levemi

I'm surprised DDG can donate so much money to open source. They must be doing well? Or is this money they've helped raise from their users? $225,000! That's a lot of money.

For what it's worth I only voted for pinboard because I like what they're doing. I didn't vote for any of the other startups. I didn't see the promotional tweet and I had hoped pinboard would become a YC company. I'm disappointed all around and while I appreciate that the money will help people at the charity I'd be lying if I didn't say that I'm disappointed Maciej didn't go and join the YC family with pinboard.

You know given the title and the bait it presents to a particular kind of people I should have known better than share with people a positive thing about Microsoft and to suggest they think for themselves.

It's definitely more palatable than blindly bringing out the "M$" pitchforks but I guess if you were looking for something on HN to get your daily anger fix I guess feel free to use this as your opportunity.

Microsoft is a huge organization with tens of thousands of employees. We have no idea what was communicated between this commenter and the sales person. At some point you have to kind of step back and realize that you're responsible for your outcomes and not blame everything bad that happens to you on others. Searching Google with "startup microsoft" or "startup pricing microsoft" would have been enough effort to figure this out.

Right, people use to think this Satoshi was brilliant, and now if he is Satoshi all people will think is what a self-promoting and incompetent jerk he is. He should have just stayed quiet or made a simple blog post like the litecoin did without the PR blitz campaign. Doesn't seem like a very smart person tbh.

> Please don't tell me about how a treaty should be voted on by the people, because I already agree about this part.

Direct democracy in diplomacy and trade negotiation sounds like a really terrible idea. It would just be constant protectionism, xenophobia and probably ruin economic growth and everyone will be the worse of for it. Sometimes giving more people a voice does not result in positive outcomes.

It's hard to see how you can have much success with this method. Current recruiting strategies involve getting from recruiter telephone call to final decision within 2 weeks, or 1 if possible. The faster you move on a candidate the more likely they end up working for you. At my current employer initial phone conversation, telephone interview and on site were all within 7 days.

I find it very difficult to imagine how an engineering position wont benefit from having strong CS fundamentals. If you write code you need to understand how the code you are writing works. How the libraries you depend on do what they do. If you run into problems you'll be need to able to think of solutions. This idea that you'll look up how to do some computer science algorithm when you need to is ignorant, because you may not know when you need it.

A lot of the CS fundamentals in interview questions demonstrate an ability for problem solving and abstract thinking. It demonstrates your ability to handle coding problems under stress. Resorting to complaining about hard computer science problems is the exact opposite response you should have. It should motivate you to improve and learn more, not feel bitter and angry. Likely this attitude indicates a poor culture fit as well. So in effect asking computer science question is doubly useful, because it helps filter out candidates who opt for alternatives to self-improvement and overcoming challenges.

If you complain about CS requirements for software engineering jobs your complaints are going to fall on a lot of deaf ears because people desire competency. Dunning-Kruger is having its impact felt in these threads. If you think computer science fundamentals aren't a requisite for software engineering it's probably because you don't have the experience and skill necessary to understand what engineering competence looks like.

F-35 funding is through congress and involves congressional oversight and is a multi-branch project. It's not just the Airforce that has the F-35.

> because so many of them

Is this based on your personal observation or are you referencing some known well established statistical fact.