My wife got the RM1 then the RM2, as she is very organized and takes lots of notes. She absolutely loved it except for one thing -- the swipe motion to flip forward and backwards was terrible for her. She would try 10 times to get it to finally recognize what she was asking for. So if she wanted to flip forward a few pages to find something, it could take 30-50 swipes. It is sitting in a drawer now.
If anyone else had this experienced and figured out how to make it work, let me know.
So sad when something that could be fixed with a few lines of code/a pref toggle if the software were open entirely kills an otherwise great product experience for someone.
Mine goes somewhat unused because of this (although definitely less than 10 swipes per try). If I was to buy another ereader I'd want at a minimum physical buttons for forward/back.
I don’t experience the same level of recognition issues, but I do find flipping through pages quite tiresome. After reading other comments here, it seems clear that the navigation of the e-reader needs significant improvement. I submitted some feedback about this in one of their previous feedback surveys.
Perhaps this Hacker News discussion will lead to some user experience improvements.
I'm not sure if you've used their scroll feature, but if you swipe up from the bottom with a single finger you bring up a scroll bar over all pages with a small preview for the current selected page. It works pretty well for <50 pages
Do you really think that companies were hiring that many unqualified people for DEI reasons? Just about every time the subject came up there were people saying it was just lip service and theater -- put a DEI statement on your company's public-facing webpage and pretend they actually did anything.
Maybe. I had two different hiring managers in two different companies explicitly tell me and others to hire women or PoC. Yes it was illegal. No one cares.
Yep. It's much easier to improve your DEI metrics by doing it illegally than it is by doing it legally.
I had an internship at a place like that and the first disabled woman of color to apply would have been practically guaranteed a job. Needless to say I didn't end up working there after the internship - if they're willing to break labor laws just to improve metrics then what's stopping them from trying to cheat their employees.
What do you mean by PoC? Because PoC hiring barely budged during the "DEI era" -- unless you meant Indian/Asian PoC. For example at Google over that 10 year era (from 2014 to 2024) Black+Latino hiring by 6% points. Indian/Asian increased by almost 15%.
Hating on minorities is nothing new, and has always been a powerful political driver. DEI is just another thing to direct that hate to, it doesn't matter what it actually is or does.
Also, establising a link between DEI, a vague group of very mild and mostly ineffectual incentives, and the rise of right wing ideology is really dumb. No one would care about DEI if it hadn't been made a major talking point by right wing propagandists. If DEI didn't exist it would be something else that would "turn young men to the right".
Don't fall for such basic propaganda. The war on these supposedly unfair hiring practices is being led by rich heirs that never did an honest day of work in their entire lives. Those disenfranchised young men buying the hate are made to turn against their own interests by the very same ones that fucked their opportunities in the first place.
> No one would care about DEI if it hadn't been made a major talking point by right wing propagandists.
That's a circular argument (post hoc ergo propter hoc/begging the question). It also sounds backwards.
This is how your argument sounds to me:
1. DEI is made into a major talking point by right wing propagandists
2. How do you tell if someone is a right wing propagandist? They make DEI a major talking point.
This is backwards! Politicians adjust their messaging for the most votes[1].
TBH, this whole talking-point mess was not completely made up. The politicians aren't creating talking points and then trying to convert people, they are adjusting their talking points to what matters to the voters.
If DEI didn't matter, and we weren't constantly under a barrage of "If you disagree you're a nazi", the Trump campaign would have found something else to make one of the major talking points.
===================================
[1] Well, the Trump does, anyway. The major difference I, as an outsider, saw between the two parties in the most recent presidential election was in the adjustment and delivery of messaging.
The Left's message was "This is what we stand for. You need to fall in line in order for us to win".
Trumps message was "This matters to you? Okay, then it matters to me too".
It's not hard to see that one of those are backwards.
DEI is pure discrimination against the majority. Same for affirmative action regarding schooling (i'm lucky i live in a former commie country, and stuff like this is illegal and more equal than prioretizing people by certain characteristics they had no influence on).
If i was an asian guy or even now (a white guy), and eg. had better grades, higher SAT points than someone of a different race, and they got accepted, and I didn't... of course i'd vote for someone who wanted to abolish affirmative action. Same for hiring, but it's much harder to prove straight out discrimination there.
