Many companies have vacation and sick leave the same. You can be sick, but vacation less, or vice-versa. If you're predisposed with a weak immune system and need a lot of sick leave during the year, well, sucks to be you at those companies.
This is the cowards approach. Take the time and rebuttal properly, or don't reply at all. Just because you're "e-popular" on HN doesn't give you a free pass for weak arguments.
I agree. Saying "well, I can tell you for a fact that you are wrong, but I don't have time right now" is a very poor form of debate. Hopefully he elaborates soon, as I think he's a very intelligent poster!
A proper rebuttal would probably warrant at least something of blog post length, if not an actual essay.
If you try to make some shorter reply in this audience then it would simply be hyperanalyzed to find every little chink on the armor of the logical argument (and failing that, simply to start making emotional appeals that ignore logic completely).
It's pretty funny when the "chilling effect" applies in the opposite direction IMHO; it's something I've also struggled with IRT the Snowden Saga.
1. Has to have a light to indicate recording, or everyone around you will be paranoid. (Most people will still be paranoid, but at least you can say "No red light, it's not recording!").
2. Will probably be very popular as a cyclist camera. Cyclist who just want a decent 720p camera to record cycling activity (evidence against dangerous drivers), but don't want to attach a dorky camera to their head (i.e. GoPro), will like the Google Glass -- assuming it can fix onto cycling glasses. Also, having GPS/Strava/heart-rate/cadence all on your Google Glass will be awesome for cyclist. (and runners)
This whole light thing seems a bit out of proportion, like being paranoid of people wearing shades in case they are eyeing you up (which is more than half the reason anyone wears them in the first place).
A goPro mounted like an alien beacon on top of the rider's head could be a clear signal to a-holes that their behavior will easily be recorded. I could see a whole secondary market in decoy helmet mounts appearing. Google Glass might just inspire more rage since it lacks the goofiness. Drivers may get a sense of levity from the goPro. It's like seeing the antennas on little cars that make them look like remote controlled cars... so cute - "Go ahead. Cut me off. You're just the cutest little two seater I ever did see!!"
There is a reason why the GoPro is still in the form factor it is in. It is terribly hard to pack most of the GoPro's features into a small volume, they went with something cubish and built accessories off of that. The Glass couldn't keep up to the demands many fans would have and I imagine there is a struggle within the company concerning the increasing demands for resolution, frames per second, and image quality with the volume of the form factor they have.
That said I do see helmets with HD cameras and wireless controls in the future. Trademark™ and all that.
I read an insightful comment on Reddit regarding yesterday's Russia train station bombings. It went something like "Because of the long lines due to slow security screening, terrorists are opting to target the long lines at airports or train stations instead of targeting the planes."
So, yea, TSA isn't going to fix that unless you have screening before the screening, and then you just have another line.
Are flights between European countries, say Denmark and Finland, as easy as the OP's experience? Or has post-911 NSA influenced the majority of modern civilization into encumbrance?
It's pretty much the same. The security checks are a little bit more lax than TSA but no noticeable difference really. The airports in Finland and Denmark are generally pretty fast at getting people through security, maybe because of pretty low volume.
The most time consuming screening, my experience, is in the UK. Flight screening on the Continent is perhaps a touch quicker than in the States, but same ballpark.
More generally, tech workers who enjoy healthy six-figure salaries want to live and raise families in nice places. Even if they don't have ocean views, the SF Bay Area offers excellent beaches, skiing, biking, hiking, sailing, surfing, golf, parks, etc. -- all within ~3 hours' drive and for a good portion of the year. The weather and geography are such an important factors.
It is a damn shame the Texas Coast isn't more developed in that area. The only city I could see being close to Austin is Houston, and attractiveness isn't one of its strong suits.
I'm surprised I've seen no mention of Tampa/Orlando/Palm Beach. No income tax, pro business government, the locals would not get bent out of shape about "outsiders". Good weather and recreation. Also, the whole gateway to Latin America thing. Orlando might have the best flight connectivity of anywhere in the USA; that's a big reason why all the PGA players live there.
> Working at a startup it's a huge success if I ever have to handle a lot of connections to my app, but today and everyday, I want fast response times on a page load.
Realistically, I doubt many humans can distinguish between 1ms and 100-200ms. response times.
True, especially when accounting for Internet latency.
However, the purpose of this project is not actually to measure how quickly platforms and frameworks can execute fundamental/trivial operations. Rather, these tasks are a proxy for real-world applications. Across the board, we can reasonably assume that real applications will perform 10x, 50x, 100x, or even slower than these tests. The question is, where does that put your application? If your application runs 100x slower than your platform/framework, does that put your application's response time at 200ms or 2,000ms?
