Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Just remove the duck” (2013)

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 347 posts

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#271

Post by mod »

vidarh wrote: post #111
mcmatterson wrote: post #54

This is also great parenting advice. Give your kid the feeling of having chosen to eat their vegetables, and they'll devour an entire plate of them.

Agreed. Our son always "decides" what he's having for dinner and what to do during the weekends, for example. Only he decides by choosing between 2-3 options we've selected in advance to match what we want the outcome to be. Similarly it's always bedtime before his actual intended bedtime so he can negotiate some extra time. It avoids so many conflicts when he smugly believes he has gotten exactly what he wanted out…

I like giving him different veggie options for the illusion of choice.

I don't like letting him "get one over" on bedtime. When he's old enough to know the difference, then what? You'll have to take away those wins. Same goes for basically everything else he'll want from you.

At least he'll (hopefully) negotiate well!

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#272

Post by eigenvector »

philh wrote: post #264
jallmann wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so sure about that [1]: > Q: Are your articles (like Missing Missy), real emails? > A: The email articles are verbatim ... Even if his pieces are meant to be satire, IMO it's not particularly good satire. To each his own, I guess. [1] http://live.washingtonpost.com/david-thorne-internet-is-a-pl...

I'm curious why this was downvoted?

Not sure, but that interview is satirical too...

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#273

Post by Dylan16807 »

grecy wrote: post #266
Dylan16807 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting down a forest is only a problem if I'm not growing suitable new forest to replace it. If I'm buying meat in the store I'm definitely paying for it to be replaced. I don't see why a good reason is necessary when it comes to a renewable resource. I support demanding good reasons for non-renewable resources.

Because you're actively killing a living thing. In the same way I think it's not productive to call an animal that will killed "cold cuts", I don't think it's productive to refer to a living animal as a "renewable resource". Also implying that you can kill and waste as many of them as you like simply because you paid for it is not productive either. In all honesty, it's disappointing to see people refer to living cre…

I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown. A lot of things die simply because I exist. If it was a top priority to minimize it I wouldn't eat meat at all.

I'm not trying to be insulting by calling things resources. Even the most important things like time are renewable in some important contexts.

Waste is not productive by definition, not sure where you're going with that. It's bad economically but not morally.

To get to the important part, I want animals to live without suffering. But cold cuts can't suffer.

And I'm not calling living animals cold cuts.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#274

Post by zipfle »

sxp wrote: post #120
TallGuyShort wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a huge Steve Jobs fan, but I had a professor who had worked as a designer under Steve Jobs and tried something similar. Steve insisted that a new mouse needed to be just a fraction of a millimetre slimmer so a person's palm was lower and closer to the work surface. They figured he was being an unreasonable "delicate genius" and returned a few days later with the identical mouse and claimed they had reworked it to…

There is a similar story about Larry Page when Gmail was being developed: Before Google launched Gmail in 2004, its creator, Paul Buchheit, brought it to Page’s open cubicle office for a review. As Buchheit called the program up on Page’s computer, the boss made a face. “It’s too slow,” Page said. Buchheit disagreed. It was loading just fine, he said. No, Page insisted. It had taken a full 600 milliseconds for the pa…

That's a super old story, at least as old as this zen koan:

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/48accurateproportion.html

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#276

Post by stefs »

kyberias wrote: post #255

There's a certain tone in this article that bothers me a bit. At least in software engineering, the idea of reviews is to find errors in code or design how ever small they are. When inspecting any code, we almost always find at least something, regardless of the level of quality. It's not about being fair, it's not personal, and it probably isn't even dependent on the reviewers personality. It's just that when the go…

it's real. it usually happens when i working on mobile apps for big companies. apps are comparably new (compared to websites, desktop apps or server software) and for a lot of customers these are the first apps they launch. so new and exciting! they want to be part of it, they have to be part of it. another reason is they're afraid of getting downsized if they're not working on (contributing to) N projects at once.

on a technical level they don't have to add anything to it, so it's mostly visual tweaks they're demanding; usually something they've seen in other apps (no matter if it was something that made sense on ios in a different context and we're working on android).

that's called bikeshedding.

if the project bombs they didn't really have anything to do with it (apart from that one minor change) - if it's a success they were an integral part of the team.

one project, we needed a notification sound. the product owner begged us to keep our mouths shut, take one of the default notification sound files and tell the others custom sounds aren't possible - because if the marketing department got wind of it we'd have to test a boatload of different files for different managers and wait another month for the notification-sound-committees final decision.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#278

Post by jallmann »

eigenvector wrote: post #272
philh wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why this was downvoted?

Not sure, but that interview is satirical too...

I don't think so -- what exactly is satirical about that interview?

(Not that I really care to know; this is getting way off-topic.)

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#279

Post by cmstoken »

moron4hire wrote: post #191
_ea1k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM3InfEH-cU

>> "From the PC game Battle Chess (Enhanced) by Interplay. The reason I discovered I was into vore." I really, really shouldn't read even the descriptions on YouTube videos.

I would also advice not going to the user's Google+ account. I was curious, and I regret it.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#280

Post by MeadowTheory »

Ensorceled wrote: post #185
dchichkov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a more likely, albeight sadder explanation. Steve was simply able to read the faces of the team and correctly guess that they didn't comply. As a compliance professional he was very sensitive to that and immediately reacted.

Or, a more likely and less idiotically cynical explanation is that a man famous for having vision, aesthetic sense and incessant drive for excellence that enabled him to completely revolutionize multiple technology industries ACTUALLY had vision and a sense of aesthetics.

An implausible, borderline impossible, tactical sensitivity is not vision and a sense of aesthetics. Cool your jets.
Post reply on HN