Some comments try to justify this - they’re wrong.
Even if it was just 1% of users, outright ignoring their issues is not acceptable. And far more than 1% travel abroad or do other suspicious activity (such as buying things at a place you’ve never purchased from before).
And there are services that handle this correctly. Starling bank (UK) is a fave of mine. Confirm in an app, enter full password in some cases, but that’s it. I had to make some sketchy looking transactions and no matter, they never block your account or make you jump through additional hoops.
> Confirm in an app, enter full password in some cases, but that’s it
That's only on the bank's side. There's a major problem where the merchant later cancels the transaction on their side despite successful 3D-Secure.
Either 3DS doesn't actually offload liability (so even accepting a fully 3DS-verified transaction is a risk), or merchants aren't up to date on what they are and aren't liable for.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, your second source does very much imply some people can tell the difference quite reliably. As expected, regular people can scarcely tell the difference, but musicians are better at it and sound engineers are in fact quite accurate.
This matches my own experience well: most of my friends do not care about various levels of compression, nor what headphones they use - that's fine, I'm glad they're enjoying art in their own way - but I, and some others, do in fact stand to benefit from less compressed audio.
I've personally done blind tests on myself using a python script that randomly plays compressed and uncompressed snippets of the same track and mp3@320 was not transparent to me (though opus@256 was).
Can I tell the difference when casually listening? I don't know, but when the cost of lossless is having my music collection take 60gb instead of 20gb on my 512+gb device, I have no reason not to go for lossless.
The thing about being or not being able to point out differences in audio quality is that it all boils down to pattern recognition. If you know anything about pattern recognition, you understrnd that you can't have pattern recognition without prior training through provision of tagged samples of such patterns.
If you would give high quality audio experience, to a person that has been listening through 80s general store headphones, to low quality radio rips on magnetic tapes, you might be surprised how few people are going to describe one as "better", without prior description of work and technology required to produce each experience.
And one would be even more surprised by how many people choose the cassette tapes because of nostalgia and a long time satisfying experience.
isn't perception itself a matter of mere pattern recognition? hearing? the whole point is that you can hear the difference. whether or not it sounds "worse"... is certainly debatable, but is definitely a value judgment. and the burden of proof is definitely on the "it doesn't matter side" to prove that a lower fidelity version is "better" than one truer to the original master.
I've done the same blind test with decent but not amazing headphones (HD590) and I could tell the difference all the time as long as the music was slightly complex.
If loudness was artificially boosted, I had a harder time but could still often tell. I think the sound engineering of the music played a big role and a lot of modern music isn't mixed with complexity in mind.
I actually think going the tokenization route is a good idea. As a positive side effect of the cryptocurrency boom, a lot of good research on POW/POS secured distributed systems was done and it would be a waste to not at least consider using this research.
As long as you hide the details in the depths of documentation of the protocol, make up alternative terms to those that have been tainted by cryptobros and don't mention any relation to cryptocurrency-originated technology, you would probably successfully avoid having parallels drawn between your project and cryptocurrencies.
Sure, someone might cobble together an API and put your token on a cryptocurrency exchange against your best wishes, but I think the risk of that is low. It's easy enough to launch your own crypto and if I'm looking to run a pump and dump scheme, why attach myself to a project that openly distances itself from the crypto scene?
If it can be done, it will be done. Non-consenting projects have been hijacked for pump-and-dumps countless of times. Better design the economics of the token with that in mind rather than having them broken once the wrapped token inevitably hits DeFi markets and gets spammed across Discord and Telegram chats.
The value of a HN post lies not so much in the article itself, but in the surrounding discussion. While notable, a discussion about Prigozhin’s rebellion would have likely dissolved into low-value political squabbling.
On the other hand, an interesting, but unimportant happening such as the one in this post is fertile ground for quality comments.
And yet the comments on the thread I saw were quite useful — many from Russian speaking people confirming that the same news was being shown in Russia, etc.
"The problem doesn't exist for the very best" is really not much of an answer. Besides, even the best may not have much luck right now. Tons of employees from what are considered the top companies are looking for a new job. I have a very solid CV and I'm getting ghosted when applying for jobs I could have taken for granted a year ago.
I’ll give you the point of view you won’t like but it’s the truth: Candidates from “top companies” come with a lot of baggage. They’re going to expect a continuance of the massive inflated salaries they enjoyed at those top companies along with all the associated perks and amenities. They tend to be very egotistical, don’t want to be burdened with doing interview tests, white boards, or take-homes, and generally have this annoying holier-than-thou HN-level of arrogance.
So why in the world would I want to hire an overpriced ex-rest-and-vester when I can instead hire someone hungry with a track record of making a difference at small to medium companies?
I actually agree totally. My experiences doing hiring and then subsequently working alongside folks for the past decade or so have led me to view FAANG experience on a resume as a moderate negative signal. It’s not at all that I don’t think the folks who work there aren’t smart or talented- they have just disproportionately been difficult in the interview process and had impossible salary demands while being not being stronger performers than their peers.
Are those “with a track record of making a difference” also ok with interview tests, white boards, and/or take homes? I don’t know if viewing excessive tests with disdain is a characteristic solely exhibited by ex top tech; I feel like that’s a universal sentiment among top talent regardless of their background. Not wanting to be burdened with unnecessary burden is a good thing!!
I also don’t think people generally have a problem with interviews. You have to be assessed somehow, obviously, and people at top companies still get interviewed when jumping to other top companies. I’ve really only seen serious complaints (that is, beyond mild grumbling) when interviewing is a huge time sink for a specific company, especially when that company’s compensation is lower and/or the communication process is poor (e.g. ghosting).
Why in the world would anyone interview with you if your company offers less than top tech for equal or harder interviews? (Spinning your rhetoric back at you for added effect. I don’t know what your hiring is like.)
Why in the world would anyone interview with you if your company offers less than top tech for equal or harder interviews?
People who need job will apply. Its not like some one is forced to apply when otherwise they could get million dollar a year job to develop deep machine learning AI at Google.
I'm actually dealing with this right now. I have a previous-FAANG new hire into my organization and when they came for their drug test they started complaining and "providing feedback" about the package they signed (pay, benefits, WFH policies, etc.) to the poor recruiting person who was just performing the test.
If that attitude persists, it doesn't matter how good they are, their toxicity will override that skill and they'll be out before long.
I'm saying this as someone who came here from FAANG companies and put in a lot of personal effort to not become the FAANG brat.
Let me preface this by saying I also dislike Musk and do not think he is managing twitter well.
Yes, they were not necessary.
Please, before you call me ignorant and downvote, just let me elaborate.
I have seen the issue first-hand, it is subtle and specific to large companies.
First, companies want their stock price to go up. This is more important to them than profit margins, because the people making decisions (as are most employees) are renumerated largely in stock. Simply keeping a business profitable and stable will not increase stock prices, you need to convince investors that you have great plans which will make the company stronger. Hiring more employees makes this look more convincing.
Secondly, the best way for managers on all levels to increase their standing and compensation is to manage more people. As a result, it doesn't matter if your team is running optimally with 20 people and there's no point in starting new big projects, you must come up with reasons to hire more people to progress your career. Therefore, every manager is adamant about having perpetually understaffed teams.
The result is that more projects will be started - regardless of whether they make sense - and more people will be hired to work on those projects. At all levels, perpetually.
It is debatable how bad this inflation is, but the case of twitter shows that even a horribly abrupt and mismanaged exodus of 75% of employees will have no discernible mid-term effects on the product.
At risk of sounding extreme, I'd say that if the layoffs happened in an organised fashion and none of Musks's ill-conceived ideas were implemented, such loss of workforce would not have affected income. I also believe that if most large, established tech companies were built with efficiency in mind rather than perpetual stock growth, they could be effectively ran with 10% of the workforce.
> First, companies want their stock price to go up. This is more important to them than profit margins, because the people making decisions (as are most employees) are renumerated largely in stock. Simply keeping a business profitable and stable will not increase stock prices, you need to convince investors that you have great plans which will make the company stronger. Hiring more employees makes this look more convincing.
Your other points are valid but this part is completely incorrect - Wall Street investors are extremely sensitive to costs and love high-margin businesses. No investor believes that just because you're hiring and increasing costs, that you will magically grow revenue. The cause and effect are almost in the opposite direction - strong past revenue growth (and consequent high stock prices) cause executives to be over optimistic about other opportunities, which lead to overhiring, which then allows the other effects you mention (which are valid) to take hold. But the root cause isn't stock prices going up because of overhiring, but as a rational response to past success.
It's plausible that this is a fake, but consider that what you described is based on reasonably simple physics, something than AI that's capable of generating human faces could likely figure out.
What makes me believe this is actually AI generated art is the hands. They're all fucked up, in every image. I don't know why, but all image generation AIs I've seen struggle with the human hand.
Quite surprised by the amount of pitchforks here. I certainly don't think of AirBNB as a failure and I doubt most others would. Is there a problem with scams? Totally. But that's hardly exclusive to AirBNB, wherever there's a market, digital or physical, there will be scammers. This was the case for all of human history and it's on you to vet your stuff.
I've used AirBNB for long and short term stays, in Europe and in the US. Each time I stayed in a delightful places that was a genuine passion project for the hosts. Those places would not exist without AirBNB and similar services.
If you're on a tight budget and just need a place to stay at for a bit, it's obviously easier to go with a Marriott. But if you're willing to spend some time on searching the best place to complement your trip, AirBNB can get you the best experience.
The problem is that Airbnb is the scammer here. They've intentionally misleading customers thinking they will be protected against scams of this type while in reality they are not.
Problem is not scam itself, but how airbnb handles it. If customer with 10 years old history, reports problem, it should by treated seriously. Not stole with "more proof needed" tactics.
If hotel chain electricuted people in shower, it would get fined and closed pronto.
This looks really cool! I've written a music bot with Serenity before and have been hosting it on a VPS. I was looking on migrating to serverless infra, but Cloudflare workers sadly didn't work with streaming audio over a voice channel for a sustained period. Is this use case supported by Shuttle?
I haven't lost my phone yet, but it's only a matter of time before I get unlucky enough.
I'm prepared for it by using ProtonMail for my main email with (strong, memorized) password only, no 2FA and Starling for my bank, which allows you to log in with password + video of yourself.
Even if it was just 1% of users, outright ignoring their issues is not acceptable. And far more than 1% travel abroad or do other suspicious activity (such as buying things at a place you’ve never purchased from before).
And there are services that handle this correctly. Starling bank (UK) is a fave of mine. Confirm in an app, enter full password in some cases, but that’s it. I had to make some sketchy looking transactions and no matter, they never block your account or make you jump through additional hoops.