I have worked at a couple of FAANG. When I wanted to get things done, I would hide in a meeting room, or I would work from home.
The office is the most unproductive environment (at least for me). People will interrupt you all the time, for random things, chit chat, coffee and what not. Having head phones all the time did not make any difference.
Am I the only one who thinks Google Meet is no where near Zoom (stability, resolution, etc)?
I doubt it works on Safari (it won't let me talk). If you ask why I'm on Safari, it's because I couldn't grant it microphone access on Chrome (for unknown reason).
You are not the only one. In my experience Google Meet is significantly worse than Zoom, especially under pressure. Even slight degradation in bandwidth that zoom scarcely notices causes dramatic sync and audio issues, and it almost always seems to have worse video resolution than zoom under similar network conditionns. I used to think it was only like that because I didn't have very beefy hardware but having upgraded my laptop to a very high end processor spec and lots of memory it hasn't improved at all.
I don't know where you guys work but I have worked in very big co with meeting attended by entire organization > 50 and much more. Google Meeting, in chrome, worked just fine. I am not sure about other browsers. But I prefer chrome to having to install a client. Also, I find Google Meeting interface much cleaner and easy to use than Zoom. In addition, you can record meetings; they are stored in GDrive and you can share them. Plus, you get captions and transcriptions. All in all, is a much superior product.
A few reasons (caveat: this was all in early 2020):
1) We kinda got forced into it since most of our customers were using it.
2) GSuite kept annoying changing what was in our plan for Google Meet.
3) The video/application audio sharing and quality felt superior than zoom at the time.
Also for the price of Zoom, GSuite + Slack, you can get Office 365 including Teams for about half the price.
In the UK Microsoft Teams has become the de-facto business video call standard, but aware this is different in other parts of the world.
And you will need Word and PowerPoint anyway if you want to easily and properly interact with other companies without compatibility issues (try sending contracts with redline back and forward with comments and tracking between Google Docs and Word!). Sure you can operate with Google Docs using LibreOffice as well, but in my experience it's just not as friction-less as O365 and actually for what you get it's great value.
Agreed - Teams has a truly terrible messaging interface. Organization is nearly nonexistent, and the UI is awful.
On the other hand, I find Teams video conferencing to be pretty good for video meetings. Once you get to a certain number of people, Zoom starts to do better interface-wise, but for a useful number of participants Teams has been relatively friction-free for me.
I like Bitwarden too, but can't dismiss the fact that 1Password is superior to Bitwarden in many ways:
- Mobile UI is beautiful on 1Password.
- The UX from creating a password entry to auto-filling is easily better on 1Password. Bitwarden doesn't show autofill entries on login forms yet. That's a deal breaker, at least for me.
- Account recovery via a trusted family member.
- Additional security measure: private key in addition to master password.
Bitwarden has all those features you listed. I use it every day.
You can setup a trusted family member. You get a master password and private key incase you can't access 2fa. You can setup autofill entries. UI/UX are opinions.
You pay $40 dollars a year for Family, $10 a year for an individual. Cheaper than 1password.
I bought Lastpass when it was $12/year. Over the years and after being acquired, they tripled the price. I miss when technology used to decrease in price and provide better functionality.
Hopefully so, but I'd be willing to pay even upto 100 USD. I store a lot of things on 1Password these days that it's very hard to give up, and very convenient. It's not just passwords; medical documents, credit card details, passport, certificates, private notes.
BitWarden is not free if you compare apples to apples, and sign up for the same features including cloud hosting, 2FA, and family or enterprise accounts.
$620M isn’t for a password manager, it’s financing for a business with an enormous and growing user base.
Bitwarden is free for individuals and couples. So, it's free user-friendly (WAF!!) wise [0] in comparison to 1pass [1]. But much more important thing is the fact that bitwarden is open source and 1pass not. Closed source is deal-breaker for me.
"Crippled" is a big word. It does everything that KeePass would do, for example; it only falls short when it comes to sharing passwords among a group or family (you can send a secret via BW Send, but you cannot have a shared store unless you pay for Premium).
