I've been using Cron for the last year and a half and migrated from Vimcal.
It's a delightful calendar with all the modern keyboard shortcuts including Vim's J/K for previous next and logical shortcuts for everything else (m for month view, w for week view, c for create, etc.).
It's speedy. (Hopefully Notion keeps it that way and doesn't introduce Notion's annoying lag)
They've nailed the details:
- meeting participants are easy and logically sorted
- you can move an event between calendars and accounts with no hiccups (Apple Calendar used to die on this repeatedly)
- they expose just the right amount of information for a calendar invitation in the right order - Title, Time, participants, conferencing, then location - so you can tab through and hit enter when it's done
Conferencing is great - select your app and the meeting is automatically generated and added.
It has Vimcal-like sharing mode where you can block off time and autogenerate either an easy to read list of available times and dates or you can opt to append a link so people can book online and see current availability. I have a couple of quibbles with this implementation - it's hard to add 15 minutes to a selection - but overall it's quite elegant.
The last thing that delights me far more than it should: Command-Shift-J opens your Meet / Zoom / Whathaveyou no matter where you are on your computer.
That said, it's clearly been neglected since the Notion acquisition. IMO it has gotten actively worse/buggier, and the mobile app hasn't seemed to improve at all? I am not hopeful for its stewardship under Notion, given how clunky Notion is. The entire value prop of Cron is the lack of clunk.
I've switched to Amie (amie.co) and been really enjoying it. The aesthetic is a bit overly "playful" for my personal preferences but it's decidedly not-clunky, which is what I care about.
FWIW: Cron and Amie both sit on top of Google Calendar. They're just better frontends. So it's not really an "either-or" type decision.
I find Google calendar on desktop to have a bunch of little annoyances relative to Cron.
Examples:
- When you create an event, it pops over your calendar instead of on the right
- You can't easily tab through the event creation process
- Not simple to share a list of available times for scheduling with external users
- To switch which calendar my event is going on, I have to click to expand, then click to change
Cron (excuse me, Notion Calendar) is just cleaner.
I know there are ways to make a web app act like a desktop app, but I prefer installing an app and being able to jump to it or open it from Command-Space on Mac.
I won't rehash what others have said in the thread (UX good, etc, all of which I agree with).
I explored switching away from Cron a few weeks ago because I use Fastmail for personal stuff, and the thing I found myself struggling to live without is the global shortcut for joining the current meeting. It feels silly to say, but I freaking love that feature.
I like this back-of-the-envelope estimate, but it's even worse than that.
The carbon in oil is lightweight relative to the two oxygens it combines with (atomic weights 12 and 16 respectively) from the air, so 1kg of oil emits about 3kg of CO2!
Punchline: we emit around 34 gigatons of CO2 per year.
My argument is that we're probably going to kill the Gulf of Mexico, anyways, with global warming; so, let's go ahead and dump 34 gigatons/year of serpentine in it. That'll 0-out the CO2 we're releasing, at the cost of dramatically changing the Gulf's ecosystem. At this point, I really do think we (humanity) are going to have to make some pretty hard trade-offs.
But wouldn't it be a carbon chain again in the seaweed without oxygen? So, we can ignore the weight of the oxygen? Still, the numbers are huge. But I think at this point we have try everything at once.
Unfortunately, the cost of building proposed power-to-gas plants is high enough that it doesn’t make economical sense to run them just a few hours a day.
Theoretically, if power-to-gas plants can be manufactured at scale, you could make gas generation plants further away from where energy is being consumed. We already have tons of infrastructure on this planet for moving gasoline around.
You could also keep ICE engines in use without worrying about their carbon footprint. Excess renewable power turns into fuel to be used in cars, boats, trains (diesel electric freight cars), and airplanes.
Using this tech for off peak leveling on the grid might not be cost effective, but it can certainly be used to support the existing infrastructure we have to allow for a more graceful transitional period.
Ammonia - NH4 - is often proposed as a solution for shipping. Note there is no carbon in the chemical formula, thus there is no carbon dioxide resulting from burning it.
There is an N in that formula, though, so burning ammonia is going to result in nitrous/nictric oxide. NOx is also a greenhouse gas (indirectly, apparently), and the hazy brown component of smog. One of the oxides is laughing gas. On the whole, I think pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is better than pumping smog and laughing gas.
Extreme caloric restriction reduces lifespan, but there does seem to be a sweet spot of restriction that lengthens it.
None of these things are proven in humans however and we don’t really know the side effects. Do they give you dementia? Do they make you dumb? Unlikely, but we just don’t know.
This may have worked for you, but I've seen babies cry after breastfeeding and burping. I've seen parents try to force them to breast feed and they bob on and off because they just aren't hungry.
The breastfeed strategy worked probably less than half the time for my oldest.
I'm glad this works / worked for you. If only it were this simple for the rest of us!
There are a lot of comments quickly taking issue with and interpreting the phrase “anti-racist” as being actively racist.
If you give Jeff he benefit of the doubt here, you can read this to say they’re going to think about whether layoff choices are made with implicit bias and/or racism and be thoughtful about that.
It’s possible that the non-benefit of the doubt interpretation is valid, but I don’t see evidence of that here.
HN is a place where debate is welcomed, but drive-by comments accusing them of going out of their way to lay off white and Asian employees when there is no indication that’s what they’re doing is not helpful to the discourse.
Sorry, not giving a virtue-signaling billionaire the 'benefit of the doubt' - he explicitly says that race was taken into account when deciding who to fire and who not to - that is de-facto a racist statement.
You don't fix racism by being racist.
If jobs need to be eliminated, they should be eliminated by making decisions about which departments/projects/initiatives are no longer needed, which people are no longer performing well, or which area's are not profitable etc.
As soon as you say, we took into account peoples race when deciding who should be fired, it is racist, period.
This is a tired debate that won’t be resolved here, but here’s the other perspective anyway:
Suppose you work for a company and your boss is from Country X and you are not. Your boss hired several other people from Country X and regularly socializes with them more than others in the office.
When layoffs come, your boss instinctively advocates for the people he is closest to, which happens to be people who look like him and speak the same native language. “That’s not fair!” you say. “I’m a higher performer than them. This is just favoritism.” Your boss says that he did not take race into account in his decision.
Your company agrees with you and tells your boss that his favoritism is unacceptable. There are now processes in place to flag this kind of situation. Your boss grumbles “well I didn’t take anybody’s race into account before, and now I have to. This is racism!”
Except they do take race into account. Have you never been on a hiring committee for a tech company? There's a just-barely-legal imperative to prioritize all nonwhite/nonasian and nonmale candidates. In some corporations, this goes as far as mandating that an equal number of nonwhite/nonasian candidates as white/asian candidates make it to the final interview round.
What makes you trust someone who says they aren't taking race into account when that same person okayed having objective racial biases baked into the hiring process?
Humans have a known exploit called "lying". It's well-documented being abused in the wild and there are no patches. Keep that in mind whenever someone is telling you something that is in direct contradiction with their actions.
> What makes you trust someone who says they aren't taking race into account when that same person okayed having objective racial biases baked into the hiring process?
To continue the analogy:
Your company is growing again and your boss continues to hire a bunch of people from Country X. HR contacts your boss and tells him that he can’t just keep interviewing/hiring people from his country. Your boss responds that he is hiring the most qualified applicants.
After several months of your boss hiring people from Country X, leadership steps in and says that he must interview people from other countries. He starts interviewing to a wider group of applicants, but funnily enough, he persists in mostly hiring people from Country X. He swears that he is not biased and is only picking the very best candidates.
Leadership steps in again and says “Look, you need to start hiring other people. I don’t care how impartial you claim to be. There is talent all around the world, and narrowly hiring from Country X is becoming a liability to the company. We would like to see at least Y% of your new hires need to come from places other than Country X.”
Your boss contacts the media and files a lawsuit. After all, the company is explicitly, actively discriminating against applicants from Country X, right?
Yes, so long as the boss can prove that the hires from country X were superior to the alternatives for their respective roles. The most competent people deserve the jobs the most, period.
This is hilarious in the context of white-collar work, considering that women absolutely dominate college degree issuance, and have for quite some time now.
Still, there is a shocking shortage of women in highly technical engineering roles. I'm a board member of a local college's Women In Tech group, and have donated a few thousand dollars of my personal money to the group. There are just not as many women as men who are interested.
Philosophical issues aside, the Supreme Court is sort of ok with “fixing racism by being racist” if it’s done to compensate for historically being racist.
Many countries do this and it's not controvertial. The UK Equality Act says that given two candidates of equal ability, it's legal to pick the candiadate from an underrepresented background purely because of that.
Totally agree. Saying they are ensuring that their layoffs didn’t disproportionately impact minorities and pregnant women doesn’t mean disproportionately fire white men.
I think it'd be better for them to re-market this principle as "bias-free" or something more generic. Calling it "anti-racist/anti-oppression" is, fair-or-not, going to invite this reaction from outsiders.
Making maps is something everyone does and existing map software is really targeted to professionals. Even if you figure out how to make a map with the GIS desktop software (QGIS or ESRI), taking the maps you made and putting them online is another huge hurdle that requires a separate skillset.
I think Felt is taking the winning approach - to enlarge the market by making map making possible for everyone and making it be online-first.
I've been playing with https://clockworkmicro.com/ to make layers in my spatial database viewable by others, but it requires some GIS knowledge and familiarity with databases (unlike Felt).
