I found the blogs written by Jay Alammar to be much more informative and complete. It appears that companies are rehashing and compressing the same content to advertise their products.
May be I'm old, but I love long form content and twitter took that away. People write long tweet threads instead of thinking things through and writing it in long form. This gives rise to tons of twitter thread collapsing tools/startups that push the concatenation of these tweets to Notion or whatever. This seems utterly silly to me. It almost looks like tech for the sake of tech. It's unfortunate that substack is going in the same direction. Are there no better problems to solve using tech?
Substack is great for subscription long form content already. It is reliant on Twitter on creating a network for information distribution and curation, though. I don't think Substack is attempting to be more like Twitter - I think Substack needs something like Twitter to sustain the long-form subscription content and this is a defensive move to make sure that Twitter's ongoing collapse doesn't take them out, too.
You still don't see many people using long tweets which is good. I used to despise seeing tweet threads starting with [1/20] for years but Twitter integrating their Threader acquisition via "reader mode" which turns multi-tweet threads into a single page like a blog post really helped solved the UI issue with that (blue feature) but I still tend to avoid threads.
I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be said. Jack ruined Twitter first [1] (by over-hiring and then selling it to Elon) and now it's Block's turn. He still made billions, while thousands got laid off and are still suffering under Elon's questionable so called leadership. Are these the entrepreneurs we should be looking up to? The tech industry is already facing the brunt because of the mistakes CEOs have done by "miscalculating" or "misjudging" the macroeconomic conditions; the same CEOs are enjoying their billions.
Parag sold to Elon, and he got a great return for shareholders by selling at far above market value.
Jack doesn't do anything but meditate and grow a beard like he's young Steve Jobs. Why the board let him be CEO when he didn't do any apparent work is a different question.
I don't know if you work in FAANG or no, but most FAANG interviews just don't work this way. So, as much as I like this style, it's just 1 company and definitely not the norm. The rest of us are stuck with design Uber, Whatsapp, crap...
C++ is annoying because of name mangling and things like static initialization calling constructors.
The result is that you can easily link C code to almost any language, including C++, with almost any linker. But for C++, you usually have to use the linker that comes with the C++ compiler that compiled your library. You can write code in C++ that is as compatible as C, but you have to go out of your way to achieve that, extern "C" is only the beginning.
As a result, when the overhead of using C instead of a more complete language is not too great, I prefer to write my libraries in ANSI-C, for maximum compatibility.
Internally Google might be just fine, but optics are equally important in this industry. Before Sundar took over Google never went through bad PR. It's just an observation, not a dig at Google's affairs.
There were a lot of other good things going that masked these. The recent "PR botch ups" are creating more damage. The most famous e.g. is reacting to ChatGPT's hype and rushing to do a demo and then messing it up. It wasn't so much messing up the demo that caught they eye; it was how Google rushed/reacted to do it esp. when Google is considered to be at the forefront of AI. Again, optics. Besides Sundar hasn't come out with anything impressive in the last few years. It's ok to just keep the lights on, but at least don't create bad optics.
The author says meditation is the solution and describes the effects it had on him. However, I didn't quite get the why (even if I ignore the how) - why did it work for him and will it work the same way for others? Besides, meditation itself is a habit and one that is the easiest to ignore as it doesn't bring immediate benefits (lacks instant gratification). This was great writing but for me it lacked the scientific rigor. It's great that it worked for the author. Kudos for that!
I inferred that meditation helped them to understand surface thoughts vs deep thoughts as generally surface thoughts are loud, immediate and what create bad habits.
By being able to discard those during meditation, they were able to work on deep thoughts and make enough time for those instead of getting occupied by the unnecessary(bad) habits.
> Besides, meditation itself is a habit and one that is the easiest to ignore as it doesn't bring immediate benefits (lacks instant gratification)
But thats the crux of building good habits, one needs to teach themselves to not run for instant gratification. Precisely, this article. Atomic Habits try to teach that you to by various habit building techniques in the book. It teaches you how to harness this instant gratification idea to build good habits slowly yet in a way that appeals that part of your brain.
The author is trying to refute this exact thing, that these all work for a while until it all comes crashing down and it becomes really difficult to break away from bad habits.
In my experience in order to build or break a habit you must be able to tie the action to its immediate results. It can be placebo but in your mind that association must settle in.
Meditation for a lot of people creates a state of calm afterwords. Mainly if you breathe at a lower that 6 breaths per minute.
The calmness likely leads to better decisions and helps that way.
It looked like the author has been overwhelmed with stresses of life. Meditation helped to apply breaks and steer the wheel.
Curious why this is important enough to be on the front page. Even as a techie I don't find this news interesting, at least not HN front-page worthy. (Instead of down voting it would be nice to hear what others think as valid reasons). How does this affect our day-day lives?
YouTube is one of the largest and most influential tech companies in the world, and wields huge social power. Some of the greatest content on the internet is hosted there, so it makes sense to me that HN readers would find a major change like this of interest. Wojcicki has been in charge of YouTube for a long time now, so hearing that she is stepping down and will be replaced opens up tons of space for speculation about where YouTube could be heading in the near future. Personally, as someone who spends many hours a week using YouTube, I find this article to be absolutely HN-front-page-worthy!
If it's in the company of curious, smart people like the kind I routinely encounter here on HN, then yes! Absolutely! I greatly enjoy a good round of civil speculation and discussion with my fellow hackers :P
* There's absolutely nothing we could do to influence YouTube's leadership changes.
* There's very little you can do to influence changes in the product YouTube as well.
* There's very little we know about the internals of upper C-level leadership changes.
Speculating is an utter waste of time. I don't see a point. For me this news was just another passable piece of information. Meh! Definitely not HN front-page worthy.
What "belongs" on the front page of HN is whatever ends up on the front page without being moderated or flagged. At the end of the day, HN is a community and it decides for itself what it wants to see and share with its members! Like the guidelines for submissions say, anything that is intellectually stimulating or interesting to hackers is fair game! Vox populi vox dei :P
I guess Susie stepping down the corporate ladder of a shitty company must be more stimulating.
Also, why the downvotes? I didn't know it was illegal to discuss how banal and uninteresting a post is. Clearly posharma and I see it that way. Yet every time this happens, people get downvoted. Why? Can't you just scroll through and move on, or do other people's opinions bother you?