Yubikey and its likes are advanced features that the overwhelming majority of regular users will never need.
"Crippled" implies a degree of everyday suffering in the "cripple", or a downgrade from a previous state of health. The advanced features in Bitwarden were never free, in fact I think some of them were eventually added to free plans too. I honestly don't even want stuff like yubikey support, and could see that as feature bloat!
I don't expect everything to be free, I'm perfectly fine with the freemium model when the set of free features is reasonable - as, in my humble opinion, is the case with Bitwarden. So I wouldn't use a word like "crippled" when it's more like "normal for regular users vs enhanced for advanced needs".
I thought that it had all the same features, just not cloud sync. As far as I know the Yubikey is used for authenticating with their sync server. It doesn't actually help with the encryption
Bitwarden's free plan does have end-to-end encrypted cloud sync with no device limit. The free plan lacks TOTP support, but Bitwarden's $10/year plan does include TOTP support and is cheaper than 1Password's $35.88/year plan. Bitwarden is also open source, while 1Password is not.
I'm referring to Bitwarden Authenticator, which stores TOTP secrets and displays 6-digit codes like Google Authenticator does.[1] This feature requires a Bitwarden Premium account, with the $10/year plan being the cheapest option.[2] (Self-hosting through Vaultwarden is another option.[3])
This is separate from having TOTP 2FA on the Bitwarden account itself, which is available on the free plan.[4]
Well let me ask the much more obvious question, for something as important as protecting your passwords, why on earth would you go with a proprietary service where you have no idea about the security, that could take away your access at a whim without any recourse for you?
> Because much like privacy, password security shouldn't always be only a premium option.
So then who foots the bill? Password managers are the duct tape used to protect a user because we don't inherently trust application providers.
> proprietary code is a deal break for lots of people
Sort of. First, "lots of people" seems like "lots of people" because we're on HN. The wider population doesn't care whether your application is proprietary or not - they just want something that works. Apple's wall garden is proof of this. Second, you can still charge for a product and it be open source. An application being open source simply provides an audit log of the code and allows for "wisdom of the crowd" when it comes to bug and security issues. So yes I agree that having a password manager be openly auditable is a great feature, but I (and many others) likely would rather have the features of strong UX and known tenure (OSS tools get abandoned all of the time) then we would having an auditable source code.
Bitwarden does charge for certain features like TOTP support, organizations, and enterprise features. They manage to have subscription income while remaining open source, whereas 1Password chooses to keep its code closed source.
If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree. It's nice that Bitwarden offers a security-audited* password manager to those who can't afford a subscription, who aren't ready to pay for one, or who don't have the means to make payments online. Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points.
> Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points
Well said - and this is the important part of the 'non-proprietary' argument of mine (above) - right now I consider 1Password's real customers being their shareholders/investors, not its users - the users are just another tool they use to bring value to their real customers (investors,etc.).
> If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree.
For the record, I'm not. The overall discussion was that charging for a product was somehow bad. Bitwarden does charge for their product, just at higher tier levels. My bigger point is that you do want a provider that is going to stay solvent so charging money (which Bitwarden also does) is not some perverse way of satisfying customers.
That’s likely because they are used to BW first and was learned at home. This sort of ”phenom” happens all the time and is not only about the actual product.
There will be exact examples of the opposite happening.
I'm looking forward to Bitwarden implementing multiple account logins ("client profiles") [1] on their roadmap [2], before doing a gradual switch away from 1Password. Any time now!
>"The land is a finite resource, thus it can only appreciate in value."
This is a non-sequitur; lots of things are limited, but often collapse in value. As a former Saudi energy minister once said: 'the stone age ended, but not for lack of stones'.
land is the one thing almost never goes down because we can't create more of it. for almost every other aspect of our lives, they are alternative solution to the problem but you can't create more land. Building vertical to increase density is only kicking the can down the road in a context where the humain population is always increasing.
