For those who don't use it, it allows you to create categories and automatically deposit money into those categories at some interval. Then you can easily transfer between those categories.

I use this so that I can put some money away for expected expenses like taxes and a new car and also to budget for fun so I known what I can actually afford.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious but given that they only stored a salted hash, how can hackers get your password? My understanding is that using a salted hash should prevent them from using either a rainbow table or dictionary attack.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28793185

Points: 4

# Comments: 3

Does that really make sense? I thought MIT was a private institution. The research is often publicly funded but I don't believe that's the case for the tuition.

I believe it is the idea of writing small tools focused on doing one thing well with reusability in mind as opposed to writing larger complicated tools that do multiple things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

The original comment said

> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.

and you said

> At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.

which refutes the original comment.

> However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this; I think the issue I (and the person you're responding to) have is the idea that you should ignore understanding the meta until you're 6k MMR as you say.

Both are important and you should develop both at the same time if you want to improve.

Source? I'm very skeptical this is true. I am not a huge fan of Google's promotion process but it isn't that bad.

I might know where I'm going but I don't always know how to get there so I use Google Maps all the time. I don't use it for my daily commute but if I'm going to a friend's or something I'll usually use it.

When I sit in my friends cars we also use it all the time. Often we're going to a restaurant or some other location that we don't often go to.

For exploration my friends pretty much just use Yelp or Google Search. I sometimes but rarely use Google Maps for this because I find that the reviews are usually much lower quality and Google Maps is too slow (I have an old Pixel 2)

Maybe logically that makes sense but from an ethical perspective I argue it's much more complicated than that (e.g. the trolley problem)

In the current system if a human is at fault, they take the blame for the accident. If we decide to move to self driving cars that we know are far from perfect but statistically better than humans, who do we blame when an accident inevitably happens? Do we blame the manufacturer even though their system is operating within the limits they've advertised?

Or do we just say well, it's better than it used to be and it's no one's fault? When the systems become significantly better than humans, I can see this perhaps being a reasonable argument, but if it's just slightly better, I'm not sure people will be convinced.

Why? AGI seems like a significantly harder problem than self driving cars (itself a hard problem admittedly).

What I personally think will happen is we'll meet somewhere in the middle: we can redesign roads/cars to make solving the problem of self driving easier.

In theory, breaking up monopolies increases competition which allows better companies/products to spring up that would otherwise be crushed by anti competitive practices. If you agree with that theory, then the act of breaking up monopolies actually makes the US more competitive.

Why does it matter if it's cash only? The stock is equivalent to cash unless you care that much about the fluctuation.

At Google we have Autosale so any time I get a stock grant it's automatically sold and deposited into my bank account as cash.

At Microsoft I think they go even further and give you an amount of stock based on the cash value at the time you receive it so you don't even have to worry about price fluctuations. (At least that is my understanding)

I believe the reason FAANG ignores MS is that MS salaries are lower, but that is only based on my personal experience.

> If you max out 401k and IRA this is $275k, which is $168K take home or $14k a month.

> Left over: $7400

That sounds like a lot to me? I think the vast majority of the US would absolutely be ecstatic if they could save 7400 a month on top of maxing their 401k.

Just maxing my 401k (with employer match) I'll already have enough for my own retirement. Most people aren't able to do even that though =/

I don't think this is true?

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for housing prices to increase on their own. I suppose you can make the argument for increased population growth but we haven't reached the point where this is a problem, at least in the US.

On the other hand, businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money. Literally everyone in the company is (supposed to be) working towards the goal of increasing profits.

> When you have the actual manufacturer being buried in the results, we have a major problem.

How do you know though? What if the majority users actually do what you describe in hopes of buying something and thus the shopping results are more relevant for them?

I imagine either there is a bug or this is the case, because I'm sure the links people actually click feed back into the algorithms and the results are modified accordingly.

This being said, it seems like the fact that your results aren't personalized enough to your liking is a shortcoming, assuming you were signed in.

> Really, the only downside I see with them is that they can displace exercise and face-to-face communication -- I know games can be social, but you really just need time talking to other people with no distractions. But if you balance your life appropriately, why not?

My issue with video games is that playing them too much, especially when young, increases your dopamine tolerance too much. Many of them are designed to be addicting.

I have mostly stopped playing video games and feel mental well being has significantly improved.

Of course, that's not to say I think they should be banned or anything but in my humble opinion you are ignoring the significant downsides of playing video games. That being said, I have many fond memories and friendships created through video games too! Like most things there's good and bad.

Even if we assume the first statement is true, which is a big if, it still doesn't necessarily support the idea that working long hours is good. After all, you can't tell whether he was successful because of, or despite the long hours.

I assume the thinking is that if the ROI is not high enough, then you might as well just invest that money into the more profitable portions of your business.

> I still lay claim that google is not hiring the talent that they think they are or claim to be.

Obviously I am biased. I don't think I'm particularly great or anything, but I find my colleagues to be by far the most capable I've ever worked with, and I did previously work at AWS, where engineers were also very smart.

> With such huge budgets and failed product after failed product one has to wonder what is the genesis of their failings.

Personally I think it's an issue with management structure rather than individuals. Frankly I don't think smart people matter all that much.. for the most part you only need sufficiently smart people to do their job, and good culture/management will make the team shine. I'd argue that engineers are individually significantly less important than product managers and managers.

That being said, I think the issue is that Google is just too engineering focused. This makes it a wonderful place to work, but I don't think it leads to great products most of the time. It's fine for products like search and ads, where you can literally measure if you are making improvements, but not so good for most products.

Engineers are more or less allowed to pick what they want to work on. Again, I enjoy this flexibility, but I think it also leads to a lack of focus, especially when product managers probably have a much better understanding of what customers want or need.

Of course, Google is a massive company so I don't know how reflective my own experience is of the larger picture! This is just my personal feeling.

Maybe instead of having them read something, make them give a presentation on it to the rest of the team?

Then they have deadlines and produce content. Sounds just like work to me.