Only a fool would think MAGA stands for equality and against discrimination. Just thinking about it makes me laugh. I wish the anti-DEI folk was honest and stopped hiding behind "ending discrimination" when they have proved times and times again that they are all extremely confortable with other, far worse forms of it.
I know HN is gonna downvote me into oblivion for this, but… I’m a cis-het white dude, a this rings true for me:
“When you’ve been in the majority for a long time, equality can feel like oppression.”
Just because a system desires proportional representation does not mean it’s discriminatory against the majority. It just means it’s no longer preferential toward them.
If the system values proportional representation higher than qualification, than I will either abandon my own strive towards excellence or I will actively support changing that system.
I feel the latter option is more likely than abandoning something that is often shaping one's own identity
The system should value qualification higher than other factors. But the system is made up of people with inherent biases that has led to imbalanced representation of the majority over actual qualifications.
You can strive for excellence and equality at the same time. It’s not zero sum.
The system is currently discriminatory against the majority. The desire for "proportional representation" is expressed through discrimination in this case.
No mention that 2 candidates from other parties died in the run up. Or that it's out of 20,000+ individuals contesting various seats. No mention that they are mostly 59+ years old with preexisting health conditions.
Luckily it gives us the most critical bit of info we could ask for, that Musk tweeted "!!"
I don't think it's as big of a factor as the parent comment, but I witness a lot of extremely weird DEI related hiring things in 2020-2022.
C-level executives would flag certain job openings as only eligible for women or minorities. I clearly remember a meeting where our CTO declared that he had rejected an extremely qualified male candidate because "we have enough of those".
When some people complained they started hiding the details, but it was still obvious. There would be hiring rounds where the only candidates coming from HR were dozens of women for a specific role. After interviewing all of them and giving several second chances we couldn't find anyone qualified in that batch of candidates, so there was a very tense meeting where we were heavily pressured to just pick one.
You could tell a lot of the candidates involved in this process were catching on and/or being pandered to and they really didn't like it either.
I referred someone incredibly qualified for a Chief of Staff role at a company. Their resume was well beyond what the company could have hoped to find. The executive recruiting firm was over the moon with him. However, they basically told him that this company was looking for a 'more diverse background' and as a straight white guy, he wasn't it - but they were excited to take him around to other clients.
For a few years, the hiring process seemed broken overall, and in retrospect, it didn't do much to actually help the people it claimed to.
I'm all about strength from diversity, but you can't throw away everything to get there.
If you rephrase "ending DEI" to "reducing the risk of getting sued when laying off x% of staff", does it make any more sense?
Nobody knows how to actually hire competent staff because it's a constantly changing bar: if you give people leetcode, they start cramming leetcode; if you review their GitHub profile, they start spending disproportionate amounts of time on projects; if you give them take-homes, they spend 5x the recommended time; if you give them real-world problems in a timed interview, that's probably harder to game, but some candidates will send a completely different person along. On top of that, some people just interview really well but aren't good 9 to 5. At a big enough company, you've always got a list of people who you incorrectly hired and want to get rid of.
DEI is a minor barrier to doing that for some cohorts. It's not that you hired incompetent people in XYZ groups to bump up your diversity numbers, it's that you hired incompetent people in every group and now you're unable to get rid of some of the ones in XYZ.
Also, let's not forget that some people are just genuinely sexist and/or racist and/or whateverist, either consciously or unconsciously. What happens when those people aren't held back by HR as strongly?
I've had like 10x more pressure lately to hire cheap contractors from India than I ever did to hire a woman or black guy at any point in my 10 years of hiring in this field.
Only anecdotally I can tell you when I was at a medium sized (~200 employee) fintech business in Australia, I was told by my engineering manager to hire any woman or PoC that applied.
but in my 2 year tenure I think only 1 of either applied, both were hired immediately.
>Do you really think that companies were hiring that many unqualified people for DEI reasons?
Depending on what industry you are in, absolutely. I can offer one anecdote that I can personally attest actually occurred. (though I was not the protagonist).
There was an opening for a new, salaried, full-time faculty member after the unfortunate death of the previous position holder. During the hiring discussion at a staff meeting at this (private) NYC college the Dean stated, "we aren't hiring or promoting any more straight white men". They said this openly, and without shame, in front of a room full of people including a well-credentialed adjunct (who happened to be a straight, white man) who had worked there for several years, without an annual contract or any of the accompanying benefits. And, in fact, they ended up hiring a completely unqualified black, LGBTQ woman for that position. The woman was so unqualified and out of her depth that she stopped showing up entirely just a month into the semester. The passed-over adjunct tried to file an EEOC complaint but was told (rightly or wrongly) that since he wasn't part of a protected class he didn't qualify. For the next several years, of the ~10 people that were hired or promoted at this NYC college, none were straight white men.
To the people downvoting this comment -- it isn't just that Musk made a couple of very sharp nazi salutes. You may say, oh, that was just an unfortunate similarity, he wasn't doing a nazi salute at all. But he has a history of boosting nazi posts on twitter. Oh, Musk posts so often he can't vet the source of all of his retweets. But if those are mistakes, the fact is he never makes a mistake in the other direction, which strongly suggests it wasn't an accident.
This is an odd misuse of the term "buzzword." When I think of buzzword, I think of some trendy, cliched phrase, like "Foocorp is a force multiplier that actualizes your vision for maximum impact."
Using an ordinary but less commonly used word with greater than normal frequency does not make it a buzzword. After two years of chatgpt, "delve" is still not that common of a word.
You are confusing election fraud with voter fraud. Voter fraud is a non-issue, but election fraud is something that absolutely needs to be worried about.
One thing I have asked a handful of R friends and family is this: after 2016 Trump claimed 3M+ illegal votes were cast. Not only did he have a personal interest in rooting out such illegal voting, but he was duty-bound to do something about it. He formed a committee, headed by Kris Kobach (which is its own significant story) to investigate ... and nothing came of it. So, which is it: was Trump negligent in not stopping this massive amount of illegal voting, were they incompetent in that they didn't find any, or were they just lying?
Another recurring news item every two years is about how some eagle-eyed county registrar has found hundreds of dead people enrolled to vote. Huzzah, voter fraud proved once again! The fact is that people die all the time (and move away) and one of the routine duties of the registrar is to use official records to scrub the voter rolls. When my folks died I didn't go to the registrar and ask them to remove their names. In the half a dozen times I've moved I've never notified the registrar that I've moved. Such reports are a non-story. The next time someone brings it up I'd love to ask: hey, what is the breakdown on that list? How many of them are not citizens? How many are affiliated with each party. I'm sure it would show that there is no conspiracy going on, just people moving and dying.
My favorite copilot use is when I join a MS Teams meeting a few minutes late I can ask copilot: what have I missed? It does a fantastic job of summarizing who said what.
Isn't there another problem with an employee coming routinely late to meetings, so much that the employee could use a service to bandaid this behavior, asking for a friend
Please, post links to videos of those, not still frames. I've seen much shorter and punchier rebuttals to this claim, but this is what I found just now:
I am a 61 year old guy. I've never been overweight, never smoked, I've never been drunk and drink only infrequently, and have been fitter than average ... sometimes very fit. A few years ago I decided to make an undirected kidney donation. I thought I'd be a slam dunk. Everything was great, except my eGFR (estimate granular filtration rate) was 73, and for many people it is more like 110, which disqualified me, as after donating my number would get cut in half, putting me at some risk.
So I pulled up blood work results going back 15 years that I had records for and found that 73 was my high score! It typically was mid 60s, with a low of 61. I have no idea why it is so low. Anyway, this is the reason I'm relating this story. It seems odd that my kidney function has gone up. It wasn't just a fluke -- I've had bloodwork done at least five times since then and I'm always in the mid 70s now.
eGFR is an indirect measurement of kidney function. It can be slightly lower in some people with normal kidney function for various reasons.
There are additional kidney function tests that would be used for a more complete picture of kidney function if it was suspected that you had a kidney condition. There are more direct GFR tests, minus the ‘e’ prefix which means estimated. However, a better blood test that is more accessible would be Cystatin C. Worth getting one of those as a baseline at some point.
In the content of donation, though, it’s not worth risking it. It’s best to play it safe. If you happened to have been inspired by the kidney donation story and blog that circulated in rationalist communities, it’s also worth noting that it was not a great source of information about the relative risks of the procedure, despite being presented as comprehensive and well researched.