Well, apparently worldwide population will peak sometime and then slowly fall. The mitigating factor being that it probably won't happen in most of our lifetimes yet. That said, some countries might experience their population plateauing sooner than others. So perhaps if we kick the can down the road for a while longer, it will indeed have been enough.
> That said, some countries might experience their population plateauing sooner than others
And all of these countries (except japan/Switzerland) are planning to bring more immigrants in to make sure the population is always increasing faster. Something that most people in first world countries don't realise is that the entire population of their country is smaller than the number of millionaires in china+india. Even if all if america+EU became sterile, there would still be enough foreigners to buy more unit and push the bubble further if they open borders. And they would, because the entire economy depends on it.
Only if the capital is available. Speculators tend to use borrowed money to do their thing and drive prices up. Good times until they’re not, then boom.
I have family who made a fortune off the backs of people living under this delusion in the 1980s and the 1960s.
To add to this, it's not even necessarily true that the value of land itself is up 10x. It could very well be that the value of dollar is DOWN 10x. The effect on price tag is exactly the same.
"Isn't already super trivial to get a nodejs app and running" No. Hosting a node server on a bare metal vps is not "trivial". You need to deal with routing, auth, etc and that's even before you get a user on a different continent.
I think its a worthy exercise for new programmers but IMO there is 0 reason to waste the time and mental overhead. Im sure we all have about 6 projects languishing because we dont want to ssh into an instance and remember what the hell is going on in there. Maybe just me.
Homes like stocks are way overvalued. Homes are fueled by the frenzy of ownership at all costs, and stocks keep pumping at absurd levels.
Everything is extremely overpriced. Eventually, it will come down to common sense.
My friend has put all his savings and stocks to buy a 2b apartment. Myself, on the other hand, did not sell any stock and have invested all my savings. I rent a much bigger place, my rent is way lower than his mortgage and at least for me it will be more convenient to rent at least for the next 10y. After that, I will retire and move to a cheaper area.
Keep saying people have gone mad. Many fail and underestimate cost of ownership. Remember that a good chunk of your mortgage are taxes and interests, factor that when you compare rent vs buy.
That said, I do own properties that I rent out. But I bought them at sane prices. And they generate cash flow that I use to pay for my rent and other expenses.
People have been saying this for a long time in Canada, but there is no indication that things will change. People who waited and saved have simply seen that the price increases have far outpaced their saving rate.
When it's in a government's interests to keep prices rising, then they're going to do things that keep those prices rising.
Another outcome could simply be that actual ownership of a house in some areas becomes so expensive as to be the exclusive domain of the wealthy, and everyone else just rents. More middlemen raising the costs, more renting and less ownership per capita, as is the trend of more and more industries these days.
> ownership of a house in some areas becomes so expensive as to be the exclusive domain of the wealthy
I agree. In fact, I live in an expensive area, but planning on moving in few years when I will be retired. Then I will buy a mansion for little money. And still gonna have plenty of savings and investments to pass onto my kids.
I don't understand the ownership at all cost. You need to run some numbers and understand if buy is financially more convenient than renting. If not, it is ok to rent.
But some people are just obsessed with ownership. Even if is not financially sound.
I don’t think people are obsessed with ownership for the sake of ownership. There are a large number of benefits to owning which the individual might find valuable enough to pay for:
- more space
- individual outdoor space
- control over your own area. Can paint or remodel however you like.
- Dealing with terrible neighbors isn’t nearly as bad.
- location might be quieter and more desirable
If we compare renting a house to buying a house, the cost just doesn’t make sense for rent. It’s much higher than renting an apartment in cities
That's hardly the case. Buy a big place, usually costs more than renting one. Or at least that's my experience. If I had to buy the place I rent it will cost me easily $3M to 4M. My rent will only pay for a 2b/1ba.
I am talking about major city. Perhaps is different in suburbs, don't know.
>Dealing with terrible neighbors isn’t nearly as bad.
It is way easier to just rent a different place than having to sell your house because of that noise neighbor that likes to throw party every week end.
I rent, but am looking to buy. Rent is about 2200 / mo for me; and buying would be 2700/mo for me... but in 4 years, rent will probably be 2700/mo for me and then buying will begin to make me money.
Sometimes buying makes sense as well. The NY Times has a good calculator for this. In my case, rent is so expensive in my city that buying and building equity was higher EV than keeping my cash in investments.
Comments like this make it seem like it’s all figured out.
Everyone’s situation is different based on income (sounds like you are high income too - which makes choosing where to deposit cash easier), location, family/living requirements, current net worth, job stability, partner income, etc...
It is very possible too your friend made the better decision. There was a time where stocks and house prices going up was different and the world was not in a 10 year plus aggressive bull market.
Absolutely, it all depends. But I keep seeing close friends who are now home poor. They own their place, but that's it. They are done. They don't have any significant money for rainy days, they can't afford anything else because all their money go into their properties.
For me, that's not how I want to live my life. But as you said, everyone is different. So for them, perhaps that's ok. Not judging.
Don’t think you are judging. Comment definitely just came from position of what I infer as having privilege:
- 10 year retirement (no idea your age but assuming this earlier retirement/semi-retirement)
- Rental properties that are cash flow positive (require in most circumstances a bigger down payment)
- Assuming others have enough income left over to put into the stock market after rent. Don’t consider madness for families to balance their lifestyle and savings
Either way, I believe the majority of these homes Zillow bought are more towards the lower-middle class budgets. Which is kind of my point on frustration with the inflated cost. It’s a much bigger impact than a lot of tech bros/girls probably feel personally.
It is a seller market, and it is probably gonna stay that way for some time. The only properties I am considering buy are those located in vacation places. You can still find good deals, and you can easily repay by renting them out for few months a year.
I will only consider buying a property in a major urban city only if I had to live there basically for ever. Otherwise I will keep renting. Prices in major EU cities, like the rest of the world are insane compared to the level of income, even for wealthy engineers.
My background is in automation and robotics; I studied system identification: a discipline where you would use mathematical means to identify a dynamic system model by observing input/output.
You treat the system as a black box and estimate a set of parameters that can describe it (e.g., Kalman filter).
I struggle to understand what's the fundamental difference between system identification and ML/AI. Anyone?
You ultimately have a bunch of data and try to estimate/fit a model that can describe a particular behavior.
It all comes down to a big optimization/interpolation problem. Isn't what they call "Learning" just really "estimating" ?
Then the more CPU/memory/storage you have, the more parameters/data you can estimate/process, the more accurate and sophisticated the model can be.
As someone with a similar background, I believe some of the confusion is because there is a lot of overlap. System identification is very similar to supervised learning, however there are other learning "methods" that still fall under the umbrella of ML/AI. For example, unsupervised learning doesn't really have a good controls analog (as far as I know). Reinforcement learning on the other hand is somewhat analogous to model predictive control.
A better way of phrasing your point is that ML/AI is "just" optimization.
> It all comes down to a big optimization/interpolation problem. Isn't what they call "Learning" just really "estimating" ?
Yes.
A mathematician will say "why do you call this 'back propagation', isn't it just matrix multiplication?" Many disciplines have different names for the same process.
In event sourced systems, where the state of an application is stored as a sequence of immutable events, one way of solving the "delete" problem (e.g: GDPR) is to have all the events encrypted to begin with.
The deletion (without performing a rewriting of the events) can be considered executed by simply "deleting" the key used to decrypt the events.
The information is not deleted per se, but it is not usable anymore. Now, if you have access to new means that allow you to break the encryption, then yeah it could be a problem.
Don't assume they don't. Most platforms not only enable multiple forms of security, you even get rewards if you choose better security. I use an exchange the uses double security, meaning you have 20 seconds to verify via email and 2FA, and on top of that the logins, withdrawals and transfers all have sperate passwords..and your able to rate limit them based on time periods.
Most of the knew jerk reactions in here really don't see to know very much about how this actually works and how it's actually the users responsibility at the end of the day.
I wish companies would understand this.