Different take - it is pointless to think life as short or long. Life just is. You ARE in this moment of conscious time (to borrow Descartes).
Anything else is either memory (history) or future yet to be.
You, your 'self' are defined by your memory that is the consequences of the paths you took and not the ones you could have, and just like that your future will be the paths you take in this moment. Some try to make effort to be the best version of themselves, some try to live in this moment and many are in between. I do not think there's anything wrong with either extremes as long as you consciously and willingly do it, and sign up for the consequences.
But.. idk.. I find this 'life is long vs short' debate a bit besides the point. I mean we do everything to fit the curve of 100 years of life - first quarter: education, second quarter: career, start family etc.
May be its a perception thing - you're 40 and suddenly you realize you didn't become the astronaut you thought you'd be when you're grow up: how quickly life has passed by. To me personally, framing life as short vs long doesn't provide much solace in this situation but rather the one with culmination of past choices does.
For some reason, we do not talk much about perseverance and grit. May be some of it is getting lost in the (what I perceive to be) increasingly cynical views on meritocracy (not that questioning the status quo on this topic is a bad idea, just that many seem to outright dismiss the idea of hard work and merit).
Barely half way through the interview with Apple for an internship position - which itself felt like a huge win after getting rejected by all the companies I had applied for - I was sweating profusely, couldn't say any coherent line, and was internally just praying for the embarrassment to end. After spending weeks in preparation for the interview, it was a huge blow. Also, since I didn't go to a top-100 (US) school, I didn't know if I could ever even get to the second round of interview with another H1-B sponsoring (~big) company ever again.
Long story short, rejections continued but I eventually found a break in a small local company - which did wonders to boost my confidence after being able to write "real" code for money. Later, went on to do Masters in a public university where I could work as a TA - which meant so I didn't need to pay the (almost impossible out-of-state) tuition. And yes, found a job a H1B sponsoring company where I am quite happy now:).
Its not that my story is any special or anywhere close to the success of like the one mentioned in the post. I guess my point is we can only play the cards in front of us. Being able to find a joy in doing so well (which I think is a secret to persevere) goes a long way not just for success in career but in other aspects of life also.
As a long term JavaScript developer my view into the world of software is distorted to this slice of the industry, so that I what I am speaking to.
Perseverance is not rewarded in software, at least not in JavaScript. The key reason is that there is no trust. Employers do not trust the competency of the developers and the developers do not trust each other. The result is that the work is typically extremely beginner and developers are not expected to write original code aside from trivial React components. Everything else, I mean this literally, is a downloaded NPM package because there is substantially greater trust in anonymous strangers than your coworkers. If you are interested/capable of doing more you aren't compatible with current hiring trends and will not be hired.
In all fairness though if you can get hired in a low cost of living market for 170k knowing almost nothing about how the software or the platform really work doing beginner chores then why bother persevering with hard work to be anything more? Eventually most of these people will elevate to management where their technical experience is irrelevant anyways.
Am I "not trusting myself" when I download an open source library instead of reimplementing the wheel? Should I ask a colleague to write a Javascript interpreter from scratch to show my "trust" in them? Should we collectively conspire to make developing software harder so that n00bs will be out of a job and everyone will have less software and services to use, at a more expensive price point?
It's one thing to lament the average quality of devs you're working with, it's another to suggest the problem is to go back to the 1980s and weed out all the beginners who couldn't code without open source libs.
> Should we collectively conspire to make developing software harder so that n00bs will be out of a job
Ideally, the goal of software is automation. When that actually does occur both the employer and engineer make more money as there are fewer mouths to feed.
Trying hard not to be political. But POTUS speech seems to make things lot worse than better along anything.
The efficacy of this travel ban is questionable (given all these exceptions such as one for UK. Can people coming from other parts just have a layover in UK and be get permission to enter the US?). But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did so in good faith.
It is what's not in the speech that was very very concerning.
- No mention of how / when / if people can get tested.
- No mention of any plan to handle the economic situation. What happens when businesses in Tourism and restaurants run out of their runway and have to layoff people? What happens to hourly workers who get sick?
- No assurance to encourage undocumented residents to go for testing if they experience symptoms.
- No mention of large public events. Many local governments and private organizations are doing so in an ad-hoc ways. A consistent voice would literally save lives here.
Their team seems to be singularly focused on 'winning the narrative' or 'spinning' properly than anything else... Well, I guess this is just my opinion.
> What happens when businesses in Tourism and restaurants run out of their runway and have to layoff people? What happens to hourly workers who get sick?
Well they should have accounted for this! They should work hard to get through this, not expect handouts! /s
As sad as the outcome might be death-wise, I hope this pandemic ripping through the US makes us realize how broken our systems are and how instead of spending trillions on military we should be spending money on our collective wellbeing.
Global free-as-in-beer trade for all costs a ton of money, and is good for global well-being.
Cutting waste is certainly something we need to do better, but let’s be honest about the product we’re getting (that nobody else is capable of producing much less giving away for free) for our military budget.
> Can people coming from other parts just have a layover in UK and be get permission to enter the US?
I believe anyone who's been to the Schengen Area in the past x days faces the ban. Excluding the UK and Ireland surely had political reasons (the UK now also has >400 cases) but it's hard to define Europe if you don't use either Schengen or EU (both of which the UK isn't a part of).
The details are unclear anyway. What about Schengen citizens living in the UK? I can imagine they'll generally let people in from UK and Ireland but question them about travel history and maybe proof of residence. Lying to a border agent gets you banned for life, that should be a decent deterrent.
In the end, it's not like a terrorism threat where the ones trying hardest are the ones you need to catch. Here, keeping 99% out can suffice easily, esp if the others are also questioned and are getting temperature checks.
> Passports for EU citizens aren't stamped anywhere in the EU. I live in Denmark. Would the USA know if I flew to the UK, then the USA?
This kind of question is a weird one to me. It's like "oh, marijuana prohibition hasn't worked so we should tax it and regulated it".
If you're breaking the law, there's sanctions. You may or may not get caught, and you may or may not be penalised, but that imperfection doesn't decide if it's valid or not. The jails in every country have murderers in them, but murder has been illegal since time immemorial. No-one proposes that we allow murder because with the prohibition we simply wind up with people in prison.
And there's a big difference between free movement of people versus a limited funnel of people. If it's still early enough, that could make the difference between something that is containable and something that is not, and it might make the difference between ICUs that can cope with the peak and being completely overwhelmed. (However, I think the horse has already bolted on this one.)
what would work in that case is take the Channel Tunnel to England, then lie about how long you've stayed in the UK. It probably wouldn't work if you have taken a flight out/in the EU in the past months as that would show up to any customs official.
We saw many people in Italy fled south by train and car in the hours before quarantine was to be imposed in parts of the north.
I wouldn't be surprised if some people in Europe are making similar "escape plans" via the UK, if they feel they need to be in the USA for some reason.
As an example: a parent of an international student, whose university in the USA has just been shut down.
I suspect it is trivial for the US to check who boarded flights across the world, and you left many other digital footprints (payments, cell phone activation, etc). IANAL but I believe that lying to immigration when entering the US is a pretty efficient way to get banned from entering for life.
All EU citizens (including Irish) and British citizens show a passport or national identity card when entering Britain or Ireland, or when entering the Schengen area.
The document is checked, but it is not stamped. GB/IE←→Schengen checks used to be very simple — often just a glance, no checking the chip or swiping the passport in a reader. Often it was just one or two customs people standing by the gate and looking at each document, not even with a desk. Now (since the refugee thing?) they do swipe the document on the passport-reader-machine.
I assume an electronic record is kept (at least for some period of time), and it is surely shared within the EU+GB, but I don't know if it would be shared to the USA.
(If the situation were reversed, would the USA tell the EU about American citizens who've crossed the US/Canada border using their driving license?)
That is obviously also gonna be a reason. But I could imagine that his staff feels more comfortable with Schengen as a zone with (usually) open borders and high infection rates rather than specifying single countries. The latter would probably be harder to keep up in courts.
FWIW, without making this political, I don't even think it's the golf resorts. US and UK have very close economical links, there's a lot of business traffic. Esp by wealthy people flying NYC-London regularly. I would rather think he didn't want to affect those. I can imagine a lot of his friends would've been angry if NYC-London gets shut down. Most visitors to his resorts in Europe will be from the continent anyway. But that's obviously pure speculation.
Dublin has pre-clearing[1] arrangements for entering the US so you can do all your checks in IE. Most of the US companies registered in Europe are in the RoI/UK, which could be reason for why they exclude it. Also whether this makes sense for "containing" is a different question.
If you have ever traveled to US via Dublin before you will never want to travel from another airport after.
[1] > Dublin Airport is one of only a handful of airports outside North America that offers a US Preclearance facility. The benefit is that having cleared USCBP, passengers arriving in the US are treated as domestic arrivals, allowing them to avoid immigration queues upon arrival and pick up their bags and go.https://www.dublinairport.com/flight-information/travelling-...
these containment measures are important but considering that there are no numbers on tests it really is just a distraction from the fact that no tests are being done in the US.
It makes him look like a "strong leader" in front of his base and lends an appearance of "we don't stop from drastic measures even it hurts the economy" (which he was accused of before).
Any time a talking-head goes in front of a camera, the only question that should be asked is "how many tests did we do today, yesterday? ... where is the data for it?". Without the transparency for the numbers of tests all other measures are just a distraction. Anyone who speaks about stuff before these numbers are public knowledge needs to be kicked off the air and down the street (metaphorically).
Also reporters who engage them and do not insist on extracting the numbers before continuing the conversation are complicit.
a lot of people who criticize the ban says its arbitrary, etc etc. go to the site below. you can also sort by total cases / 1m pop. US stopped travel to China while the EU did not, and you can see that in the numbers. Right now, the US has one of the lowest rates in the world: 4 per million.
If you want to call Trump for a mistake, it was not banning travel from EU sooner, when they themselves didn't ban travel to China.
The US is not testing nearly as much as other countries. Two weeks ago it has tested <500 people, as of March 11 the US has tested only 11,079 persons[1].
With this amount of testing the numbers you're referring to are completely meaningless. The number of infections is artificially kept low by limiting testing. Hundreds of thousands could be infected, the disease is growing exponentially, and there could be thousands of hospitalizations soon. I'm going so far as to say that there will be thousands of hospitalizations in the US soon and the death toll will soon climb rapidly.
For comparison, Italy has tested 60,761 people as of March 9 [2], and Germany, for instance, has started randomized testing of the population as part of the yearly random influenza testing.
A team with a mix is best if it's not a mix just in terms of personnels but in projects and the way incentives are structured.
The culture within the team can go south sooner than one realizes if the 'process' types feel they're constantly cleaning up the mess of pioneers (who tend to get more attention in general for their shinny projects). And on the other hand the pioneers may perceive process-types folks resist any new changes and are stuck supporting outdated technology. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Lots of respect to the man Swartz. Not a big fan of news (mainly the cable) myself but the absence of it is pretty terrifying as well. Whatever is left of little accountability will pretty much vanish.
I'd argue that the problem isn't the news, per se, but the fact that news is a business, with a primary motive of maximizing profit and not necessarily 'informing' the public objectively. But on the other extreme, state run media that do not have the same objective of making profit are even worse.
> but the absence of it is pretty terrifying as well. Whatever is left of little accountability will pretty much vanish.
Did you read the article? It critiques the fast-paced nature of the news and the choice of topics, it doesn't call for abolishing the news.
> But on the other extreme, state run media that do not have the same objective of making profit are even worse.
Incorrect. For instance, here in Australia, we have a state run media channel, the ABC (abc.net.au), and the quality of the news and reporting is much better than the commercial news.
What is it about Americans that make them believe that things that work perfectly well in many other countries (publicly funded television, gun control, universal healthcare) are impossible?
> What is it about Americans that make them believe that things that work perfectly well in many other countries (publicly funded television, gun control, universal healthcare) are impossible?
What gave you the impression that I am an American? I, unfortunately, am one who had to endure the non stop propaganda perpetuated through state run media in my country.
> reporting is much better than the commercial news
How do you decide it is 'much better'? Could it be that you just happen to agree with it? (or not). Since you mentioned America, there are lots of people in America who take Fox News as sole source of truth. And perhaps equally large group who regard MSNBC as such.
And it's pretty interesting to observe that you pulled the conversation right into politically charged topics of healthcare and gun, when I was merely pointing out that news is indeed valuable, and there is always bound to be this friction between the profit oriented but free of government influence vs state run media.
I think lots of HN readers here are missing perspectives from Facebook users in 'third' world countries, where there aren't a lots of alternatives for information sharing and discovery.
As someone who grew up in one of those countries, I found Facebook incredibly useful to find alumni of my high school in US universities and ask them questions on how they got here (LinkedIn was not a thing then). There weren't, and still aren't, any alumni network or guidance counselor. I didn't even know where to begin (say to Google things).
This is, of course, just one use case but the point is that Facebook does provide value to some people. Back home, for many people of generation before the internet, it is the only way they stay in touch with their several kins on other countries. We can debate about what 'value' / 'meaning' it adds to their lives. But that is a separate conversation.
And yes, there are concerns about privacy. But that is the tradeoff you make in life.
I am personally from one of those third-world countries (India) and in my experience, it's easier to stop using Facebook here since the social fabric is already strong enough that you don't really need Facebook to be able to stay in connection with people. I quit Facebook half a decade years ago when I was 16 and haven't had to use it again.
People used to have social connections before Facebook came around and the methods to form and maintain those connections aren't dead yet since there is a large portion of population who never started using Facebook (my parents, for instance.
If you are in a field of work which requires self-promotion, then Facebook is extremely useful, and empowering, because you can promote yourself without a middleman.
There's plenty other positives about facebook. It allows more convient and efficent ways of communication, networking, and sharing that honestly didn't exist before.
To me the fundamental problem of Facebook is not computer-facilitated social networking, but rather that it is run on proprietary centralized servers by a for-profit corporation.
You, your 'self' are defined by your memory that is the consequences of the paths you took and not the ones you could have, and just like that your future will be the paths you take in this moment. Some try to make effort to be the best version of themselves, some try to live in this moment and many are in between. I do not think there's anything wrong with either extremes as long as you consciously and willingly do it, and sign up for the consequences. But.. idk.. I find this 'life is long vs short' debate a bit besides the point. I mean we do everything to fit the curve of 100 years of life - first quarter: education, second quarter: career, start family etc. May be its a perception thing - you're 40 and suddenly you realize you didn't become the astronaut you thought you'd be when you're grow up: how quickly life has passed by. To me personally, framing life as short vs long doesn't provide much solace in this situation but rather the one with culmination of past choices does.