I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I think it's more about salesmanship than anything else. "We released v1 and copyright holders immediately threatened to sue us, lol" sounds like you didn't think ahead, and also paints copyright holders in a negative light; copyright holders who you need to not be enemies but who, if you're not making it up, are already unhappy enough to want to sue you.
Sam's sentence tries to paint what happened in a positive light, and imagines positive progress as both sides work towards 'yes'.
So I agree that it would be nice if he were more direct, but if he's even capable of that it would be 30 years from now when someone's asking him to reminisce, not mid-hustle. And I'd add that I think this is true of all business executives, it's not necessarily a Silicon Valley thing. They seem to frequently be mealy-mouthed. I think it goes with the position.
"The best tools shouldn't only be accessible to the pros" but his knife costs more than every knife in that database.
The weight is listed in their help articles as 330g. I also think that handle is chunkier than a typical high end chef's knife. It may be easier to cut things with it, but I think your hand and arm are going to get tired of using it more quickly than with a regular knife at ~100g less.
And I realize these fare worse than the high end japanese and german knives, but it's hard to get excited about a $400 knife you can't put in the dishwasher when you can get a perfectly credible fibrox knife for about a tenth of that, which doesn't require charging and can tolerate 'careless home cook' levels of abuse.
You're supposed to keep a glass of water with a bit of chlorine bleach (to obtain roughly 300 ppm) handy for wiping your tools and surfaces down as you work. Not that anyone teaches Home Economics at school any longer.
This is what I learned in cooking school but also never actually saw in practice in restaurants I worked in (which were fine-ish dining in the Bay Area).
Taking a piece of metal or a plate that has any oily or other non-water-soluble food on it, rinsing it, and chlorinating it results in a mess that might indeed be non-infectious but is otherwise disgusting. Also, leaving a piece of stainless steel covered in chloride (which that bleach will turn into) is one of the worst things you could credibly do to it in a kitchen context. (And, while the relevant regulators don’t seem to care about disinfection byproducts in a kitchen, all those residual organics that didn’t get removed plus hypochlorous acid seem like they would thoroughly fail most drinking water standards.)
Also, I don’t know what all the food safety and dishwasher vendors are telling their customers, but that nice residual chlorine has a tasty and odor that is not appetizing at all. But you can also legally disinfect your dishes and such with sufficiently hot water, and you can buy a commercial dishwasher that does that instead of using chlorine.
In a home context, what’s wrong with dish soap and a sponge or brush? In a commercial kitchen that really wants to be compliant could use dish soap followed by a (very) hot rinse. The average household instant hot water tap is plenty hot for this, too, although demonstrably hitting those HACCP targets might be tricky.
I'm not disputing that, and it's kind of my point. Most home cooks (I would bet millions) are not worrying about "the cutting experience" when they are making dinner. They are using a knife to cut up vegetables or slice meat or whatever. Then they are putting that knife in the dishwasher. Not all of them, but most.
I think my other points matter more. I think people who are invested in the experience as you suggest care about more than just the edge and finish, they care about the weight and balance and feel as well. I think this knife is probably worse on those qualities.
I don't mean to say this knife sucks or that this guy is dumb. It's a cool knife, and he's clearly not dumb. I just think this is more a passion project curiosity kind of thing than a useful product addressing a large market need. Maybe a future mass market version (cheaper steel, stamped, more contoured handle) would change my mind.
> Most home cooks (I would bet millions) are not worrying about "the cutting experience"
Indeed, and they won't buy the knife at this price anyway. My point is that not being dishwasher-safe does not matter for ~everyone. If they care, they won't do it; if they don't, they won't buy it.
It's hard to do irreparable damage to the steel of a knife. It's just an inert lump of metal. But you could fuck up the handle. Theoretically, the detergent could dull your edge. If you don't isolate your knife and it rattles around, that'll definitely dull it. Mostly: it should only take a couple seconds to clean off your knife in the sink.
> It's hard to do irreparable damage to the steel of a knife.
It’s easy — just heat it above the tempering temperature of the steel in question. You can achieve this in an ordinary oven for most steels, and you can also achieve it (locally) with a motorized sharpener that isn’t cooled. Don’t take a knife you care about to be professionally sharpened by a person who uses a non-water-cooled power tool.
> It's hard to do irreparable damage to the steel of a knife.
