Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | binarysolo's comments login

"Millennials spend more on food outside the home than any other generation, averaging $50.75 a week." That's... actually way lower than I expected, though that's average across the US I suppose.

Gonna provide a contrarian view since people seem to be surprised at eating out: some times you just want to outsource the thinking and execution of food to others while you focus on winding down, hanging out with friends, connecting, or what not.

Let's use the example of an SF techie: makes around 100k ($50/hr-ish, or let's say $40 take-home pay). Would you rather work 1hr and explore good foodie options around the City or cook for an hour ($40 for 3 meals)? And what if you enjoyed your work?

Now let's use 50k income, the value prop becomes a little more compelling for cooking, and the lower that income goes the more interesting cooking becomes. But food not just a necessity but a recurring entertainment expense...

PS -- I love cooking for fun, but I only want to cook when I'm inspired and when I can share with friends. Sous viding some steak or salmon, 36-hour prep some pork belly, or making pasta noodles and spicy meatballs from raw ingredients. Eating alone... I'll just grab a to-go box, thanks.

Food variability is a large factor. I eat the same food, in differing quantities, every day. Total prep time per week is around 2 hours on Sunday, plus .5-1 hour per each other day. The health and financial benefits I get make it well worth my time. For others it might not be worth the effort.

For what it's worth, I've noticed that for me too but have considered it a ruleset issue: we all desire to connect with other human beings, but because there are too many people everywhere and of low connection relevancy, the default we take is to not interact with anyone, else we'd never get around to doing anything.

In nature the people are scarce and also all share an appreciation for nature, so it's natural for us to want to connect.

I need to look at the git repo to make better sense of what AML is doing and why their numbers are poor, but off-handedly: the way you structure the ML problem is basically the battle and how it'll do. (Feature extraction etc.) Blackboxing all that makes it really non-trivial to come up with a generalized solution for everything because it counts on the human to frame the problem still.

(Will comment more intelligently once I read the codebase itself.)


I'm surprised they didn't offer to transition/sell their customers to Handy... that's prolly mid-tens of dollars in lead-gen fees off an active customer list of... thousands of customers probably (as well as a less-active list prolly in the tens of thousands range)?


Yeah, cost of acquisition is a big deal.


That number seems off -- I just checked and I have data going all the way from 2012.


The "actual work part" provides the filtering that leaves you with relevant people so you don't end up in a hackathon with lots of wantrepreneurs.


I do actual work in an office during the day, or evenings/weekends at home. If I want to get actual work done, it's going to be working on something of my own, not some thing with a random-ish goal, with prizes.


As others have already said, life is the journey, not the checklist. It's just that other people can share the checklist way better than the journey, and maybe you doing the checklist benefits them in some way.


I know the resume is just solid for today's standards, but do keep in mind that his research/work on data/ML is from 1990s -- and at that day and age this was cutting edge research, and people who leveraged this gained significant competitive advantages once they figured out how to properly execute.

I started doing ML work in 2007-8 and even 5-6 years ago it wasn't the hot domain yet that it is now.


I know several of the lawyers involved on the plaintiff's end (several of them blind and/or deaf) on a friendship, nonprofessional level -- and I'm noticing there's a lot of misunderstanding in the comments. However I am not a lawyer nor am I hugely aware of the nuances of the issues, so take this with a grain of salt.

Basically the law firm in question is using lawsuits as a method of social activism to compel large orgs to adhere to the ADA. (Similar thing happened to Scribd.) Basically deaf/blind nonprofits ask these entities in question for open accessibility accommodations and typically do NOT get denied the request, but this ends up being a low-priority task that gets tabled for years. Unfortunately between asking nicely, mobilizing social support to effect change, and lawsuits, the legal stick is by-and-large most effective at making things happen.

This is also NOT a shakedown; the end goal is NOT that lawyers or plaintiffs get fat stacks of cash, but that these accommodations be implemented. To the disabilities orgs, these requests are similar to asking for accessibility ramps and what not.


The worry of a lot of us is that the cheapest and easiest way to comply is to remove the content. Once gone the problem is solved. That may not be the intent, but if I were in the universities shoes that is EXACTLY what I would do. Even worse if I have to pay lawyers and transcribers.


And ongoing costs for a new ADA compliance office, and the red tape everyone in the community will have to wade through with that office to publish an officially vetted video.

This will have a severe chilling effect on such productions, above and beyond the not trivial costs of getting high quality captions, which for technical material---which includes plenty of specialized humanities stuff, not just math, physics, etc.---is particularly expensive.


In the grand scheme of things I'd probably liken it to disability ramps, braille on room signage, etc. It'll probably add a few points to the total cost, but in the grand scheme we're talking about 3-5%, not 30-50% in additional costs. What'll probably happen is that each prof will need to assign a TA to basically deal with it. (Remember, these specialized technical costs are particularly cheap for universities.)

I unfortunately don't have a lot of insight on the case itself, but I surmise the reason why these activist lawyers are going after Harvard and MIT is because they have plenty of resources to solve these issues. Part of being a leading academic institution is to "do the right thing", and at this juncture it's up to highly specialized legal people to figure out what that means.


Almost all TAs would take forever to caption video and would do a bad job. TAs don't grow on trees and transcribing captions for all the lectures would use up their full 20hrs/week. A lot of the cited videos in the suit are not of course lectures but from events on campus. Good commercial transcription service costs about ~$150/hour with markups for difficult video (bad audio quality, accents, obscure subject vocabulary) but an institution doing a lot of business will get a discount.

An advantage of bringing the suit is it brings in the federal government as "referee." The advocates have their ideas about what "the right thing" is and Harvard administrators and lawyers will have their own but the feds will basically create regulation for how these long-standing laws should be applied in these cases. They might say that certain kinds of content should be captioned as a matter of course but that others can be left uncaptioned until an individual requests it, the analogy being that the school doesn't have to have an ASL interpreter at every on-campus event, just at the ones where one is requested.


This is terrible. What about lawyer costs for the defendants? This is exactly what old-school corporate world does (e.g. IBM): abusing the legal system for a shake-down.


I think we have a different definition of shakedown.

Also I think one of the hidden merits of lawsuits and original intents is to basically have two parties sort things out, with a third party to facilitate and enforce the disagreement. Believe me, as a non-law person this took me QUITE a while to get to this opinion until I see law being one of the only venues to effect change on issues such as discrimination, which at this point is something the deaf see as an issue but many able-bodied people do not. So at this point: bring in people who figure out exactly what the letter/spirit of the law, and let the right thing prevail.


So, takeaway:

-Most jobs are computer-solvable, given enough time and resources.

-From a cost-benefit standpoint, people have strong incentives for automating higher-paying jobs than lower.

-People automating work and people allocating funds to automate said work will reap rewards.

-We as a whole really need to think about a world where a majority of people don't work and figure out how society works and maintains stability given those constraints. (Basic income, etc.)

-For those who haven't settled on what they want yet, they should prolly find work in something that's hard to solve by a robot (that also hopefully provides meaning and sustenance).



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact