Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | braza's commentslogin

> For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.

Exactly. There's a post from last week on how media/journalism became more entertainment than information, and I think the complete opposite of the first reply: If you have bandwidth and time to consume most of those "world news", then you're the privileged.

One example: In Germany if you watch/read the state regional public broadcast from Berlin[1] for 2 days you will learn more about the whereabouts of Donald Trump, the President of Ukraine, sports news, or some broad reporting about "cultural" aspect of the city (e.g. about Hildegard Knef, something about Karl Lagerfeld and so on), or general gossip.

The city itself has fewer private investments than 5 years, the schools lack basic infrastructure, educational ratings are dropping, delays in public transportation, the hospitals are lacking personnel, 10% unemployment, and an awful housing situation, squeezing the working people.

[1] - I'm totally in favor of public broadcasting that comes from the principle called "broadcast what you want to become or aspire to be" that is more focused on factual journalism (i.e., no commentary), educational programs (especially with Public Universities STEM lectures being broadcasted), educational cartoons, classic music and orchestras, and space/nature/technology documentaries.


I used to related with what the OP says and if he’s under 35 makes sense to jump to another adventure.

Anyways, a friend of mine told me the complete opposite than the OP after not being selected to a promotion 2x: He stayed competitive enough to the market in case of any issue, but at the same time he slightly moving to the “Dead Sea” existence where the tenure created a small co-dependence between himself and its employer.

His employer knows that he’s working at a discount in comparison to offshoring his job, but at the same time even being a L4 like can enjoy a lot of free time and agency to know when and where to throttle his productivity.


The only potential aspect that might be bad at least for me is that, even with Udemy having a bigger variance in terms of general quality Coursera will impose it course aesthetics, rigidness in the syllabus, and bring a lot of people not in the market to give the courses.

I like the idea of having some professor of high credential US university given lectures about the things in some accessble way and I think this has a huge value, but at least for me, since Udemy is more about tactical courses in 10 out of 10 times I will go with the person in the market that pulled a course que a great and non-exhastive content bringing all the tips and tricks of the market, even if he/she does not make the bad in the background.

I do not see those 2 things co-existing if Coursera impose it.


> My take away from this is that you can't change the culture

I've seen the culture changing in some special circumstances a couple times in previous companies, and honestly all of them were ugly: 1) Demographic replacement (having more people saying yes and out-vote the legacy employees)

2) Hired guns from the top to the bottom to shake the system (we called in a company those managers "007" because they used to have licence to fire).

3) Non-compliance stable as a discipline method for the "legacy employees" (very adopted in Central Europe)

4) "Train-your-replacement" as a coercion method for collaboration

5) Some modified version of the "madogiwa-zoku" but instead of looking to the window, they push people to go for the "metawork," like organizing events, being a developer advocate in conferences, assuming roles as "community managers," or being used as a "donkey token" to be used in conferences or panels of "_______________ in tech."


The last one made me chuckle. Worked in Japan, didn't see many madogiwa zoku (probably because I only worked at startups) although it was talked about a lot. But I guess community manager-esque position did exist, and now it makes sense why so many big company blokes that went to tech meetup came off as very incompetent


I'd love this. I honestly need to train my spirit, and "please stare at the wall" would be amazing for my dopamine-fried brain.


> Non-compliance stable as a discipline method

Can you expand? I don't understand what this means.


It's some low-risk/consequence project/initiative that is designed to receive people that will be fired due to lack of compliance and/or collaboration with the new management.

Once we had a German colleague that was not so collaborative in sharing the knowledge about some specific parts of the application, and the Tech lead replaced her MacBook with a Windows 10, and she only can write PRs related with DocStrings.


This seems kind of childish to be honest. Why not just fire the person?


Because firing people in Germany is a multi-year process that requires (among many other things) paying for a complete training course in all job-relevant skills under the assumption that any incompetence is caused by insufficient training.


Psychotic IMO. We will fire you but only after you've been publicly humiliated? Who thinks to do this kind of shit?


As has been stated above, I’m guessing in this specific example it would’ve been due to the rather strict labor laws, which I’m not going to comment my opinion on, just to clarify/explain: Here (Germany), you can basically not fire someone if your company has >10 full-time employees, and they’re not actively misbehaving (or under trainee/probationary status). Yep, this statement means exactly what it reads.

So I’m guessing that’s the reason for this “passive firing” method.


I mean I'd guess it was because it's somewhere with a higher bar to firing. Redundancy or dismissal are both much more complicated (expensive) than simply making it very clear you'd like someone to leave.


