Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
These are good points. Society will need to decide if we push back on AI and aim for upholding the standard of human quality or accept a higher efficiency at a lower quality.
Comment · 2 years ago
He may be right or he may be wrong - it's great that we're having this conversation.

One thing that is overlooked here is that we're in the business of creating things to solve problems in the world. Code is simply the medium of creation.

Perhaps writing code does get scaled down over time and replaced with AI to a large extent. But the basic business and human needs that the code is solving doesn't necessarily disappear. Product management will still exist and there will be a need for humans that can talk to their human customers to understand their human needs. If the next step in that process of creation is prompt engineering and reviewing AI-written code, so what?

As creators and problem solvers, we need to always be reinventing ourselves anyways.

This will be a particularly painful and uncertain time for anyone whose job is going to look drastically different in the future, which is most of us. But I don't think that these arguments necessarily apply any more to software engineers than they do to a lot of other careers like writing, law, art, or movie production.

Comment · 5 years ago
It's true that rewriting everything is not always the right answer and that fixing existing systems is underrated. However, there are very few instances in history of systems being indefinitely fixed and upgraded. Most societies were not gradually improved and reformed forever: eventually they fell and were replaced with new societies. The same is true of technology and companies: most technology is eventually completely replaced with newer, better technology that is inspired by earlier technology but that is still new. The cool thing about DeFi is that it has built-in ways of upgrading itself. In traditional systems, upgrades are more centralized and have a single point of failure: once that point of failure (eg the developer/maintainer) stops upgrading, the system dies.
Comment · 6 years ago
I'm curious what they meant as well. Perhaps what they meant was the potential period where the virus is replicating in the body before the immune system detects it and kills it. I suppose even someone with the vaccine would have a very short-lived period of viral replication? Or perhaps they simply meant that humans could be fomites (eg, it gets on someone's hand, then they shake your hand, etc?)

Honestly I'm just guessing here. I suspect this is not a real concern.

Comment · 6 years ago
This was my thought exactly. Some of my friends in the Bay area got COVID-19 (confirmed positive tests) after quarantining for over two weeks at home and taking all of the precautions. The only place they had been was the grocery store, so they suspect that they got it there.
Comment · 6 years ago
This is good news. Thank you.
Comment · 6 years ago
Soooo....

- SARS started out with a similar <4% estimated fatality rate and was then revised upwards to anywhere from 9-15% later.

- COVID-19 is caused by a different strain of the same virus as SARS.

- The CFR of SARS and COVID-19 appear to be very similar, and more notably, appeared by be very similar when we had around 8,000 infections which is where SARS ended. (Similar meaning the CFR hovers between 4% and 20% of closed cases.)

How are we so sure that this is any less deadly than SARS?

The above suggests to me one of the two is likely to be true:

1. There could have been many more undetected cases of SARS than we knew about, indicting an IFR much lower than it's recorded CFR.

2. COVID-19 could actually end up having an IFR that is similar to SARS (~10%).

But of course, I am no epidemiologist, so I assume there's a flaw in my logic.

Did I miss something, or is this pretty much the same disease as SARS but with a higher R0?

Comment · 6 years ago
Power move or not, these are things the US desperately needs. Just accept the damn supplies, thank them, and try to do better next time.
Comment · 7 years ago
This really does answer the question, spot on. The client side app does see the key(s) but it does not send them to the server. This is how E2E encryption works, browser or otherwise.

I'm not sure specifically how Tanker is storing the client-side keys. Generally the client-side keys would be encrypted using an OS-level keychain.

Comment · 7 years ago
I've long felt that the "common wisdom" that teams are better is wrong. I can list as many solo-founder companies as I can team-founder companies off the top of my head and even the team companies are usually mostly one person doing more of the work.

Personally I know a lot of very successful solo founders but I can only think of a few team founders that I know. The solo founders all have much stronger willpower than the team founders too.

Just my anecdotal evidence.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton