mjolk

9 ms·

1.
by mjolk 9y ago
> So how honest are you being here? Dead honest. I mean a quick async-okay-if-from-phone "hey, here's what I have lined up for this week, can you tell me if this is unreasonable from your perspective" exchange.
2.
by mjolk 9y ago
> Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear.. I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really
3.
by mjolk 9y ago
> It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35. Oh yeah, totally. My motivation for asking was to make sure we don't end up in a monoculture of people that stick around after being surpris
4.
by mjolk 9y ago
I don't know why you're being sarcastic, but I actually wanted to make sure I don't bring someone on to be unhappy. People over 25 can work more than 40 hours and not get burned out. I feel that you just want to make me out
5.
by mjolk 9y ago
> Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4. That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation. > The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening piz
6.
by mjolk 9y ago
I'm considering what you say, but it doesn't ring true to my interpersonal experiences at all. > Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making y
7.
by mjolk 9y ago
> I wouldn't doubt overwork as a factor, but the elephant in the room is meaninglessness... people pretty much realize that the core feature of their jobs is their own economic exploitation...Burnout, like all pain, may be a feature
8.
by mjolk 9y ago
edit: Wow, I've gotten some negative responses and I'm not sure why. This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people tha
9.
by mjolk 9y ago
I'm not sure that my response helps build a constructive discussion, but I'd suggest that you at least have the direction reversed (lobbyists propose actions, the "assholes" (as you put it) vote as they're told).
10.
by mjolk 9y ago
> near is not the same thing as impossible. I told this story before, but I once read an article about a police officer who said it was impossible for another person to have logged into an account because it was password protected, when
11.
by mjolk 9y ago
> You're obviously way more legally savvy than I am. Just goes to prove that a _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing. Oh no, don't feel that way. The law is a man-made thing at the intersection of logic and opinion, which is
12.
by mjolk 9y ago
> hashes can be inaccurate, it isn't a foregone conclusion in reality, just in their opinion. Not really, no. The chance of multiple hash collisions on a set of arbitrary images is a near impossibility.
13.
by mjolk 9y ago
I'm glad you didn't take offense to me making reference to the fallacy as I appreciate our conversation and wasn't sure how else to express that thought. If you haven't done so, check out the source document for the arti
14.
by mjolk 9y ago
No, and thanks for catching that. My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.
15.
by mjolk 9y ago
They're staying within the law -- the defendant being in violation of the law is why an order to comply was filed and why we have access to the court of appeals document. If you don't like the process, that's a different conv
16.
by mjolk 9y ago
> To me, this whole thing smells of the classic tactic of telling the guy, "We know you're guilty; just confess, and we'll go easy on you." Which, of course, is a lie...If the hash information isn't enough to try
17.
by mjolk 10y ago
The defendant provided the password to his iphone (that contained highly-unsavory media of his nieces), which contained an unlock code for his laptop (filevault backup decrypt key). He connected the external drives to this laptop, and when
18.
by mjolk 10y ago
Subtle point: "they" don't want or care about his credentials -- they want the underlying evidence for which they know exists (check out "The foregone conclusion doctrine" in page 34 of the source document[0]) and t
19.
by mjolk 10y ago
I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
20.
by mjolk 10y ago
Head's up that the source goes into some detail and is a miserable, sickening read. Per the source ( https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/fedsr... ), the prosecutors already have a c
21.
by mjolk 10y ago
Or, this is a case in which a defendant had a non-foreign-government reason to accept whatever consequences come from not cooperating (thus not having political machinations at work) and it's a case with real human harm that makes it w
22.
by mjolk 10y ago
Great clickbait title, venturebeat. > (Google and Microsoft are entering the group chat space..) In other words, Slack doesn’t offer anything that Google and Microsoft can’t replicate. Of course Google and Microsoft can replicate the fun
23.
by mjolk 10y ago
> I'm not playing identity politics. And I didn't mention racism and homophobia because that's not the perspective the author wrote from. You suggested I'm not qualified to decide if the claims are believable (to me)
24.
by mjolk 10y ago
> Medium isn't a court of law, they don't owe anyone any evidence and you pointing out that there isn't any is implying that they have a reason to hide their name that isn't justified. You're right. And I don&#
25.
by mjolk 10y ago
> What evidence do you have that it's absurd? None, which is exactly the level of evidence put forward in the blogpost that it even happened. Susan Fowler's account is a plausible account of a toxic environment; I default to b
26.
by mjolk 10y ago
My own. I'm not making claims of a sexist, racist, and hostile environment in a company, so for what it's worth, where I work isn't relevant.
27.
by mjolk 10y ago
> ... is a privileged viewpoint, and offensive to me. "Privileged"? I'm not sure how or why you chose to take offense, but I'm surprised that anything about that was even slightly controversial. > The author doesn&
28.
by mjolk 10y ago
Please tell me what is "vile" about saying "I believe Susan, but this blogpost strains credibility. If the author is being honest, I hope she speaks to an attorney".
29.
by mjolk 10y ago
> so much so that even open source projects use it over IRC. Remove the small amount of technical know how to "properly" use IRC and make chats (and permissions) persistent, and I imagine you'd end up with something that l
30.
by mjolk 10y ago
> Congress, for practical purposes, went on strike to attempt to ensure that Obama would not be able to accomplish most of his goals - in effect punishing the US people for political purposes. Or, if acting in good faith, disagreed that

More ›