The first time I tried a community donation, they didn't do that. But a couple years later one of my brothers needed a kidney, so I got tested again. Again, my eGFR was low 70s, and so they did the Cystatin C test. I scored 1.00 (ref range 0.52-1.23mg/mL) which they mapped to an eGFR of 78, and I was rejected.
None of my other siblings were a good enough match, so one of my sisters donated hers (IIRC, her eGFR was low 90s) as part of a chain. That was more than two years ago and my sister is feeling fine. My brother is no longer on dialysis, though he didn't experience one of those feel-good stories where he got his kidney and he suddenly felt amazing, unfortunately.
[EDIT] I forgot to address the last part of your comment. A few years back an email acquaintance of many years mentioned that he is on dialysis. Although he is in Germany, I said if he can't find a donor, I'd be willing to fly there to donate directly if I matched or to be part of a chain. He is in Germany and his response surprised me: thank you very much, but he said living donations were not allowed (at least from non-relatives). Maybe things have changed, this was back in 2016.
"But there are some reasons that make this solution unlikely. At first I am very sure that this kind of donor isn't allowed in germany. We have strong ethic rules regarding donation by living people because of the bad experiences with commercial organ deals."
Still the idea sat with me. I have donated many gallons of blood and 25 years ago signed up for "be the match" marrow donation that never came to anything, though every few years they send a confirmation letter to make sure my address is still valid. It most charity donations I can write a check and there is a diffuse sense that maybe I incrementally did some good, but giving a kidney has a high probability to make one person's life dramatically better. So that was my motivation.
I suspect that my kidney function was negatively affected by a reaction to the contrast used in some medical imaging I had a few years ago. Unfortunately, lack of access to healthcare means I've never been able confirm it. I just know that, before that episode, I was noted for my ability to hold my alcohol; after, no more, and I've had to be careful about taking certain kinds of OTC medication because I can feel it affecting me similarly.
Wouldn't be surprised if there was some source of hidden damage like that.
I previously looked at eGFR numbers and they seem very ballpark-ish and prone to fluctuation, as their name implies. My understanding is that they are used to detect acute cases, rather than to give a real measurement of your kidneys if you’re well.
I’m working with doctors at the moment in a similar area. eGFR is well-known to decline at approx 1 point per year after age 30. You’re fine.
Here’s just one source:
“After the age of 30 years, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) progressively declines at an average rate of 8 mL/min/1.73 m² per decade.4”
I was born in 1964 in the midwest US, the 7th out of 8 children. The house was a two story brick structure with five bedrooms and two bathrooms. The house was less than 2000 sq ft, but that included a moldy basement with seepage and jackposts all over the place helping support the sagging joists, so the real living space was closer to 2/3 of that, so 1350 sq ft or so.
The house had been built before 1920 when expectations were less grand; those rooms were much smaller than nearly any home I've been in built after 1980. When my grandpa came to visit each summer, it meant all five boys in one room, the two youngest in sleeping bags and occasionally getting stepped on in the middle of the night when one of my older brothers would get up and forget we were there.
There was also no air conditioning, nor ceiling fans. My parents had a box fan in their bedroom window during the summer. It was a big deal when the bedroom I shared with my next older brother got a box fan too; that was in high school.
I grew up in the 90s and I agree: I shared a room with my older brother until high school.
We shared EVERYTHING. And strangely, it didn't kill us! In fact: it just motivated us to go to sports and clubs and stay out of the house.
Obviously less extreme, but I do not understand this "every child must have their own room" thing. They don't! And I grew up in an incredibly poor rural area, imagine living in a city where there was actual shit to do.
If you grew up in the zero-interest (or close to it) rates era your parents were likely to have shown you an unrealistic financed lifestyle where everyone could have a big house, several cars and their own room.
The only thing I can say (having been born in 1988, sharing a slightly smaller house with 4 siblings), is that that sounds reasonable.
We all shared rooms and had less than a few square meters to ourselves. It was fine. People these days are too attached to the idea they need massive homes to live their lives.
we had loft beds. three kids in one room. each one with a bed and a desk and a small wardrobe underneath. those 2m², or rather those 4m³ were my personal space. the whole room was no larger than 12m².
If anyone else had this experienced and figured out how to make it work, let me know.
reply