What you say and what they think are not the same, usually your meaning and intention is drowned out by their pre-existing assumptions and incentives/motivations. You have to resonate with their assumptions and incentives for them to "hear" your meaning and intention.


I’ve seen 3 and 4 in Europe, 5 is the perfect encapsulation of shelving disguised as a sh*it sandwich. 1 and 2 are difficult to pull. YMMV


I like the general idea, and I owe so much for the talks and bloposts. That said, I really miss the old deep boring technical talks with speakers with an attitude of "I do not care if you meet the tecnical (and probably cognitive in some several cases) requirements to be in this room".

I used to go in talks in the late 2000s and the difference with talks now in the mid-2020s is that the speakers now are so good and well-crafted, the slides way more professional, and the storytelling is so compelling, and... that's the issue(?) for me.

The strange loop maybe was the last bastion of tech conference where I could check in those kinds if speakers.

There are so many aspects of topic accessibility and formatting that some of the open-ended parts of a technical argument or some not-said parts are not in the presentations anymore.

Beforehand I used to go to some talks and literally take notes on 90% of the things, and back home I started to do some research about it, and eventually I learned 70% of it, and I started to have at least 2% that made some difference in my daily work.

Now the talks are so well structured that I do not see most of the time the open-ended unsaid topic that could be an intellectual side quest, given how well the presenter placed it and made it uninteresting for me, or they do not talk about this open-ended aspect at all, and it never sparked my curiosity.

Maybe it's not such a sophisticated analogy, but the old format would be like reading a book and piecing together a lot of not-explicit points from the author, and the other one is like having the same book in a cinematic experience with a well-crafted screenplay, costumes, dialog, and so on.


> The strange loop maybe was the last bastion of tech conference where I could check in those kinds if speakers.

Strange Loop was amazing. The vibes were perfect. And I've never been to another tech conference that I found to be so mind expanding. Most of the talks I'd attend had no practical utility in my daily life, but got me thinking about all sorts of what ifs and if/how I could apply some nugget of what they were saying to more practical applications.


> It's not like they can rug pull on the data or even the existing app binaries.

This.

I spend 6 months to export 100K notes from Evernote mostly because they intentionally throttle the exports to a limit and you can extract it only in their proprietary format that truncates some data.


Last year after a thread around Obsidian and the downhill of Evernote I took almost 6 months to migrate more than 100K clippings and notes and it's so refreshing to have your own data in sync in your terms and not be in any proprietary format, that I do not image myself going to anywhere that I cannot push/retrieve my notes in my own terms in a portable format.

Notion is a great product for corporations, and I get why companies are jumping on this bandwagon so fast; however, as a consumer, I wouldn't consider it or any option based on seat (like Outcrop) or any that wouldn't give me a binary that I can use in whatever machine that I want.


Yes, it is. I've blogged since 2006, and after the content-oriented-to-SEO boom, I totally lost hope in writing online again. Part of me wants to write for the sake of sharing, but the other part thinks being a free content farm for AI is quite depressing.

On top of that, discoverability is dead, SEO indexing for attribution of original works does not exist, the culture of rehashing content for walled gardens like LinkedIn and Medium is out of control, and the substackzation of writing does not make things optimistic.


> There’s no point in whining about the impulses endowed to them by several hundred thousand years of evolution. Don’t hate the player; hate the game. And if you really hate the game, make a better one.

I have contact with kids from 3 different places, 2 with high independent mobility and 1 with low independent mobility, and as much I like to agree that kids needs to be free, there's an important parental argument that needs to be talked about that is risk vs reward function if the kids get hurt.

In places with high mobility (at least 2 of them in the chart) there's some state support in terms of children's sick leave if something happens, plus work protections if you need to be absent for more than 6 weeks, and the education system has mechanisms to not let this kid be left behind (for example, if a kid breaks his/her legs).

In those places with low independence, I talk with some parents, and all of them are scared of the possibility of something permanent happens or something that can demand continuous support during working time; in those cases I can see why they play safe.

In the other hand, another second-order effect is that in those places with low independency, one thing that I noticed is that the motor coordination takes way more time to develop, and it cascades down for instance during sports activities (of the lack of), physical development and so on.


Wait, so you're saying the major factor in the parents decision making on letting kids run free is not if they'll get hurt or not, its if they get hurt enough to miss school and not being able to take off work?

Sounds very situational.


I understand the rationale and I am happy for the authors and I think the distribution will be way better.

As a user I like to get out as soon as I click because I can trace back the link and I can do clipping or bookmark in my browser.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: