andonisus (u/andonisus)

andonisus commented on Steel Threads are a powerful but obscure software design approach rubick.com/steel-threads/... · Posted by u/jaderubick

d--b · 3 years ago

This reminds me of something John Carmack tweeted once (can't find the tweet).

In the tweet, he said that when coding, he'd start by the smallest possible PoC, and code it entirely front to back. That'd give the general structure, and then he'd build upon that. (this is what I remember of it fwiw).

I do this all the time too, which I think is a vastly superior approach to TDD, which assumes how an API is going to be used, without actually writing the actual thing that's going to use it.

andonisus · 3 years ago

I take a similar but somewhat orthogonal approach.

Most of the time, any major features that require refactoring are usually around the data model and its representation in code (the existing control flow and overall flow of a request through the system is generally fine).

I will build out what I believe the new data model should be, and then just work front-to-back, updating any references and refactoring the shared state and responsibility into the new data model, clearly separating out concerns and encapsulating responsibility.

This method has proved itself time and again, and I recommend it to anyone who needs to make large changes to and existing code base. That is, start with how the kernels of data, state, and responsibility should look, and everything grows from there.

andonisus commented on Thoughts on getting laid off after nine years at Twilio baugues.com/layoff/... · Posted by u/gregorymichael

rybosworld · 3 years ago

I think it's awesome that some people enjoy their work and love their jobs.

That said, if you aren't an owner of the company then I think it's unhealthy to be emotionally invested.

In my last job, I had received a competing offer and informed my boss that I would rather not leave but that this other offer was too financially good for me to ignore. My boss responded by beating the other offer and I stayed there for about five more years.

I later admitted to him that I felt guilt about leveraging an offer in this way. He said something that really stuck with me: "You've got to put yourself first".

In retrospect, the thing that actually stuck with me is that I'd gleamed into the mind of upper management. That is, they are putting themselves first, and so should you.

andonisus · 3 years ago

I see it like this: it is my work. It is my name that goes on the CR, on the commit, on the documentation, etc. Why shouldn’t I take as much pride and genuinely care about it as much as I can? At the end of it all, it is my effort, and I will give he best effort I can.

I know I’m speaking about effort, and you’re speaking about becoming emotionally invested, but the latter is a natural manifestation of of the former; the emotional investment arises because of the effort I put forth.

andonisus commented on Apple avoids job cuts because it didn’t overhire like Google and Amazon bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/mfiguiere

stephencanon · 3 years ago

As big as 20% of their RSU grant + the bonus they would get at another company would be? If not, not misleading at all.

andonisus · 3 years ago

Comp is meant to stay stable at the agreed upon target for the first two years. There is a cash bonus for years 1 and 2 used to offset the vesting schedule. The final 2 years are really dependent on stock performance. For example, I basically will need AMZN stock to get increase by 25% from todays value by Jan 2025 to be making what I did for the first two years.

andonisus commented on The privatization of policing compactmag.com/article/th... · Posted by u/jseliger

mikrl · 3 years ago

Not attacking you, but I’m not sure if this is privilege or not.

I’ve uprooted for greener pastures twice in my life, and it has paid off both times. If I didn’t, I’d be impoverished and possibly hooked on (the scary) drugs.

If fluffy social aspects outweigh your immediate economic concerns, it stands that you are privileged enough to make the choice to stay still.

On the other hand, uprooting requires a certain resilience and fortitude that not everyone has. People who can torch their old life to chase something better are privileged in a way too, are they not?

andonisus · 3 years ago

It seems that the word “privilege” is doing all the heavy lifting here, but it sounds to me like it is a stand in for “having the ability to make anything but the default choice” (to remain in one’s location, in this case).

andonisus commented on Amazon confirms corporate staff cuts that could hit 10k employees wsj.com/articles/amazon-t... · Posted by u/mfiguiere

erehweb · 3 years ago

I found this comment from an anonymous tech industry insider interesting:

"Amazon is very, very bloated. So there's lots of people there but they're not providing a lot of value so they're first on the chopping block."

This is counter to what I have heard about Amazon, which is that it is a ruthless environment where low performers are stack ranked out of the company. Does anyone have any insight?

andonisus · 3 years ago

Both of these things can be true. There is a lag time behind hiring someone, PIPing them, and terminating them. Amazon was on a hiring spree. They are almost certainly still be bloated even after these layoffs.

Disclaimer: I work at Amazon as an SDE II on the logistics side of retail.

andonisus commented on Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade apnews.com/article/aborti... · Posted by u/uptown

standardUser · 4 years ago

You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

"The court does not invent rights, nor should it."

It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

"Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?"

I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?

andonisus · 4 years ago

> You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

All of this posturing is irrelevant to the fact that the right which was granted did not follow from the arguments being made. Our courts should follow sound reasoning when establishing unenumerated rights. They also should not care about what the impact would be downstream of their decisions; their reasoning should stand on its own.

> It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

And some no longer do.

> I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?

Impossible to say, but it had to be a non-negligible amount. Either way, that has no bearing on which way the court should rule.

The laws represent the will of the people via their elected representatives. The court adjudicates these laws and their validity as it relates to our constitution.

andonisus commented on Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade apnews.com/article/aborti... · Posted by u/uptown

bryans · 4 years ago

> I believe that the unborn baby is a viable human life at some point and that abortion without a justifiable reason after that point would be equivalent to murder.

That's the entire point! You're not objecting to abortion. You're objecting at some point in time and only when it's medically unjustifiable. But those moral thresholds are different for every individual and there are medically justifiable situations, which is exactly why no individual should be able to impose their personal beliefs as a law which declares those medical situations as unjustifiable.

You're welcome to have moral objections and believe they are the most correct or reasonable, but they have no bearing on the concerted efforts of religious groups and individuals to outright ban access to medical care. And that's the discussion at hand, which you keep conveniently ignoring. Many people have total opposition to all abortions in all situations and specifically for religious reasons, which is what actual, real-life politicians are implementing as we speak.

Someone else having an abortion (whether you believe it's murder or not) doesn't infringe on your rights. But you imposing your beliefs in a way that affects someone else's medical care is absolutely infringing on their rights. These are fundamental concepts of our democracy.

andonisus · 4 years ago

Just because everyone may not be be able to agree on exactly when that viability threshold is or what reasons are justifiable does not mean we should not attempt to do so. Almost all states (and other countries) where abortion is legalized still have reasonable limits on when they may be performed (e.g., not after second trimester). I think we would both agree that an abortion of an otherwise viable and healthy baby one day before expected delivery would be unethical.

The religious arguments for banning all abortion for any reasons are not sound and I would not expect such laws to pass scrutiny when challenged in court (but who knows nowadays).

Many things people do don’t infringe on my rights. Someone murdering another person doesn’t infringe MY rights, but it is still wrong. A parent beating their child doesn’t infringe my rights but is still abuse.

All this being said, I support the right of a woman to receive an abortion, within reason. It is up to our elected officials to codify this right. It is not, nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the court to attempt to enshrine a right that does not exist through case law.

andonisus commented on Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade apnews.com/article/aborti... · Posted by u/uptown

bryans · 4 years ago

> I don’t know why you keep bringing up religion, I have not mentioned it at all.

The only objection anyone has to abortion is based on religious beliefs. So, you didn't need to mention it. It's the foundation of the entire issue -- that religious beliefs can be imposed on a population as law. Saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion betrays an ignorance of the subject at hand.

> None of these rights apply to abortion. If anything, there should be an enumerated right to bodily autonomy.

The enumeration does not need to specifically reference the word to be applicable. For a different example, the 4th amendment doesn't contain any verbiage about police officers opening a trunk during a traffic stop, but the declaration that they must have probable cause still applies. In the exact same way, to assert religious beliefs that affect someone else's medical care violates all of the rights I listed.

andonisus · 4 years ago

> The only objection anyone has to abortion is based on religious beliefs

Uh…what? I am not religious (agnostic/atheist) but I object to abortion after a certain amount of time except in the cases of grave bodily harm or being the product of forced reproduction (idk what the site rules are on certain language, but I trust you understand what I mean). I believe that the unborn baby is a viable human life at some point and that abortion without a justifiable reason after that point would be equivalent to murder. I also believe many people also feel the same way I do.

> The enumeration does not need to specifically reference the word to be applicable

Yes, but we are in disagreement on which rights are applicable in this case.

andonisus commented on Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade apnews.com/article/aborti... · Posted by u/uptown

deathanatos · 4 years ago

I left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.

A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)

But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.

I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?

andonisus · 4 years ago

Agreed on bodily autonomy. It is my guess that the court would strike down laws that restrict abortion wholesale (when challenged), but who knows.

Of course, this is only applicable if the Congress fails to act; were they to pass a law that enshrines the right to bodily autonomy, there would be no issue.

andonisus commented on Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade apnews.com/article/aborti... · Posted by u/uptown

standardUser · 4 years ago

"Where in our constitution and laws are these things codified as rights?"

Um, how about Roe v Wade and the TEN times the Supreme Court upheld RvW since it was decided, including as recently as 2016? The court just blew up precedent with a ten ton nuke and you're arguing hey, it was just good jurisprudence!

andonisus · 4 years ago

Do you understand the difference between the constitution and the courts? The court does not invent rights, nor should it. It is the federal government’s responsibility to codify rights, and it is the courts responsibility to affirm them.

Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?