skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I use my 1-1 in several ways

A) Get info from my manager that they don’t necessarily want broadcast (speculation/uncommitted plans, inside perspective on what went down on something, etc…). Depends on the manager and your relationship, but I’d say 75%+ of my managers have been willing to give me info 1-1 that I wouldn’t get in a large setting.

B) Updates/discussions about side projects or other things that don’t fit into our other forums- putting together the holiday party, interviews, putting together team training, wild prototype/hackathon projects etc…

C) Advice on non-technical problems- “I’m trying to engage bob’s team for help, but their responses are very slow.”

D) Feedback and coaching- “I thought our delivery of X went well, but I missed Y’s dependency on us. Any thoughts on how I/we could have done better?”

E) Socializing/ relationship building. If you can, bond with that person, share stories about vacations/kids/ interests. My job can be a bit lonely and some days just talking can be the best use of time

F) Nothing- totally fine if we cancel our 1-1 occasionally, especially if we’ve already had ad hoc meetings.
I know almost no one does this, but the absolute best standup meetings I've experienced have meeting of the just workers, by just the workers, to let just the workers know what's going on around them so they can self-direct.

The addition of management always turns it into a status update.
Just jumping in to say that you sound like an amazing maintainer and a really great person, for responding so constructively to something so toxic. Building one's own UI engine is not for the faint of heart, and the amount of features and cross-platform compatibility you've built is quite a feat! I'll be following the project, and don't let comments like this one get you down.
3-4 hours every day?! How do you find the time to do that, in addition to medical school? That's 1/4 of the waking hours in a day.
Losing institutional knowledge kicks the org. in the proverbial balls. Even if stellar seniors come in to replace the ones who left, they still take 3-4 months to get up to speed on institutional knowledge, and they rarely can get all the knowledge that the ones who left had.
For the first time in many years, I have a manager who doesn't cancel 1:1s, provides us autonomy to do our work, and gives specific feedback.

Our 1:1 structure is based off the CEO's suggested 1:1 format[1] and was something I put together because I wanted more structure. From what I've heard, members of my team have different formats with the same manager.

1. Check-In - personal check-ins on life

2. Discuss/Help/Review - items I need my manager to help or advice with, issues we need to discuss, or updates on projects related to OKRs

3. FYI/Think - items I'm thinking about or working on that manager may not be aware of. We don't always vocalize this section, sometimes its there for me to showcase things I'm considered e.g I think it would be cool to work on X, but I don't have a plan yet.

4. What’s going well: a celebration or something to my credit

5. What could go better: item that could've gone better

6. Action Items: any TODO items for myself or manager

When there isn't a lot to discuss due to a quiet week or larger projects ongoing, my manager will check in on how I feel about my role, work, and capacity. It's helpful because I often get caught up in the day to day and it's hel,pful

[1]https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/leadership/1-1/suggested-a...
My goal is to end the conversation as soon as I can to get back to work, so I stay away from many topics and just basically give a status update on in progress and next up.
If you can feel it on the outside of your head, it's not a brain tumor. Jedberg is freaking you out.
I'm sorry I'm not following you. Are you saying that what the US has now is well-functioning social institutions with mutual accountability?

Since they oppose this by trying to pull funding from them.
Most commodities such as gold and oil. You don't need to know much about them to know they have value. Government bonds because you're trusting in the government lasting that period and keeping their word.

Index funds, you're just following the market and betting it will do the same thing it did the last 30 years over the next 30 years.

All of these I'd only look at for long term investing. Short term trading is not for me. My crystal ball is just not good enough for that.
> I think ChatGPT is pretty neat but I was somewhat less impressed than everyone else is with the code generation.

specifically on code generation, even if it could produce the correct code, it's basically faster horses: if you ask a programmer what they want, it's something to generate rote code for them so they don't have to write it... but that's the wrong problem. The problem is not that code is hard to write, or that we don't have enough code, it's that we have too much code and need to write code to solve previously solved problems in the first place.

The future is platforms like Retool that reduce the need to write code, the future is businesses producing less code, the future is businesses producing code to solve new problems -- which an LLM can't do. If code has been written so many times that a language learning model can output it, why on earth are we still producing it (whether that's writing it or inducing a robot to output it)?

Code generation might be a fun novelty for a little while but it's not the future, it'll be a distant memory soon enough.
This x1,000. The only time I'm able to effortlessly get in a lot of long-form reading done is if I go on vacation somewhere with no goddamn Internet at all. It's wonderful.

I swear, if a genie gave me three wishes, concern about being able to properly craft the wish would be the only thing that'd keep me from burning one of them to permanently eliminate the Internet.

[EDIT] That is, in addition to weakening my reading ability through use of it, the presence of the Internet is so damn distracting that it's hard to read more than a few pages at a time. Consider how, say, pop-culture trivia questions used to come and go from one's mind with hardly any conscious notice taken—no relevant book on hand, no friend or family member present who might know, well, even calling someone's too much effort for something so unimportant, and off goes that idle thought, probably never to come up again—now, though, those sorts of questions reach one's conscious mind all the time, and they itch until you take the 5-second break to answer them; repeat for everything else, like how's so-and-so doing, wonder if anyone's posted anything interesting, et c.
The answer - make it free and open. We can't afford it being monopolised.
What are some good examples?
As long as your volume is high you can get away with the occasional bounce, especially if you add them to the SES exclusion list.
https://llthw.common-lisp.dev/configuration.html

Literally everything you're asking for is in that link. The author has the opinion that you don't need fancy IDE features which is an arguable point but they do list what editors for each OS work in their experience.
I think standup is a great way to communicate blockers or solutions (understanding that it will be quick, else you parking lot it until after the meeting) with teammates. It restricts interruptions to that 15 minute block instead of randomly throughout the day (which can break flow).
They call me boomer, I call them whippersnappers.
It's overdone, IMHO. Should be at the discretion of either party after a certain period of time. Doesn't need to be a forever weekly or even biweekly routine.
I'd be curious about unique opportunities for smaller startups that are doing well. What is 'on sale' right now that we should consider buying more of? Have advertising rates nose dived to a point where it could make sense for startups, for example?
shameless plug: I've been on working on an app for 1:1's plus tasks using AI for the past 2 (after many pivots). It is self hostable. https://www.atomiclife.app/. Will have github repo up soon and a formal Show HN.
The national consumption tax. It says in the first sentence...
Literally owning the libs?
Software is special, because in software the blueprint is the building, the process of design and development is one, or rather can be one, but that requires a cultural shift.
People sometimes use 1:1s as status updates. That’s a poor use of time. Most status updates can be done asynchronously via email or a myriad of tools.

The 1:1 should be for meaningful conversation. Get to know each other as people via casual conversations. A mini retro on a project. Deep dive into something that went well. An FYI on an issue with a lot of nuance. Answering individual questions about that big Wednesday announcement. An onboarding track of conversations for relatively new team members. Expectation setting for the future of the project, team, or company. Feedback on something that could be improved. Raising a concern from the direct report.

There should always be a running agenda and anyone can add to it. If there is nothing to talk about, you skip. But have a cadence. In a remote company these are more important than in physical office environments.

Running good 1:1s is a skill that can be honed. If anyone is interested in learning, I’d be happy to chat. Contact info in profile.
It's where Nokia is headquartered. That, combined with nordic culture, lead to very high early adoption rates among teenagers in the early 2000s.
Does Goldman Sachs Fund the People’s Forum, PSL, Codepink, Aipac, and Vijay Pras
Yeah. Cell phones really took off after the local paper mill started making them in the 90s. :)
And that’s fine for the average HN audience; what disturbs me is that hiring managers see articles like “I had ChatGPT rewrite my code and it went 100000% faster!!!”, and then decide that they don’t need more than one engineer.

If we could automate away engineers that’s fine with me, but i just don’t think that ChatGPT is there yet. I actually think Wolfram is kind of onto something with having ChatGPT work with Alpha to be used for stuff that has “objective” answers.
I agree. There is a place for 1:1 meetings as needed but a standing weekly 1:1 is a "management smell" in my experience.
I started reading the New Testament this last year. I’m an atheist, I think that Christian morals (as practiced) are despicable and horrible. But I’ve read modern moral philosophers talk positively of Jesus’s actual teachings. So I’ve decided to read them to see for myself. I got a copy of the Jewish Annotated New Testament to get a better perspective than those who actual believe he was a god. It’s pretty good so far.
Apparently there was a historic increase in US road fatalities in 2020 and 2021 instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Maybe having more food delivery guys on the road is worse than more commuters, for public safety? Let's wait and see how 2022 did.
A 1:1 seems like a wildly inappropriate place to discern that information.
I need help please
There's Slyblime for the Sublime Text users: https://github.com/s-clerc/slyblime. Worked pretty well when I tried it.
So visual therapy takes years. It took me 3+ years before I noticed improvement. You are likely rebuilding neural pathways which takes time and effort. It's a process and it's awful.

It sounds like you have a "tracking" problem?
Yes, but she said that those are the spots where it can develop without getting noticed. (On molars, which already have depressions, "canyons".)
I have weekly 1-on-1s and I do enjoy them. I work for a big-ish company and half of the team works remote full time.

Similar to other comments, we chat a lot about personal stuff and crack some jokes. But I also make an effort to note down things that I want to ask about. Sometimes it's about what the vibe is on the business side, sometimes it's about my career or feedback on what I did recently and sometimes I ask mundane things such as "do we have a stock image account for my presentations".
Lobbyists? Sure. They're lobbying for American Fast Food restaurants and coffee shops, the way I see it.
But I do find truth in breakfast being important as well. Take diabetics for example - skipping breakfast for them would mean a bad spike in BG levels.

Additionally, a vast majority of people do experience weakness and hunger as soon as they wake up. I see that as a good enough need to address that situation, or else getting things done while starving would either be a pain or end up going wrong. Again, if you have conditioned your body to go without breakfast for 20 years, you might as well stick to it.
Books & video games, mostly.
https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/
even jobs with no career prospects provide experience leading to useful skills, at the bare minimum how to behave with coworkers

people have the option of taking those jobs or not so I'm not sure how this is "preying"
Old celluloid is also crazy flammable. The activation energy very low and even during the manufacturing process explosions happened. Archival storage of old celluloid prior to digitization is not something you want to undertake in quantity without the proper gear and storage equipment, as well as a fire extinguisher.

The problem with the film is that as it ages it becomes even more flammable than it originally was and it has a huge surface area to react with (unlike say a billiard ball or a pen made of the same material).

Quite a bit of historical material was lost to time in several huge fires. To make things worse: it doesn't necessarily require a source of ignition.

https://www.nontoxichub.com/celluloidfilmhazards

Not quite at 'stuff I won't work with' level but definitely worthy of respect.
I don't think this is a definitive factor. Most societies organise around food and most activities have food either as a central component or at least available.

The quality of the food associated with these activities is probably a lot more significant.
What a great reply. Thanks!
Yea, SES has a suppression list you manage that by default doesn't send. You can rig up an event bus to automatically add bounces to it.
What you say and add to my comment is pretty much the case. I used to live in a flat in Drammen, much bigger though, about 72 sq. m. We had a storage area in the loft of the building and as you say there were communal washing machines. But in fact we would have had plenty of space to have our own washer and dryer.

I would make one point though:

> the two countries are sufficiently similar

That's true for most of this discussion but Norwegians until quite recently almost overwhelmingly wanted to own their own their home (over 80% do) and prefer a detached house, most still do. In 2010 according to SSB half of the just over two million dwellings in Norway were detached houses (enebolig). My impression of Sweden when visiting places like Gothenburg, Västerås, Linköping, Ludvika, etc., on business and holiday is that Swedes are noticeably more likely to live in flats. My house is pretty much in the middle of the size distribution for detached houses (see https://www.ssb.no/bygg-bolig-og-eiendom/faktaside/bolig)
McDonnell-Douglas is often blamed for changing the Boeing culture, but it was the Boeing CEO Philip Condit who led the deal, and more importantly helped engineer the cultural takeover by strategically placing McDonnell-Douglas executives in key positions. Condit was at one point a lead engineer at Boeing, but was deliberately chosen by the Boeing board (at least the majority faction) precisely because they knew what he wanted to do with the company.

The person who pushed back the hardest against the McDonnell-Douglas merger was the Boeing CFO Boyd Givan. He was quickly ousted not long after the deal was finalized, accused of being too financially conservative compared to McDonnell-Douglas' M.O.: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19980715&slug...

The blame ultimately rests with the Boeing board. There was a minority faction on the board that fought tooth-and-nail. They couldn't stop it, but IIRC their concession (to prevent the minority from creating a ruckus in public) was being able to keep Givan as CFO after the merger. But Condit ensured that that didn't last long by undermining Givan at every turn, which was probably the plan of the majority board faction all along.

Based on this and a few other anecdotes, and if we're making wild speculations, I'd say that whether a CFO makes a good CEO depends on the type of CFO. There's the traditional CFO--the "bean counter"--whose job is to manage the money and keep a low profile so the rest of the company can do their thing. Then there are the new generations of CFO, which started coming up the ranks in the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., McDonnell-Douglas), who see creative accounting (aka financial engineering) as a legitimate way to boost stockholder value and an end in itself, independent of a company's core competency. If a company has good bones, a traditional CFO can make a great steward at the very least. For the new type of CFO, they often couldn't care less about a company's core competency, and are more speculator than bean counter, at least in the traditional meanings of those terms.
> A big component of what this article is saying is basically that knowledge transfer in the way you're describing doesn't work

Knowledge transfer doesn't work at all :) It's not a thing that's possible. The best we can do is for someone with knowledge to attempt to explain it, hope they do a good and complete job of it, and then hope that the explainee is able to internalise it and come to the same/similar conceptual understanding that the explainer had in their mind.

It doesn't tend to be done very well at corporations. It's a skill that good teachers have developed after much practice, which isn't something we tend to hire for.

And it requires favourable conditions, and one of those conditions is not "it's my last day tomorrow and the boss asked me to bring you up to speed on what I've been doing these last six months. You only had 30 minutes free in your calendar, so... let's go"
Very good read. The parts focusing on the cost of the BOM for the signs really shines a light on just the basic difficulties of hardware compared to software companies
> We should stop telling children that they’re the “experts on their own lives” and repudiate a static model of selfhood as a fait accompli at birth. Sure, some inborn essence is particular to every person, but it’s a spark; it’s not a fire. We could stand to return to the language of forming character and making a life for yourself, while urging teachers to exercise the guidance they’ve been encouraged to forsake.

This resonates. I feel that I was fortunate enough to be raised during a time and in an environment where the adult world was separate, mysterious and alluring from my young perspective. My parents, like many of their peers, had beliefs and values that they held up and lived by. They didn't stoop down to coddle us, and they gave us room to grow. Sure, kids didn't have as much of a voice in such a world - and that wasn't always a good thing. But the polar opposite that we see today just seems absurd.

The mature world was what my young self yearned to be a part of, and it was pretty clear that membership was something to _work_ towards, not to be bestowed.
Fun fact: Matz was a lisper prior to creating ruby. He even wrote an email client entirely in Emacs lisp.

Not wrong that ruby took a lot from perl, but it was heavily influenced by lisp and smalltalk and I'd personally argue those are the two largest influences.

It does seem that ruby was specifically designed to grab Perl programmers though. Several features match exactly.
Add a seasonal reference and it could be a haiku?

Nobody's looking for a sock puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate,

My mask is off comrade[1] -- so please don't misunderstand on purpose :-)

==

[1] comrade (plural comrades) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comrade#Noun

1. A mate, companion, or associate.

2. A companion in battle; fellow soldier.

3. (communism) A fellow socialist, communist or other similarly politically aligned person.

4. (communism) A non-hierarchical title, functionally similar to "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss", "Ms." etc, in a communist or socialist state.
"Irony of fate" (1975) (Traditional new years even movie).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irony_of_Fate
>Actually, in most cases - no, they can't. Or, rather, they can't figure it out as fast as they're "needed" to.

I've forensically self-onboarded a few times and yeah, it's at least 12x more expensive than well written docs + pairing.

It's economic for some projects but it's still crazy to do it if it's at all avoidable.
2023 Network Meme Calendar
A blood clot creating a small stroke could also do similar damage to specific parts of your brain. I suspect they happen a lot and never get diagnosed. Like your peripheral vision going, it's hard to notice what just is no longer there one day.

The good news is, the brain can remap and relearn.
so true, names in different contexts have different needs. For internal stuff comprehension is king. I see this show up in front end and backend stuff frequently, especially in the microcosm of a console app in python where argparser can specify the `dest`, or internal name of a command line option. All my bool options get dest=is_xxx prefixes. Using more verbose names under dest is good too.
That's basically right, but not really for the right reasons. What exactly does "smaller" mean? Rob Pike is saying they have few methods. We're kinda getting to the right ideas without understanding why. It still sounds like you (and Rob Pike, from the bit I listened to) are still thinking of abstractions as a feature list, and you're saying: instead of having one list of lots of features, have lots of lists of one feature.

Okay, but ... we're still missing the point. It's not about features. It's about needs.

How do you know whether an abstraction can be "smaller"? What does "smaller" mean? Smaller means: more generic and/or easier to implement. That is not the same as having fewer methods, even if that is often the result. An abstraction can be smaller if you can make it more generic, and/or easier to implement, and have it still do everything you need it to do.
I failed to mention that I was not the original commenter.

> Thus, when someone has the temporary motive of suicide, and they have a firearm available, they tend to succeed. When they have a temporary motive of suicide, but they don't have a firearm available, they succeed less often.

To my, I repeat, uneducated eyes, the statistics I posted seem to show that people simply hang themselves when they don't have guns, but I cannot say with any kind of guarantee that this is correct. I don't like drawing such strong conclusions because I know it's not that simple to read statistics. If you can support your claims with data I'd love to read it.