Actually, OP's figures are pretty much backed up by the figures you get when googling this question.
Chances to die of a car crash/ any kind of vehicle crash is about 1 in 100 according to here [0].
I can't find something similar straight away for injuries, but car accidents are ubiquitous and 2m people are injured every year (vs 30k fatalities) [1; cached]. So something above >20% seems plausible.
> you get other laptops that are really nice with a cost/return ratio that is a lot better.
The problem is that they'll all use Windows 10.
I switched to Apple because my Windows 10 experience was absolutely horrendous (literally 7m long start time).
(I can't use Linux because a core use is creating music and my software isn't available for it)
If Microsoft can improve Windows 10, which I don't see much chance of given how they keep screwing up their updates, there might be alternatives to Apple. But for now, OS X is the only competent software solution on the market
I mean I got the best specs I could get - i7, 16GB RAM, a decent graphics card. The only thing I don't have is a SSD. But that alone couldn't contribute so much to my speed woes
Yeah that's a real shame. I keep a completely separate pc HDD running Windows for Ableton. Maybe I'll switch to bitwig one day cause I'd like to be able to produce whilst on the move
I've tried Bitwig on Linux - it's nice and works well enough. But a few of my VSTs break on it (couldn't get Serum to work for some reason and I absolutely need it)
Sorry to hear that OP had such a bad experience. I guess as so often, it really depends on which team / division you are interacting with.
I was interviewing for Amazon a while back and my experience was mostly positive.
I had applied myself and they got in touch via email a few weeks later. After a brief email exchange, I got invited for a phone interview. All very straight forward - the interviewer was really friendly and professional. At the end of the interview, he also gave me some pointers about what he thinks is important in interviews.
A week later or so, I got an invitation for on-site interviews. I think it was 5 interviews in total. The hiring manager and his team were all really nice. (Interesting site note: I did mention some interesting and for the interview relevant HN article at some point and the interviewer told me that I should not believe everything that is said on HN haha.)
I think the "bad cop" role was given to the two off-site interviewers. They asked some tough questions, one of which was something along the line of "Tell me about a time when you were right about something but could not convince others/management." Of course, I had experienced such situations in the past, but I struggled to give a clear narrative. I didn't want to look like someone who doesn't care; nor like someone who doesn't get their point across, nor like a push-over. In the end, I left it at something like "I still think I was right, but for other, non-content-related reasons, management went for a different decision." They didn't seem happy about my answer.
The last interview was a bit weird and I probably asked a stupid question that put the interviewer off.
I think that was my inner obstructionist. I was living in Belgium at the time and I really love BE (but didn't like my job there). The Amazon job looked better, but I didn't really feel like moving to the UK, where the job was located. Also, the team indicated that they are doing more than 9-5. Here, too, my inner obstructionist was telling me 'meh'.
You can see where this is going: I didn't get the offer. Still, I thought the process was pretty decent and fair in my case. Of course, this is also just a personal experience, but I thought I'd share a nicer one.
Pretty much all developer jobs are salaried in the UK aka no fixed hours so presenting as some one who only wants to work 9-5 rigidly is going to not go down well.
> At that time, Google co-founder Sergey Brin made clear that he was strongly opposed to the censorship. Brin had spent part of his childhood in the Soviet Union, and said that he was “particularly sensitive to the stifling of individual liberties” due to his family’s experiences there. In 2010, after the company pulled its search engine out of China, Brin told the Wall Street Journal that “with respect to censorship, with respect to surveillance of dissidents” he saw “earmarks of totalitarianism [in China], and I find that personally quite troubling.”
Poulson's view seems to align with Brin's view from 2010. I wonder what Brin would have to say about the issue today, because the facts in China have not changed much since 2010, certainly not to the better.
> I wonder what Brin would have to say about the issue today, because the facts in China have not changed much since 2010, certainly not to the better.
I wonder about this too.
By this point, it's pretty clear that Google's strategy of leaving China hasn't led to any improvement in China with respect to censorship and individual liberties. Instead, Chinese companies that are willing to do whatever the Chinese government wants without question have filled the gap that Google left.
I wonder if he's concluded that this strategy is a failure and the best way to improve conditions is to re-enter China, even if it means playing by their rules.
Taking this to an absurd level: If the Aztecs still existed and were sacrificing humans with their volcanic rock blades. Should we sell them at least some steel blades, so their victims could die a little quicker and less painful death? Or should we absolutely abstain from selling any weapons to those murderous bastards?
We do trade embargoes against North Korea, but not against Saudi Arabia. Maybe because the latter is (or seems) less brutal.
Before a certain size and/or complexity use of force to literally force changes seems like the best option. But above that, there's no point in waging a war for more world happiness.
And then, on the other end of the spectrum we have the sophisticated autocratic propaganda machines (that are democratic in name), where people 4 year after 4 year vote in (almost) the same kleptocrats. Of course the election system favors the ruling party, of course there's a lot of ordinary cheating, of course the ruling party somehow manages to spend many times more on campaigning than the opposition, but the brain washing works, so why not?
