Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mynameisash's comments login

J and K are adjacent in Dvorak, and they're down and up, respectively, which makes vertical scrolling just as easy, IMO. I never really used H and L but instead rely on mostly W and B (which aren't adjacent but are close enough). So by happy coincidence, navigating in vim works just fine, I think.

Yep, I've never felt the need to remap hjkl for other layouts. Very exaggerated issue from people who didn't stick with it long enough, I think.

I was worried about it with Workman because it was slightly less logical. h still left of l, but quite far away, j and k are placed so that it's like you've inverted your camera controls in a game. Very easy to adjust anyway and I don't really think about it now. Your point about w and b is very good as well. Advanced vim users are actually less likely to use hjkl much due to having faster ways to get around in most cases.


Yep. I use vim & evil regularly with dvorak. J and K as well as H and L are just fine. H and L are placed very similarly to where they are on qwerty; H is just shifted one position to the right, and L is one position to the right and up. So they still have the "left-right" feel, and I like that H is under the index finger.

Since I have a hard time staying emotionally invested in this (I'm as frustrated with the state of tech as everyone else), I just want to share the first thing that came to mind when I read this headline, a quote from Catch-22:

"His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the country."


I also left Amazon after ~10mo. I've written about this elsewhere, but the short version is:

* New manager who was a nice guy but didn't help me or other folks onboard

* A skip-level (who I expected would be my direct) manager who was about as hands-off as could be and seemed interested in building his own empire.

* SDE3 who was nominally my mentor but was less than useless. I asked him to whiteboard our services, and he said he "didn't know" what we owned. I asked him for help configuring a monitor for a service, and he said he couldn't figure it out while literally backing away from my desk slowly.

* A culture within our team in which no one was willing or able to help others out. It was very much every man for himself.

I GTFO of there and have been happy across the lake since. Paying back my signing bonus was well worth the significant reduction in stress and quality of life.


Friend is a recruiter at that company across the lake and says she reaches out to Amazon folks when they hit the 1 and 2 year marks a lot - says she gets relatively higher response rates than industry standards when she does that.

What's the company across the lake - Microsoft?

Assuming the lake is Lake Washington, it looks like it.

Almost surely

was the sde3 just faking ignorance so he didn't have to help you out?

Possibly making sure that GP was at the bottom of the stack rank and looking out for his own neck.

That's what I assume his motives were.

Oof that sounds super devious.

Not really. It's just a human responding to the incentives they're given. When management creates poor incentive structures, they get poor behavior, which drives poor outcomes.

As they say - the problem with incentives is that they work.


Or to say a different way - don't hate the player, hate the game.

more like you get a system where only sociopaths will remain because everyone else will just get a new job

What do you do when that system successfully creates a $2 trillion empire that seems to only be getting stronger and more established?

The larger meta game of civilization obviously rewards this kind of subsystem, so again...

Don't hate the player (Amazon's toxic corporate culture), hate the game (the civilization that rewards them with dominance).


Isn't this just Capitalism gaslighting us into being shitty people, and allowing shitty behavior?

Like we say "well that's the incentive" like that makes it ok?


I haven't done this yet, but The Omnivore's Dilemma mentions EatWild.com as a resource for finding "beyond organic" food. That might be a good place to start.

> It's a koan.

How do you come to that conclusion? As I recall, koans are from the Chinese, Japanese, etc., schools of (Mahayana) Buddhism -- specifically zen. But the linked article specifically states that these are from early texts (which would be more aligned to Theravada/pre-split).


Fully agree. My wife and I went out on a date about a month ago, and during it, she took a selfie of the two of us. There must have been some filter on by default because our faces looked perfectly lit, our skin completely blemish-free, no smile lines, etc. It was a great picture, but I remarked immediately that it didn't look real. And I don't want that -- it's not us but an idealized, optimized version of us.

I similarly have mixed feelings about what I've seen lately of the deep learning that 'restores' very old images to incredible quality. But that quality is fake. I'm sure there's a tug at the heartstrings to see a crisp image of your deceased father from his high school days, but to me that seems a bit revisionist. I don't know. I guess I'm just uneasy with the idea of us editing our lives so readily.


Are you sure it was a filter or just a lower-quality front facing camera that didn't capture details in low light like blemishes and smile lines? In an effort to reduce noise, sometimes a camera over-smoothes the image - not as a way to make your imperfections disappear, but to make the noise from the high ISO shot disappear.


My phone has a button in the camera app labeled "AI" and it does exactly this. Even in low light conditions you can see the differences between denoised and smoothed skin.

It's also clearly optimized for Chinese faces, which makes for some comedic side effects sometimes when it tries to apply what seems to be the beauty standard in China to my very much non-Asian face structure.

Sadly, there's no differentiation between the stupid face filter and the landscape-fixing AI. I like the AI processing for a lot of static scenes where there are no people around, because the small camera sensor simply can't catch the necessary details, but I always forget to turn it on because of the stupid face filter that comes with it.


This brings new meaning to the old quote, "history is written by victors." Today, the victors are Apple, Google, etc., and they are writing their own version of history as its recorded...


Nope. Give me a 40 year old East German camera and a roll of Ilford and I’m still perfectly capable of corrupting reality intentionally.


They are the means, but the "victors" are people's vanity. If people didn't want blemish free pictures, they wouldn't be offered --but airbrushing was a thing and old fashioned paintings also tended to skip the blemishes --unlike mirrors. So, today, this continues albeit more perfect and automated for our consumption.


Bad vision airbrushes even mirrors. :-)


To be fair, human memory also liberally edits.

And historical representations also undergo changes, like the colour fading on old pictures, paintings and statues. And that’s in addition to all of the issues in capturing accurate colours and other details in the first place. Add a bit of optical illusion to at least some imagery and the entire question of historical accuracy becomes very messy very fast.

A prime example is astro-photography, where most of the well known imagery isn’t and may never be seen like that by even future evolved human eyes.

Photos are limited representations, just like they’ve always been.

But it’s understandable, that different individuals would prefer differently prioritized representations. And maybe that’s the next generation of tools. Give more choice, more facial wrinkles or fewer. More lighting and colour enhancements or less. etc.


I'm curious what model phone you have. In the past Samsung, Google Pixel, and Apple phones all had their own approaches to computational photography and would all take photos in their own "style". Samsung would priories for vibrancy and clear faces, Apple would try for "most correct" but often got quite flat photos, and the Pixel managed to do with a middleground.


my kid brought home a picture of them taken at school by the school. It didn't look like her. the shiny smiley filters were not real happiness. cameras replacing happiness that is there with happiness that isnt there is quite a delusion.


First we have the uncanny effect from trying to imitate real life too much. It will be interesting if the effect shows up on the other side of modifying away from real life imagery as well.


Lots of phones have a selfie beautification mode now.

Even Apple had appeared to add one in the iPhone XS/iOS12 but was apparently an issue with Smart HDR and was rolled back. But many Android phones advertise it as a feature and it's something many filters etc do.

It's also possible some HDR type functionality causes this on other implementations.


> Those who who live(d) east of the Mountains handle snow just fine.

I spent most of my life in Minnesota, and even there, people think they can handle snow (which they do better than folks here in the Puget Sound region). But every year, there are huge pileups, gruesome accidents, slowdowns, etc. They, just as people east of the Cascades, have more experience, but I would stop short of saying that they 'handle it just fine.'


True. It only takes one bozo to mess everything up. I often see crazy folks passing as they are heading up to ski who think they are impervious to snow / ice on the roads. BTW, Minnesota was much farther east than I meant.


My understanding is that this attitude predated Arlene's death. In his writings (I think it was What do you care what other people think?), he noted that someone told him Arlene (his then-girlfriend) was 'running around' with other guys. It was an attempt to make him jealous, but he noted that he was dating other girls, so it was only fair. (My phrasing, not his.)

It very much sounded like they were both comfortable with their relationship. Granted, this was his writing many years after the fact.

I don't think the claims that he was a womanizer are relevant or fair. People say that kind of shit about MLK to discredit him. Similar claims against Feynman don't discount his love for his wife.


> there is a good chance that when the dust settles the UK itself will no longer exist

I've heard this proposed as a possibility, but is this generally accepted as an actual, probable outcome? By both sides?

From my perspective (American with no ties to the UK who thought Brexit sounded like a terrible idea), it sounded like it might have been a scare tactic from remainers.


Well, that all depends on what the SNP does, they hold the cards at the moment. If they go for a referendum then all bets are quite literally off.

> From my perspective (American with no ties to the UK who thought Brexit sounded like a terrible idea), it sounded like it might have been a scare tactic from remainers.

Not really. The Scots held a referendum on staying in the UK prior to Brexit and the general feeling seems to be that if the UK had been clear on wanting to exit the EU that Scotland may well have seceded the union prior to that.

So now the question is whether or not the SNP will hold a new referendum given that the situation has materially changed, and the outcome of that referendum (which, if the vote leans to 'leave' will be heavily contested) will cause a large amount of headache.

Even just threatening with a referendum could have major impact on the future of the UK.


SNP even just threatening. Haha - you really need to pay more attention to the SNP. You think they been coy on the subject? Perhaps keeping their powder dry?


We'll see. For now no referendum or the intention to hold one has been announced, though that could change rapidly.


Scottish nationalism is key to the platform of the SNP, the "Scottish National party"; it's right there in the name. And it's popular in Scotland.

They are always in favour of it, it's just the tactics and timing that changes. They will move for another independence referendum when they think the time is right to hold and win it


I think you misunderstood me. The SNP has been going on about a referendum almost continually. Whatever might change by “just threatening” a referendum has changed and lost its impact by repetition.


Ok, but it starts to get serious once a date has been set. Until then it is just posturing, and the UK has already announced their intention to block such a referendum from happening.


They are unlikely to move from this position.


London blocking Scotland from doing a democratic act would not go over well there. It would harden nationalistic sentiment.

What happens if Scotland insists on going ahead anyway? It would be messy. London's leverage is limited there.


There are not two entities called "London" and "Scotland" playing a referendum and will game.

If the SNP government, for example, goes ahead with a referendum that is not sanctioned, there is a strong risk that people who don't think it is justified, or are unionists, will not take part, which would be a bad result. So leverage on that side is limited also.


I take your point that it's not that simple, please excuse my not-entirely sober summary.

It is true that "Scottish Nationalism" via means such as a referendum, is the primary policy of the SNP - the "Scottish National party"; it's in the name. They are always in favour of it, it's just the tactics and timing that changes.

it's true that the SNP is the most popular party in Scotland, holds the most seats and has the most influence. But does not have a free hand to call and win a referendum in Scotland at will. If that was true, it would have happened already.

It's true that the 2014 Scotland independence referendum was billed as "once in a generation" event.

And yet, 2014 looks increasingly like a time from a different generation: before Brexit, when the campaign to keep Scotland in the Union was also pitched as the way to keep Scotland in the EU. The irony is palpable.

The SNP say that "Scots are being dragged out of the EU against their will". And this is somewhat true.

I do not think that it will be easy to avoid another Scottish independence referendum indefinitely. The SNP will wait until the time is right for them, and then press the point.


I tend to agree with that! The main thing I wish to convey is that this is not a slamdunk for either side. But there are issues of timing and pressures to make the wrong decision whether you support the union or independence. And a small flavour of that is what i was trying to convey.


Precisely, and I don't think the UK would like to really be seen flexing its muscle to stop a democratically reached decision, that would open up an entirely different can of worms.

They'll either have to give extreme economic incentives or let Scotland go if that is what Scotland decides it wants.


SNP has announced an intention to hold a referendum in the next year or two several years running. Check out this years party conference for example.


Other replies mention Scotland and the SNP, and lest we forget, Scotland is more pro-EU than England, and the last Scottish independence referendum was won on a promise of "stay in the UK and stay in the EU" - yes, really, the threat that an independent Scotland would not be an EU member on day one. (1)

But it's not just about Scotland. Do not forget the question of Northern Ireland, which is now increasingly aligned with the Republic of Ireland. When UK and ROI were both in the EU it was less of a hard choice, but that has changed.

Brexit, while also honouring the integrity of the UK and also the Good Friday agreement is basically about squaring the circle - something has to give. Right now NI is aligned with the Republic of Ireland, not with England, and the Brexiters are not happy about it because NI gets a better Brexit deal by having less Brexit, which doesn't make them look good. But they need to face up to the fact that due to brexit, there has to be a border somewhere between Dublin and London and every position has serious drawbacks. (2)

if NI gets to like the current dispensation well then they might feel like re-joining the republic.

Two fault-lines, not one. It means that the UK needs not one but two wins on throws of the dice in order to remain intact. And a break at one fault-line would trigger restlessness at the other. So the odds of the UK remaining intact go down.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_ref...

2) https://ukandeu.ac.uk/irish-border-four-acts/


I forgot to mention, the way that a) having a Brexit, b) honouring the Good Friday agreement and c) territorial integrity of the UK (no border between NI and GB) all at once is called the "Brexit Trilemma"

As in, pick any 2, we can't have all 3 at once as that's logically inconsistent - these are not compatible things.

The decision to add "brexit" to the mix was _not_ a responsible act by rational actors.

See https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/136713747706093978...

or google "Brexit Trilemma". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexit+trilemma


Exactly. The degree to which the Scottish and the Northern Irish situation challenge the integrity of the UK has not been seen since the Good Friday Agreement. Risking the stability of the UK to such a degree was highly irresponsible.


not to mention the secondary effects of areas like cornwall and possibly the north of england wanting independance


I haven't read it, though it's on my list. It wasn't commercially published in English out of concern for running afoul of Tolkien's estate. Instead, it's available for free as an ebook:. https://ymarkov.livejournal.com/280578.html


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: