No
  Technologies: Typescript, NextJS, React, Python, and million others
  Résumé/CV: https://visualizeearth.com/
  Email: [email protected]

I've worked as a full time engineer and designer at the top tech companies in New York City. After working in person for the past few years, my preference is remote!

I'm all about world class UX, performance, excellent developer experience (DX), & documentation.

I'm a designer=engineer, and I feel like AI has given me super powers. Design has always been easy for me--it was just the incredible grind of coding that made creating my own thing difficult.

we need at least 8236 more job boards

SEEKING WORK - Remote

Product Designer and Software Engineer based in NYC/LA.

Portfolio: http://visualizeearth.com

Looking for part time product design work. I have 12 years of experience in software and design. For the past 5 years, I have worked as a full time, salaried software engineer at top startup tech companies in NYC (ranked #1 on LinkedIn top startups) and the 3rd largest hedge fund in the world, where I was a hybrid developer-designer. I'm primarily looking for product design work as my brain is itching for UI/UX design work again.

Full disclosure, I also have plans to work remotely from SE Asia and Europe for a third of this year.

The "context" approach was the whole "Explainer" period that happened in journalism, most famously done by Vox (as another commenter mentioned)--but also many others.

What you end up getting is the approved narrative of "how things are" by the same class of people who all hobnob with each other.

Glad to see it's end. Look forward to what's next.

We're a few narratives deep.

You're responding to the "noble savages" strawman -- the OP article never claimed such.

(Moreover, you're responding with a relatively isolated incident of Native Americans driving buffalos off cliffs, which I agree happened and Is Not Good. But it's odd to mention in the larger historical context that the American Buffalo became endangered due to industrial scale slaughter caused by European settlers--A Big Deal, relatively speaking.)

On balance, yes, Native people are often the best guardians of the forest for a mix of reasons. One is the animistic belief systems, which falls under the "Noble Savage" bucket. But the other is they more often than not don't industrial-scale commoditize their living spaces, part and parcelling out the goods as raw material inputs. Which other groups, like Asians and Whites, often have.

I'm someone who is naturally strong at design, but studied CS/software engineering because I ultimately wanted to be able to build my own things. For years I tried to find careers hiring those unicorns -- people who could design and code -- but they were few and far between. My last gig that required both was at a hedge fund here in NYC, where they don't explicitly hire designers. These days I work exclusively as a software engineer, and I definitely miss those times when I worked as a designer. Among other things, the hours are easier and the amount of praise you get way higher :-)

>The notion of hunter-gather societies living harmoniously in equilibrium with nature that some people seem to view as an optimal societal arrangement doesn't fit very well with this scenario.

Where is this notion? I've been involved in environmental circles and humans wiping out mammoths, giant sloths in south america, or logging easter island to bareness are pretty well known.

It's gotten bad enough that if someone with an Indian accent is calling me and it sounds like it's from a call center, I hang up immediately.

The highest point of the maldives is 7ft above sea level. They are migrating en masse to neighboring countries.

Bangladesh, similarly, is a very low lying nation without the capital to build seawalls and other protections (as the Netherlands can).

I tried out nhost a few weeks ago and it was great!

Reducing emissions to zero, scarily enough, is the minimum. We actually need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere in order to prevent further temperature increases, which lag behind CO2 concentration by years.

And they pulled the plug on this thread while it was hot. They'll probably put it back when it simmers down and gets off the front page.

YC has a vested interest in crypto. They also have vested interests in carbon removal.

I'm just surprised to see the censorship.

Was this removed from hacker news' front page? I don't see it there any more even though this post is ~3 hours old and has 300 points.

I think using managing state with an observable data service is a pretty good option w/o resorting to 3rd party libraries: https://blog.angular-university.io/how-to-build-angular2-app...

Alternatively, you could use Akita, which is built on top of this basic model, but offers a ton of additional functionality and the ability to use Redux Dev Tools.

Finally, you also have NgRX, which is based on Redux--but also adds a ton of overhead and boilerplate. I actually opted for Akita since it is way more ergonomic and offers most everything I need.

I never used the flex layout package. That's a third party library, and I think sticking with CSS grid + flex makes more sense. (Alternatively, you can just use bootstrap or tailwind or whatever.)

RxJS is actually one of my favorite parts to Angular, but it _does_ lengthen the learning curve quite a bit. Once you get past that, you can have amazingly reactive apps. One of my beefs with ReactJS is that it doesn't play as well with RxJS. Now that I think of it, you're not actually required to use RxJS with Angular: you can convert observables to promises (`toPromise()`).

I could see how having junior/new developers could make things a lot harder. I remember first learning typescript and having to keep the TS playground open at all times to see how it compiled to ES5.

My experience with react with different: you have to spend a large amount of time upfront in order to get the basic features of a single page app. You burn a lot of mental energy figuring out which forms library, router library, etc to use. When it's time to upgrade, you have no guarantees that your libraries will continue to play together nicely. And quality and standards between libraries can vary dramatically.

I prefer the Angular approach. The initial learning curve is steep, but once you get over that, it becomes a rapid development framework, as all the pieces work together cohesively. The Angular CLI makes creating components, services, updating, etc a breeze, and helps maintain structure as your scale your app up. The core libraries (like routing, forms) are developed and maintained by Google, so you can expect a solid level of quality. The typescript-first approach means that your IDE can help you explore APIs, auto import, and work with third party libraries just as well. And the strong foundation provided by the core framework means that third party libraries have a better starting point upon which to supplement/extend.

As far as sharing JS library code yes, but the baked in typescript support + nx CLI add a lot in terms of usability.

1. nx g @nrwl/workspace:lib data, 2. Modify the typed models/interfaces. 3. Import to backend + front end.

Nest.js + Angular on the frontend is a dream. Nest.js was modeled after Angular and they both use a similar basket of concepts/tools (dependency injection, decorators, first-class TS support). You can build a robust full stack app without context switching. They are both opinionated, ensuring a consistent and predictable structure.

If you go the Nest + Angular route, I recommend checking out NX monorepos, which adds another level of seamlessness. NX was created by former Google/Angular team members. One of my favorite features includes the ability to easily share libraries/models across the front end and backend. E.g., if you're designing an API, you can import the same model file to both the front end and back end, ensuring no divergence between both sides as the API is redesigned.

Location: New York

Remote: Preferred, but open to in person

Willing to relocate: Yes, for the right gig

Technologies: Angular, React, Typescript, Javascript, UI/UX design, Data Viz (D3.js, +), Google Cloud/AWS, RXJS, NX Monorepo, Next.js

Résumé/CV: http://visualizeearth.com

Email: [email protected]

I'm a senior engineer and designer with experience in engineering and designing dozens of apps for hedge funds, nonprofits, and leading tech companies. If it's relevant, I have a strong background in climate, having previously cofounded a carbon pricing nonprofit.

If you're looking for a fully featured framework, Angular is a joy to work with. React is great too, but the configuration overhead is enormous due to the fact that it's mainly a view library. I realize you are pining for the days when you just pasted a CDN link in your index.html, but while those use cases still exist, for the most part users are demanding more native-like web experiences, which requires a bit more complexity.

One of the main strengths (and according to some, weakness) of Angular is that it has everything you might need to create a full featured SPA out of the box, and it's all tightly orchestrated by the Angular CLI. Creating a component or a service is a simple command, and many third party packages leverage the CLI (Angular Schematics) to install and configure themselves in your codebase. Core packages--such as such as forms, router, angular material--are all high quality (by Google), updated together, and work cohesively with each other. That means updating even major versions of Angular is an easy `ng update` command. For me, the minimal configuration overhead is a BFD, as I plain hate that stuff.

The fact that Typescript has been a first class citizen of Angular from its outset makes development pretty enjoyable. I'm so used to exploring APIs using intellisense, leveraging types to figure out what data types can be passed in functions, relying heavily on auto-complete/auto-import to pick up my pieces and finish typing a word for me and importing the corresponding library while I keep going.

Granted, there is a significant learning curve. But once you get over the initial learning curve, you become incredibly productive. Arguably, the learning curve in other frameworks is worse, given that you have to research what libraries to use (e.g., which forms library, with its own set of conventions), configure it, and make sure it plays nice with the other patchwork of libraries.

There's a path dependence to everything. Had we started earlier, we would have shaped the curve of possibilities: renewables would be cheaper, storage solutions would have come online earlier, etc. We would have shaped international dialogue and culture around this issue too, with other nations following the US's lead as far as policies and technologies adopted.

Real world example of path dependence: Supreme Court stops recount in FL --> GWB elected --> Pulling out of Kyoto protocols, starting wars --> [...] Trump elected, partially due to government mistrust seeded in GWB era--> even worse climate change policies

It _is_ a political issue. The technology already exists--courtesy of the scientists/engineers of course. Whether that technology is deployed is a problem of politics.

For example, if the price of fossil fuels reflected its true cost to society--think climate change, extreme weather, stronger storms, droughts, ocean acidification, etc--then fossil fuels would be prohibitively expensive compared to renewable or nuclear energy. This is what a carbon tax is, and it's what many scientists and economists have been pushing for decades now. But they've been fighting a losing battle against the oil and gas lobby, and one party in particular that is wholly captured by them.

In fact, James Hansen, NASA scientist and head of the Goddard Institute, got out of the science to focus specifically on the politics. He urges people to join the Citizens Climate Lobby, which has lobbied for carbon pricing legislation for over a decade now: the Energy Innovation Act has bipartisan support in Congress right now (https://energyinnovationact.org/). Many other scientists are involved in the politics these day as well (Katherine Hayhoe [atmospheric scientist], Michael Mann [climatologist]).

I see comments pointing out that the majority of plastic pollution in oceans come from Asia/Africa. This is true, but there are two points worth considering:

1) Whenever you pay cheaply for anything made in any third world country, you're externalizing the societal cost of pollution to that country (and if it gets into the oceans, to everyone). In other words, you're not paying the true cost of that item--economically and to society and the environment.

2) As linked elsewhere: first world nations often export their trash to third world nations, masquerading as recycled materials - see spat with Philippines - https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canadian-garbage-from-phi...

>We compared 10 climate policies that stimulate innovation (e.g. carbon taxes, deployment subsidies, cutting fossil fuel subsidies) and found that increasing government budgets for public clean energy research and development (R&D) is the most effective—even more effective than carbon taxes.

This causality seems tenuous. I'm confused how an enlarged budget for Renewable Energy R&D necessitates a reduction in emissions? There'a lot of jumps being made there.

On the other hand, a carbon tax is straight forward: a tax is applied on carbon, and it creates a "price signal", where fossil fuels products become more expensive relative to those based on cleaner tech. This fundamental price signal--with the price on carbon increasing year over year--incentives investment into renewable energy and clean tech. The market runs full speed towards a clean transition.

How would "carbon taxes become more politically acceptable"? The arrow of causality is in the wrong direction: it is the carbon tax that MAKES clean energy R&D the obvious thing to do.

And finally, there are tons of studies that have explored what a clean energy mix would look like. Here's Stanford professor Mark Jacobson's: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...

In the United States, meaningful climate action is primarily a political problem to be solved -- not technology, policy, technology research, or policy research.

If you're interested in getting involved in addressing climate change, here are two options for citizens to get involved:

1) The Citizens Climate Climate Lobby has been around ten years, and it currently has a bill in Congress that has bipartisan (1 Republican, 30+ Dems) support: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (http://energyinnovationact.org/). With this plan, all the revenue from a carbon tax* is directly returned to citizens as a yearly check--no enlargement of the state. This is the organization cofounded by NASA scientist James Hansen, who first testified to Congress about the perils of climate change over 30 years ago.

2) If you're a millennial/gen Z, and you're more skeptical of a market-based solution, the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement are making waves. Rather than a concrete policy in Congress, they have a set of principles/values that they are pushing forward.

In addition, if you live in the states of Oregon and New York, both are on the cusp of passing similar legislation. And there are many more out there in various stages of development...

*Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change, according to economists. The idea is to internalize the _real_ costs of climate change into the price we actually pay--ramping up the price on carbon over time until it is prohibitively expensive to use fossil-fuel-expensive products, and incentivizing the economy to adapt.