I think that the trade-off is described better between the moral issues and the ability to provide your service to more users. I don't think making even more money is much of a factor anymore for Page and Brin.
Or let's just say hypothetically it's not. Why do they feel the need to have more users?
I'm of the opinion anyone who's still in the game after becoming a billionaire is doing so for non-monetary reasons. At this point it might not be about money, but power? Either way...
a) more users doesn't necessarily imply that (though in this case is probably does), and b) it's about the "why" - The conclusion from "more users = more money" to "must be about money" isn't universally true, as it ignores any and every other possible motivation. E.g. power, legacy, success.
Remember when you got a piece of technology that felt like magic? Like 'this is what the future feels like'?
I had that feeling again when I first used Nano. A friend of mine and me, we got the wallets and kept sending Nanos back and forth, just because. 2s per transaction, no fees. It blew our minds.
Not to shill Nano. It might well be the case that Nano won't be occupying this space of near-instant and feeless transactions. But _something_ definitely will, and it will happen rather soon.
> A friend of mine and me, we got the wallets and kept sending Nanos back and forth, just because. 2s per transaction, no fees.
LINE Pay (a local service trying to recreate the success of WeChat Pay) used that as an ad campaign. "Just flick 10 cents back and forth between your friend to see how quick and seamless the service is" [and get free stuff because of course it's an ad campaign] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDM0oKCgbE
In a decentralized system no goverment or private entity can freeze your money. Your financial status cannot be used against you from getting financial services.
Belgium can be equally excruciating. a friend of mine moved from india to belgium. after living here for more than a year, his parents wanted to visit him. the parents have a house in india, family, the father is on a decent indian pension, etc.
it took the belgian embassy about four months to decide on the application. however, to be able to apply, you have to make all your travel arrangements. they didn't anticipate the process to take this long, had to first move, and then cancel their arrangements altogether. in the end, the application got rejected, but the official reasons were cryptic.
my friend's interpretation was that the embassy was concerned that his parents might not return to india. they had the option to appeal, which can take 6 to 12 months. chances of appealing successfully are low and so are the chances of getting a visa in a renewed application. in the process, they lost about €3000, which is a lot of money in rupees.
instead of appealing, the parents booked a vacation in the netherlands. the visa application went through in less than a month. they got a schengen visa, meaning that they could also visit belgium. and this is how his parents visited him in the end.
his conclusion was that belgian bureaucracy is out of hand and that the EU has interesting loopholes.
I have a friend who's a musician, that's been coming to the US to tour a month a year for a decade. This last time his visa got stuck for a full year and even his immigration lawyer couldn't figure out who was holding it up. Instead they applied for the EB-'Eistein visa' which was issued in only 3 weeks so that he could tour. It did take a call from said lawyer reminding them that a US corporation would be losing money if it wasn't done on time.
Still, he was shocked shocked by a quick EB as a weekend strummer with a few regular US gigs. Lawyer cost $6k.
it's certainly far from trivial to remove the search bar at the top of the home screen. i tried once, it broke android, and i had to reset the entire OS. but, tbf, the entire process did take <1 minute
Install another home screen, probably can be done in a minute. It is much easier than trying to modify anything at all about the iOS or Windows Phone home screens.
another example of tried overreach: a branch of the federal police, "staatsschutz", raided the posteo office in 2013 and claimed to have a warrant to seize _everything_. posteo immediatedly pushed back and it turned out that the police only had a warrant for a single document [0](in german, tho). like the investigating officers wouldn't be aware of this. it's their modus operandi.
what they also like to do is to adjust events in hindsight such that it suits their story. the case I have in mind concerns the NRW state police, but that, too, seems to be common strategy. in this case, which is very recent, a protester was arrested and police claimed, in their official report, that the protester physically assaulted the officer and resisted arrest. the protester disputed this, but without evidence would not have stood a chance in court. moreover, the protester was badly injured during the whole ordeal. now a video turns up and what do you see?: no physical assault, no resistance [1](also in german). in such cases, i am glad that we live in the age of mobile phones, where anyone can take recordings.
from my own experience, this is the exception, though. even in CS, if you pick some of the more theoretical problems or a not-so-hot area, you might not get funding - (almost) no matter how good you are. and that's CS. move to other subjects like sociology, linguistics, history, and you will find that barely anyone gets funded.
I haven't heard about anyone in any PhD program in US who's not funded one way or another. Sure, you might need to TA a class, but it's usually not that hard, and leaves plenty of time to do research.
what they argue for: sure, looking at goods, there's a deficit for the US. But once you take services and primary and secondary income into account, then the US actually cuts the better deal with the EU.
imv, trump/the current US gov are twisting the numbers to get a better deal.
Chances to die of a car crash/ any kind of vehicle crash is about 1 in 100 according to here [0].
I can't find something similar straight away for injuries, but car accidents are ubiquitous and 2m people are injured every year (vs 30k fatalities) [1; cached]. So something above >20% seems plausible.
[0]: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit... [1]: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dnqo-l...