By that logic basically any Twitter user with a link on their profile should be banned. For example Microsoft would have a link to Microsoft.com on their profile and on that webpage there will be links to other competitive social media.
In fact, Tesla's Twitter profile links to Tesla.com and at the bottom of that website is a link to Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn (in addition to Twitter).
Almost anyone with a link to a site in their profile will likely have competitive social media links on that site. PG's website didn't even link to his Mastadon profile, its a plain text representation of his Mastadon handle.
I don’t think it’s in good faith to accuse someone of using multiple accounts to flag your comments without any basis and I believe this type of behavior is directly in violation of the guidelines of HN.
You asked, "So you purposely provoked her instead of asking for reasonable clarification?"
No, to "provoke questioning" is to induce someone to re-examine something they thought they knew; it's not the same as "provoking a person", which means to intentionally offend them, which I wasn't doing. In fact, as you can see, I was very careful to phrase my questioning in as deferential and inoffensive a way as possible. And the particular way I was trying to provoke questioning was specifically by asking for reasonable clarification—clarification which apparently led somewhere she didn't want to go. It's good to see that she's now explicitly rejecting racism against Chinese people, which is something she wasn't willing to do eight years ago.
So you think you were trying to teach me with socratic dialogue by calling me racist? rather than asking, oh I don’t know, “what kind of goods”?
You made your decision — you called me racist then and now — and now you’re dishonestly trying to pretend it was more complicated and actually for my own good, really, when you think about it.
It’s super transparent tho so I appreciate all your replies that show just how twisted you’ve got it
I can’t reply to your nth nested comment so I’ll do it here.
You did call me racist, just like you did today. That’s how I knew EXACTLY which tweet it was 8 years later. Tweets can be deleted. I certainly don’t remember YOU as a person, you’re nobody to me.
You are being dishonest. You consistently saying things about me that are untrue. There was no racist tweet, I didn’t block Star — just you — and I didn’t flag your posts, among other lies.
You are using loaded questions and statements to try to assassinate my character.
You’re claiming I abuse people by blocking them.
You think you’re entitled to my tweets and attention. You fantasize we have some sort of relationships where I owe you conversation.
You’re obsessed with something that happened nearly a decade ago.
Bottom line: You need to stop talking about me and to me. I told you stop already and I’m telling you again: Stop.
I didn't actually call you racist then, as anyone who reads the Twitter thread can see; it's easy to see that the things that I'm saying are true, and the things that you're saying are not true. Even Star didn't call you racist. But (if I recall correctly) I knew that the line of questioning would quickly lead to you either having to take an explicitly racist position (which you'd probably be uncomfortable with) or strategizing on how to reduce the impact of racism (which you'd be even more uncomfortable with, if you were racist).
It's true that instead of asking, "What kind of goods?" I asked you whether you thought Etsy was a reasonable venue for Chinese artisans to sell their wares, which seems to me like a question you could have easily answered by explaining what kind of goods, saying something like "Of course, but people in North Carolina are reselling injection-molded Chinese toys like https://t.co/something." Instead, you blocked us both for eight years and counting, so I concluded that the discussion was leading someplace you didn't want to go, so you actually were just racist.
And now you're responding to me telling the story of how you treat people by smearing me as "dishonest" and "weird", which seems entirely in keeping with the kind of aggressive behavior that the whole discussion thread is about.
I really don't think that kind of behavior is the kind of behavior we strive for here, although I guess probably whoever is flagging all of my comments disagrees with that.
I have been using tailwind on a new project and I only see 3 real benefits over using inline css styles:
1) Sizes are standardized in a predetermined set of discrete size classes. So you start to think about sizes, padding, margins, etc in terms of steps instead of values. You can change the steps in one place and they apply globally. It's a little easier to standardize a rough style guide compared to starting from scratch.
2) Colors are standardized in a similar way. You just need to configure your app's core colors and then you can just think in terms of steps instead of color values.
3) You have a smaller set of "best practice" means to achieve most outcomes compared to all that's available with css. You don't need to know the best way to do what you want, you can just browse the documentation to find what you want.
Outside of that, you still have to use @apply to collapse utility classes into more semantic classes if you want style changes to cascade (tailwind recommends using components or view partials to achieve this instead of via css classes, though this would work equally well with inline styles)
The styles are very verbose, just like with inline styles. They are only slightly shorter than inline styles since they are basically abbreviated forms of inline styles.
You can still do everything tailwind does for you by using your own style guide and building out css classes, but tailwind gives you a head start.
It feels like it makes you more productive in the beginning because you get a toolset with a lot of decisions already made for you, but I suspect it will make things a bit slower as the app gets more complicated.
"""To get started with ACH payments, you need a system that can connect you (the originator of the ACH transaction) with an Originating Depository Financial Institution (ODFI). Additionally, that system should be able to give updates on the status of the payment and give the developer an interface to authenticate, verify, and charge the user on demand.
That’s where Stripe comes in. In January, the payments infrastructure giant debuted support for ACH payments through its platform alongside a partnership with us here at Plaid. Now, Stripe users can authenticate their customers through Plaid (or, if they must, micro-deposits) and then charge them through ACH."""
Am I misunderstanding something?
EDIT:
Okay so maybe they weren't doing the transfers, but they were certainly facilitating them and adding to the adoption of more ACH based payments (which means less credit-card payments). Same conflict of interest applies. What does Visa care about bank account verifications?
>One result set is equivalent to another, and as long as you aren't using unnecessary nested loop joins or such, there are a dozen ways to solve a query.
If they consume similar resources I'd almost always opt for the simplest one to understand.
In cases where the simpler one is less efficient, I might still use it if the task didn't require absolute optimization.
Sure, and that would be a fair criticism, to say, "is there a version of this that's more intuitive and easier to read with the same load on the server?" But the interviewer (assuming the OP faithfully represented the exchange and the domain) is insisting that the query does not do what was asked -- when it does -- and is saying so based on the interviewer's own incomplete understanding.
That's not a good reason to reject a candidate, even if there might be other good reasons in this case.
Exactly, it would have been fair game to ask why I used a window function instead of an aggregate function + subquery joined back onto the main result set. Or, to ask if I could rewrite the query another way which would be more efficient.
However, the interviewer didn't simply insist the query does not do what was asked (when it did indeed return the correct results).
Instead, the interviewer actually insisted it was an invalid query which would not run at all.
From their perspective, they have hundreds of candidates and need to quickly filter a bunch out. So, having low-technical knowledge recruiters ask questions and look for a standard set of answers is the way they do it. There is no room for technical discussion during this phase, no room for nuance.
I'm not saying this is a good process or that it's fair, but it is the reality right now. You still get OK results and it's far faster and cheaper.
You're exactly right wrt interviewing. I was talking in general and not in the context of an interview.
If you are interviewing someone and they solve the problem you ask, and then you don't give them some sort of guidance or constraints to meet your "correct" guidelines, then you aren't doing a good and fair interview.