Sadly not impossible, I've 'lost' (they're still in the back of a drawer) two good knives to idiots attempting to pry apart frozen chops and steaks .. each case snapped a good inch from the tip.
Not damage from a dishwasher and not damage the edge I realize, but worth mention as a tale of caution.
The steel used to make the knives is not always stainless, so it can stain or rust. Even stainless is really just stain resistant.
Dishwasher detergent is caustic and corrosive to steel, so over time it can pit the metal and dull the finish. Handles will swell and become loose or deteriorate, either because of wood repeatedly being waterlogged and dried or just from the heat cycling. A loose handle can be unsanitary, unsightly, dangerous, or all three.
You'll often read that knives in the dishwasher will bang around and that will damage the edge. And that it's more likely you will hurt yourself pulling a knife out of the dishwasher vs. cleaning them properly.
Phosphoric acid detergents will pit your blade. If the knife is not a stainless steel, the wash and dry cycle will cause accelerated rusting. In wooden-handled knives with a rat tail tang construction, you can start destroying the handle from the inside out due to gaps in the construction allowing water seepage and degradation. In non-stainless knives, that same construction becomes the point where rust tends to build up.
Then you also have the action of the dishwasher water jets bouncing the knife around, dulling and destroying the edge.
Only the shittiest cheapest plastic-handled knives I own touch the dishwasher. Everything else gets cleaned and wiped by hand and put straight to the knife block or its respective scabbard.
I think the answer to your question is that most people impacted to the severe degree you're imagining don't live till 70.
I don't know what the condition was, but I had an aunt who was affected by 'something' and was disabled in many of the same ways you imagine; she was nonverbal and needed full time care from a young age. She lived to 43, and towards the end they had to put in a feeding tube for her.
I have a couple of questions for you:
1. Have you ever personally seen a 'severe case' of autism where someone needs full time care for their entire life? Where are you getting your information about the degree and prevalence of this?
2. Putting "cases are clearly on the rise" alongside "where are the 70 year old severely autistic people" implies that you (via RFK Jr.) think that the number of severe cases is on the rise, not just that more people are being diagnosed with some level of autism. Do you know severe cases are on the rise, or are you (or RFK Jr.) just making some assumptions?
The reason I ask #2 is that the 'severe autism' we're imagining in this narrative would be, as you point out, obvious. But what if our understanding of symptoms has gotten better, and we're diagnosing more not-obvious cases, i.e. not severe cases.
Please keep in mind that the first person officially diagnosed with autism only died a couple of years ago. Donald Triplett. He lived to be 89, by the way.
Not to worry! Per the "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections" executive order, birth certificates are not valid proof of citizenship for the purposes of voting in a federal election anyway.
Re: 2026, it's possible Democrats could take back the House, and then be able to impeach the President. But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely.
And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadership of the executive branch. You'd need the House comfortably controlled by Democrats, with the Senate controlled by a supermajority of Democrats. I think that you'd need both the President and Vice President impeached, convicted, and removed from office, while preventing the current/acting President from having a new VP nominated and confirmed, so that the Speaker of the House became acting President. This seems even less likely.
> But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely.
Your numbers are on point. But, there's another Math that could take us on that path leading to the same goal: A lot of republican lawmakers aren't happy currently. Although it's a long shot, some of them could join Democrats in impeaching those two clowns.
The next test of this will be the WI Supreme Court election - if the Musk-backed candidate loses (after Musk spends millions of dollars on the campaign, possibly illegally), it might start to break the hold Musk+Trump have over Republican elected officials.
Impeachments without a two thirds majority are largely exercises in political playing around. You can use them to expose information that people are keeping hidden through subpoenas, but you can't convict in an impeachment without a two-thirds majority, which is definitely not happening.
SCOTUS said the money could not be frozen, but I don't think they put a deadline on when it had to be paid out. So it's not over.
The VP and Musk have both written recently about how the judiciary can't tell the executive branch what to do. I think Vance called it illegal. Regardless, law is meaningless if no one will enforce it.
I didn't read them all, but I read enough to think they were lying about it being tweets from 2017. It reads like someone asked ChatGPT to summarize current political news in the US.
History may not repeat, but it absolutely rhymes. If had a nickel for every time I heard about a government proposing to round up and deport thousands of people to a special island just so that their normal Constitution rules wouldn't apply, I'd have two nickels--which isn't a lot, but it's weird it happened twice.
Unfortunately, remote detention camps to "keep the homeland clean" are nothing new, they are tried and tested.
Here in Europe, we have had the UK and Italy actively pursuing rounding up migrants and deporting them to Ruanda/Albania until their claims are processed, and Australia has been doing this for decades now on Nauru and other places.
Possibly the migrants could enter the country using the approved legal process instead of just wandering in?
It isn't reasonable to expect countries to have a generous welfare system, accept all arrivals and exist on the same planet at the billion-odd people who live on a few dollars a day. Something has to give. I vote the welfare system but keep getting overruled; so one of the other two has to go. And we don't have the space tech to pick option 3.
> Possibly the migrants could enter the country using the approved legal process
At least for America, many if not also the majority did just that... And then overstayed the time limit, which is a civil infraction in the same category as a parking ticket.
Republicans have proposed a special "come deport me" registry where not-signing-up is itself a felony, as a roundabout way to retroactively criminalize things.
> Possibly the migrants could enter the country using the approved legal process instead of just wandering in?
For Germany, there is no legal way to enter the country if you're not caught by one of the larger dragnets (evacuation of personnel in Afghanistan, EU-wide assistance for Ukrainians and a few other rare international resettlement efforts). You are not able to apply for asylum outside of Germany, you cannot fly to Germany without a visa (the airline just won't take you as a passenger).
On paper yes you have the right to claim asylum. In practice, you have no way that doesn't make you commit at least one felony along the way.
I know nearly nothing about German law, but I going by what you write if Germany doesn't make it legal to enter the country, then no surprise the people who try anyway run the risk of being deported. I have enormous sympathy for them, but the fact is Germany is famous for having a big welfare system. That means people can't just wander in.
The thing for us to do would be to not make it necessary for people to flee in the first place. Feeding them in Africa is cheaper than feeding them here, the 2015 migration movement was largely caused because of a 100M $ shortfall in UNHCR / UNWFP food supply.
Does Dell just have one campus? Are teams typically homogeneous near one campus?
I'm thinking about my own employer, where I have been WFH since I got hired. My team is spread across 5+ states. I'd be the only person from my team in the office nearest to me were there an RTO mandate. I think there would only be one or maybe two other people there who I've even worked with on anything, in my several years of employment.
Quick note that when I worked on a campus (not Dell, big silicon valley outfit) 30 years ago, I seldom met most of my co-workers face to face, except once in a while in a meeting or randomly in the cafeteria. This was because the campus was large and the probability that someone you interacted with was on the same floor let alone the same building was low.
This isn't really the problem, though. This is an easy problem to solve; the real problem is that it costs money to do so.
Also: I'm not asserting that the below is good, just that it works.
First, don't make every check a required check. You probably don't need to require that linting of your markdown files passes (maybe you do! it's an example).
Second, consider not using the `on:<event>:paths`, but instead something like `dorny/paths-filter`. Your workflow now runs every time; a no-op takes substantially less than 1 minute unless you have a gargantuan repo.
Third, make all of your workflows have a 'success' job that just runs and succeeds. Again, this will take less than 1 minute.
At this point, a no-op is still likely taking less than 1 minute, so it will bill at 1 minute, which is going to be $.008 if you're paying.
Fourth, you can use `needs` and `if` now to control when your 'success' job runs. Yes, managing the `if` can be tricky, but it does work.
We are in the middle of a very large migration into GitHub Actions from a self-hosted GitLab. It was something we chose, but also due to some corporate choices our options were essentially GitHub Actions or a massive rethink of CI for several dozen projects. We have already moved into code generation for some aspects of GitHub Actions code, and that's the fifth and perhaps final frontier for addressing this situation. Figure out how to describe a graph and associated completion requirements for your workflow(s), and write something to translate that into the `if` statements for your 'success' jobs.
Sam's sentence tries to paint what happened in a positive light, and imagines positive progress as both sides work towards 'yes'.
So I agree that it would be nice if he were more direct, but if he's even capable of that it would be 30 years from now when someone's asking him to reminisce, not mid-hustle. And I'd add that I think this is true of all business executives, it's not necessarily a Silicon Valley thing. They seem to frequently be mealy-mouthed. I think it goes with the position.
reply