Nature could act as a filter. If you reach industrial production and you destroy nature, your entire planet may die. So only civilizations that have some level of respect for life itself may pass the barrier where they can build megastructures and reach other planets.
Apple could have an almost complete social graph. If Y Smith is the common acquaintance between you and your friend, then it would be the best second suggestion if you want to share something in that part of your social graph.
I've done two onsites with Google in the past essentially YOLOing it (I only study my interview failures because I view otherwise as an inefficient use of my time) - first time did terrible, second time almost passed if I didn't completely bomb my very last session. The second time ended up not really mattering because two different teams in two different orgs for my current non-Google FAANG wanted to hire me after onsites done on back to back days (side note: that was almost 15 hours of interviewing in two consecutive days - that's a lot of time, I only was able to do it because I was funemployed at the time).
I actually appreciate it very much if a candidate didn't study & focus more on giving the best answers to their capability when I interview them - the questions I give them are usually questions that no amount of studying would have prepared them for, so already taking the mindset of trying to respond thoughtfully & earnestly to problems & situations that change on a whim puts them a step ahead.
I studied for the interview I wanted (by being a thoughtful software engineer in my day job) and not for the interview they offered (which would require me to either be a professional leetcoder or some algo/performance expert). If they didn’t want a good software engineer then they’d have to pass on me. I made it clear in every session that I was thinking through the problem, asked good questions, and when there were aspects I could write concrete code for I did. If you score by solution competence and performance I think I aced 2 of the coding sessions and did pretty mediocre in the other 2. My interviewers must have been willing to go a bit off of the default mode of operation as I managed to get an offer.
I don’t know if interview performance has anything to do with negotiating power, but I was able to get damn near the highest possible total compensation my level allows for without a competing offer.
>and psychokinesis (which consists of effects like metal bending). Can I bend cutlery and coins? Sure, but I heed Cassidy’s advice, and I don’t. If I step onstage and bend a fork with my brain, it makes everything too unbelievable. “You can pick up on thoughts and you can bend spoons?” an audience member might say, the seeds of suspicion creeping in.
So why does he not heed the advice for the article itself?
I think this is the core sentence of the article:
>My wife volunteered in a couple more demonstrations, and I knew she wasn’t in league with the mentalist. (Or, perhaps she was, which would explain our eventual divorce.)
He still doesn't know and he has spent all his life to find out.
>I probably acquired close to a thousand books on mentalism, and several hundred videos.
That's fast! But it looks like it still needs a server, and I'd rather avoid giving the internet arbitrary code execution rights to some server I pay for and risk having my bill explode or my account terminated for abuse.
I'm way more worried about ending up hosting miners or other malicious crap, Godbolt himself said users have found all sorts of ways to escape the compiler explorer sandbox over the years. I'd rather serve the compiler as a static blob that runs in the browser.
>Some offsets may come down in price due to economies of scale, but they will never be cheaper than “no offset”
There is one: pricing carbons out of the energy market.
If there is e.g. so much progress in carbon fibers that all construction is done with carbon, then all available carbon will be used for that and nobody will waste it to create energy.
Cement will cease to be used because there is not enough rough sand available. If carbon fibers replace that usage, emissions will be stopped.
It's actually stupid to store CO2 in saline storage because in 20 years or so, we will pay good money to get it back.
It should be possible to calculate the price of carbon in 100 years when each of the 10 billion global citizens demands their share of carbon. Offering investment opportunities now in a venture that stores carbon e.g. in the arctics like people store aluminum in the Mexican desert, should provide the funds to create extraction technologies and facilities to make carbon emissions a non-issue.
*edit: Looking at wikipedia, this doesn't make sense. There are 54tonnes available per person.
Maybe humanity has to grow to 1000 billion people to question carbon emissions.
>Proven sources of natural gas are about 175×1012 cubic metres (containing about 105 gigatonnes of carbon), but studies estimate another 900×1012 cubic metres of "unconventional" deposits such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon
IBM has Eclipse. Not only is it an underhanded offense towards Sun, but IBM has shown that they are not willing to push the software to its best possible state.
Eclipse is nice but JetBrains' products and Visual Studio Code are nicer.
IBM is struggling with cloud computing. Adding SUN, they would have tried to turn it into a SPARK offer and burned much more resources.
Both SUN and IBM couldn't continue as before. How could IBM have used SUN to create something better?
At SUN's scale, there was no way forward for their OS or their chips. They were too late in open sourcing their OS, which could have created the market for their chips. Oracle did what SUN's management should have done years before.
In my opinion, Steve Jobs chose to build consumer products because that brings the scale to produce chips. It's in IBM's name to serve businesses, not consumers. The cultural change to create the foundation for SUN's hardware business is almost impossible to pull off.
I would like to argue that the world is a better place because Oracle is maintaining Java, something that SUN didn't fully achieve.
Instead of browsers and Javascript, we could have a jvm everywhere. We are building the full stack with technologies like react and virtual DOMs anyway. It's too late for that, but it's in Oracle's own interest to make Java shine.
HN makes sense because votes shouldn't decide about the value of a comment. That's why the votes are hidden. You would destroy threads where people reply to your 'bad' comments.
Github on the other hand doesn't make sense at all. People participate voluntarily. Which infringement did the lawyers bring up?
This is still such a nice idea. Have you considered relaunching it with gitlab and sourcehut?
*edit: You have pitched your project differently:
"Show HN: Give and Get more GitHub stars" [1]
That's ranking manipulation. No social network can tolerate that. I would restart the project and keep the ranking on my site. People will still benefit because their projects get known. Additionally, they will receive genuine stars from the people who discovered and liked their projects.
