Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29108433

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I should add though that some activities are indeed useful, one of those is certainly teaching. If PhD students have full responsibility over the course, or part of the course, of which they're entrusted, it can be a very productive activity.

It is particularly formative if PhD students are entrusted with teaching activities covering subjects closely related to their thesis. In this way they can practice speaking over the things they are studying, which brings a ton of experience and positive growth.

On the contrary, if it's just teaching to cover hours that the professor to which the course is appointment is not willing to do, than it's much less attractive.

As a general rule, I'd suggest to a PhD student to be as selfish as possible. Although apparently counterintuitive, in their position it is a good rule of thumb to only engage in things that bring some tangible (but not necessarily immediate) utility. There are way too many professors willing to take advantage of younger positions for their own agenda. And that is also why it's very important who your thesis supervisor is.

Finally: never underestimate the "contractual power" that a PhD student has over a professor. Apart of few exceptions, professors need PhD students more than PhD students need professors. And in the case of those exceptions in which the professor is so well known and respected that there is a waiting list to be a PhD student, then I'd bet that it will also be so because such professor knows how to properly supervise PhD students.

It's still in very early beta, you could consider it a very very essential MVP. I'd be interested to know your opinion!

It's a web app, [anita-app.com](https://anita-app.com).

As a full stack developer I've battled so many times with weird implementations or unexpected behaviors across browsers that knowing that I can assume that the user will be on chromium is just piece of mind.

As a counter argument I don't think that monopolization of internet standards will be a risk. As long as chromium stays open source and anyone can fork it, I think that the risk of monopolization on internet is not on how web pages are rendered, but rather on how users reach content.

I think the latter is the real problem and I don't think that battling chromium is any good at that regard. Money would be much better spent on developing new ways to allow discoverability of content beyond Google, walled app stores and alikes.

If there's ever a breach, for example someone steals the key and then accesses the data, the fine will be super high given that the company has retrained data after the user asked to delete it.

To mitigate such risk, the company would at least need explicit consent of the user, at which point it's just as simply asking the user to not really delete their account.

A viable option, legally speaking, could be to send the dump to the user, in a way that can be easily imported back if the user ever wants to login again.