None (or at least few) of the folks you’re gonna see on HN are going to be in the income bracket where they’re going to be living in East Harlem. It’s about half an hour from the places where things happen, at least, and might as well be an outer borough for most intents and purposes, given transit times, even if it’s technically within the stated geographical limits of Manhattan.
A bunch of the comments here seem to be talking about what's in the headline (a game being realistic + feeling like work) without really noticing some of the broader social commentary in the article (the workaholic — and sort of toxic — culture of tech in China).
Seems like a potentially good game to train oneself in figuring out how to spend investor money though lol.
The thing articles like this miss is the problem is not will there be some set of skills gained on a given path, but what skills are gained (and at what opportunity cost) versus alternatives.
I appreciate how this post gets resubmitted every couple of years. It's been a go-to bookmark for ages now and really does help give some visual intuition for what's happening.
Say the middle point is M. We know that for each person the ratio of time to go between M->A should be the same as to go between M->B since the distance is fixed only the rates are different.
First lady got to B at 4 pm so her M->B is 4. Second lady got to A at 9 pm so her M->B is 9. Since they both left in the morning, if we call the first lady's M->A time to be x, we know that the second lady's M->B has to be x as well.
Using the fact that the ratio of M->A : M->B should be the same for both of them, we can set up the equation
4/x = x/9 ==> x^2 = 36 ==> x = 6
Since getting to M was at noon and 12-6=6, dawn was at 6 am.
(For what it's worth, I did trial and error too cause I was lazy and didn't feel like thinking... then noticed the nice pattern and back justified it. :P)
There's a meandering article here but not much of a thesis.
Even when the author addresses the title of the article itself ("So again: Why this book—for ninety-six years, over and over?") he goes back to meandering.
It seems like the author is trying to say something between "we read it because it's like watching celebrity drama and awful people are fun to watch" or "we read it because it's the American Dream" or "something along those lines, but again, it meanders so badly between unrelated (probably true, or at least opinion) statement to other (probably true, or at least opinion) statement where it ultimately ends up going nowhere.
We (mostly) don't code in assembly anymore because there are compilers. Your can say that writing high level code (merely "configuring things" in your parlance) is more "boring" than say, register hacks, but that's a bit shallow. (Also, something something leaky abstractions making the whole "it'll only be configuring things!" kind of a moot point.)
Consider programmers from the 80s/90s or early 00s. The ones that still have jobs today are the ones that have kept up with trends and adapted, or otherwise had the luck of being at a place that hasn't. It's the same for the future. Stagnate on old tech, have your career die on the old tech.
Not a lawyer, but I'm really curious to see how this plays out. This case has a lot of confounding factors:
* other companies/entities that can be considered "competitors" (Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc)
* the acquisitions in question (Instagram and WhatsApp) being approved by the suing entity (namely, the FTC) themselves back in the day
I wouldn't be surprised if an outcome of this were to be say, limits against cross-linking acquisitions together or the like in the future. However, having existing companies be forced to be spun out in their entirely... I have a hard time imagining that being the outcome, given the chilling effect it could have on the rest of the industry.
Another possibility: Perhaps one of y'all ended up bringing up the topic of cereals (and those cereals in specific) because of a new ad campaign one of y'all saw.
You hadn't seen it yet, but lo and behold, you did later.