Boredom works from the bottom, providing fuel for wars in the form of soldiers. More specifically, young men in particular are easily appealed to by offering them a part in some great heroic endeavor, and a promise to mold them into someone whose manhood and courage may never again be questioned.

Of course, as many former soldiers have found out, you usually receive none of those things. The endeavor was bullshit, you were only a cog, and there is no badge of honor in the world that exempts you from the human experience of being made to feel small.

Not everyone feels the need to hedge everything they say with "to me..." and "it really sounds like...".

> It really annoyed me ...

I have no idea what you expect me to do with that information.

> you kept changing your argument

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about the joke/not-a-joke thing? I didn't change my argument, I dismissed a shallow objection to an irrelevant detail. My point is that regardless of why the driver quality was included on the page, customers are going to take it the wrong way. Yes, that is my opinion, because apparently that needs to be explicitly stated.

Everyone else who disagreed with me seems to have understood all this so I don't know what the source of your confusion is.

There are certain quirks of this platform's user base that always make me laugh. For example, HNers absolutely love to imply something condescending about the other guy's workplace in order to make their point.

Watch this, I can do it too: Working with managers who make $65,000 (or $10 million) purchases with no more due diligence than reading a marketing page and clicking "Buy it now" is not the flex you think it is.

Sure, I guess. Far more likely that they won't succeed, and it will be because of their pointless refusal to cooperate with others. I'm curious why you think we should "disrupt" companies putting a little due diligence into massive purchases.

> On a website where we frequently talk about disruptive business models, this whole attitude kinda stinks.

I could say the same thing about making a comment like this on a website where groupthink is rightfully mocked.

This guy desperately needs a marketing intern to look over his copy. Or hell, anyone who knows how to talk to humans.

I mean I'm sure lots of companies do this in practice because tickets for higher-paying customers naturally get prioritized, but directly stating your intention to do it on your home page is hilarious.

> we don't offer any customization to the box or ordering process

Every B2B deal of that size that I've ever seen requires at least weeks of meetings between the customer and vendor, in which every detail is at least discussed if not negotiated. That would certainly constitute a "customization" to this guy's prescribed ordering process, which is to "Buy it now" [1] through the website at the stated price like you're ordering a jar of peanuts on Amazon. This is not "framing", it's what the guy said. If it isn't what he meant then he needs to fix his copy.

[1] Yes, there is an actual "Buy it now" button for a $65,000 business purchase that takes you to a page that looks just like a Stripe form. There isn't even a textbox for delivery instructions. Wild.

Has this guy never worked on a B2B product before? Nobody is going to order a $10 million piece of infrastructure through your website's order form. And they are definitely going to want to negotiate something, even if it's just a warranty. And you'll do it because they're waving a $10 million check in your face.

The tone of this website is arrogant to the point of being almost hostile. The guy behind this seems to think that his name carries enough weight to dictate terms like this, among other things like requiring candidates to have already contributed to his product to even be considered for a job. I would be extremely surprised if anyone except him thinks he's that important.

> All bounties paid out at my (geohot) discretion. Code must be clean and maintainable without serious hacks.

No thanks. If you want to try before you buy, have your candidates do a paid test project. Founders need to stop acting like it's a privilege to work for them. Any talent worth hiring has plenty of other options that will treat them with respect.

Nematode worms have an oxytocin analogue called nematocin that is known to influence learning and social behaviors like mating. As far as I can find, the project doesn't account for this, or only minimally, but aims to in the future.

It's not surprising that immediate short-term behaviors like movement depend mostly on the faster signaling of the connectome. But since we know of other mechanisms that most definitely influence the connectome's behavior, and we know we don't account for those at the moment, it is not accurate to say that the connectome is "all the information you need".

I agree that mapping the connectome of the human brain is impractical to the point of impossibility. But even if we could, the resulting "circuit diagram" would not capture all the details needed to fully replicate human cognition. Aspects of it, sure. Maybe even enough to make it do useful tasks for EvilCorp LLC while being prodded with virtual sticks and carrots. But it would be incomplete.

How can we possibly know that the non-connectome details of the brain don't influence computation or conscious experience?

It seems we ignore these only because they don't fit neatly into our piles of linear algebra that we call ANNs.

Especially considering you could move the taskbar until Windows 11 when they inexplicably killed it. It only took them 5 goddamn years to put it back.

To be fair, this does indeed demonstrate their "commitment to quality", just as they intended.

It's a good thing "randomized controlled trials" aren't the only kind of empirical evidence, then.

We know the limits of how fast a human can safely land. Parachute manufactures have to prove that their designs meet the minimum performance specifications to achieve a safe speed. This proof is not invalidated by the fact that it doesn't include throwing some poor bastard with a placebo parachute out of an airplane to demonstrate that he dies on impact.

Also, the answer to your original question is yes. There are numerous studies showing that multiple monitors improve productivity.

Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?

How do you keep a baby happy and quiet on long international flights? I currently have no kids but I may find myself in this situation in the next couple years. I'm dreading being the guy with a screaming infant on a 13-hour trans-Pacific flight that keeps everyone from sleeping.

Developers' names are attached to stories, and stories have points on them. Why is that insane, and how does your company track who did what?

I propose that the name on the story should be that of the reviewer since they did the work.

The same goes for coding. I have coworkers who use it to generate entire PRs. They can crank out two thousand lines of code that includes tests "proving" that it works, but may or may not actually be nonsense, in minutes. And then some poor bastard like me has to spend half a day reviewing it.

When code is written by a human that I know and trust, I can assume that they at least made reasonable, if not always correct, decisions. I can't assume that with AI, so I have to scrutinize every single line. And when it inevitably turns out that the AI has come up with some ass-backwards architecture, the burden is on me to understand it and explain why it's wrong and how to fix it to the "developer" who hasn't bothered to even read his own PR.

I'm seriously considering proposing that if you use AI to generate a PR at my company, the story points get credited to the reviewer.