i’ve been quietly on the job market the last month or so, and i’ve been kind of surprised at the number of recruiters who insist they need an “actual resume” instead of linkedin profile, which honestly has been my resume for about 15 years now. i finally dropped a PDF of my profile into claude and got a resume condensed, but i have a hard time seeing the advantage in this day and age.
I still believe technology can be used for good. Diseases get cured every day, more people are able to make art of all kinds than ever before, families can keep in touch all around the world, people with disabilities can use technology to overcome what would have previously been hard limits.
It is unfortunate that we have allowed algorithmic social media content to destroy so much, and to allow for targeted ad based services to cause such drastic harm to society. However society pretty much now knows what the root problems are and if there is a will, many of the worst offenders can be legislated away.
Remove gacha/lootbox mechanics from games and remove personalized algorithmic social media feeds.
It turns out, as a species, it isn't good for us to carry around machines 24/7 that can hit the dopamine center in our brains, or that can deliver targeted outrage on demand.
How about all the other stuff though? A connected world where I can play games with people around the globe? Forums that let fans share their love of their favorite media/artist/singer/author. The hundreds of amazing YouTube chefs that have introduced authentic, sometimes hyperlocal, world cuisines to a global audience. The sheer number of in-depth documentaries that are getting made about every possible niche topic now. The independent media organizations that have popped up (Curiosity Stream, Dropout, to name just two).
That might be the most blatant "no true Scotsman" I've ever seen. Practically out of a textbook. I'm educated. I and hundreds of coworkers at multiple companies still believed it in 2012. You said something that is simply, provably untrue.
that tends to be the take on most “k8s is too complex” articles, at least the ones i’ve seen.
yes, it’s complex, but it’s simpler than running true high availability setups without something like it to standardize the processes and components needed. what i want to see is a before and after postmortem on teams that dropped it and compare their numbers like outages to get at the whole truth of their experience.
Complexity is a puzzle and attracts a certain kind of easy bored dev, who also has that rockstar flair, selling it to management - then quitting (cause bored) leaving a group of wizard-prophet-whorshippers to pray to the k8 goddess at the monolith circle at night. And you can not admit as management, that you went all in on a guru and a cult.
Then they hire a different cult leader, one that can clean up the mess and simplify it for the cult that was left behind. The old cult will question their every motive, hinder them with questions about how they could ever make it simpler. Eventually, once the last old architecture is turned off; they will see the errors of their ways. This new rock star heads off to the next complicated project.
A new leader arrives and says, “we could optimize it by…”
I'd like to add that you need way more information on the landing page before I'm going to do much more than let you have my email address (if that.) Right now its a black box that takes in data(?) and spits out... something?
I just want to inform you that the pricing section is effed up. It talks about FramerBite pricing - which I guess is the thing you used to throw this landing page together. That seems very low effort and I would estimate the output metric of that to be 1.03 with a correlation of 0.96.
He's joking, in the report of Claude Computer Use it was reported that Claude stopped doing a task and started searching images of the Yellowstone National Park.
If you want to be sure you’re clearly understood, don’t use sarcasm (it’s a massively overrated and really cheap form of humor anyway). If you want to be funny, take the risk that you’ll be misunderstood. My problem is with people who want it both ways.
> My problem is with people who want it both ways.
Why? Why would you dislike a solution which neatly solves a false dilemma?
You may subjectively believe that sarcasm is over-used (and in fact I personally agree with you), but why are you put-out that people who like it have found a way to encode the non-verbal cues of speech into text to increase fidelity in communication?
EDIT: the problem _specifically_ with sarcasm and clarity is that it appears to say the opposite of what it actually says. You say in an earlier comment that "Sometimes people make a joke that not everyone is going to get. That’s fine." - but that is in fact _not_ fine when the possible outcome is someone believing that you hold a view entirely opposed to what you actually do. I hope I don't need to paint you a picture.
> Why would you dislike a solution which neatly solves a false dilemma?
What dilemma? I’ve been diagnosed with autism/asperger syndrome since the age of six, and even I can see when people are being sarcastic without needing an explicit signal.
I dislike the “solution” because it ruins the joke. The whole point of sarcasm is to communicate a common gripe with other people without saying it out loud. If you’re not sure if the audience of your comment shares your common gripe (or if they don’t know you well enough to know what kinds of things you’d never say seriously) then that’s a bad time to use sarcasm.
It's also a lazy convention for lazy replies, the sort HN discourages. As you say, it's doing sarcasm, but badly: the writer can blurt out the first quip that comes to mind, regardless of it being related, and hides behind the prestige that sarcasm has, while often only virtue signalling.
