You look for impact, not how much it took time. There are people that work a lot, but have no real outcomes. Also this particular type of resume is popular because google has promoted this style
Impact can vary wildly between companies and circumstances given the same inputs however, so indexing on that can be misleading in interviews.
I've moved big revenue metrics with relatively simple projects. Anyone else could have done the same thing. And I was building on work that lots of product people and other engineers performed. That "impact" doesn't tell you anything about what I can bring to a new company with different systems and products.
Yes, anyone who is rich and want an asset that can't be taken from them by goverment. Apparently also people in countries without easy access to bank accounts.
Bartender, Karabiner-Elements, MacUpdater, NightOwl, iStat Menus, Keyboard Maestro, Rectangle, Amphetamine are some of the most important "OS Enhancement" apps I use.
TripMode, Tripsy, 1Password, Raindrop.io, iTerm, Tower, IINA, Soulver, Spark, Carbon Copy Cloner, Find Any File, Flux, Pacifist, are some my most used "non-common" apps (excluding things like Firefox and VS Code).
Sorry, just found it funny with the big list of applications you're recommending to install to do basic thing in OSX when the usual argument against Linux on HN is "Macs just work".
They do for regular users who use typical end user apps it doesn't just work for devs.
Apple is not designing OS for devs their vast majority of users are not devs or even professionals these days, while macs can be used for development with some wrangling to get a POSIX like environment without too much performance loss, it is not linux. Docker will run in a VM and be slower and some basic stuff like procfs would be completely missing , most of their gnu utils are from late 80s GPL being the reason.
I am also moving back to apple largely because of the m1x performance and battery. Hope Asahi becomes very stable soon on M1
I am a CTO and I use a system76[1] I would rather my devs used Linux systems, for a long time I did only deploy only Linux ThinkPads, but devs want MacBooks- even more so after M1 launched. A few have turned down offers because we didn't offer macs. Now we basically allow them to choose, but in the recent past not a single one has not chosen Apple .
I don't think it is all just CTOs either, there is lot of aspirational value partly driven by design of the system (light weight/looks) partly because expensive it becomes more exclusive.
Without M1 there was nothing else to go for technically they were not that much better, now atleast post m1 there is value to maybe justify the costs.
TCO for ThinkPads are way cheaper than macs upgrades are possible when it is not on macs or easier you don't need to send it apple service for ages, the in-house IT has no shortage of spare parts . No sensible CTO is going to choose apple over anything else if he had choice .
[1] ThinkPad X1 carbon before that both were much better devices just in terms of build quality than my last mac the 2016 pro .
Having linux just work is worth investing in frame.work or system76 or dell developer edition I rather do actual work than fiddle with drivers .
The choice is usually Linux ThinkPads and Apple. System76 is great and I love it, however parts and availability of support globally is definitely limited to consider wide scale deployment. There is also reuse flexibility for returned thinkpads that can be given to for windows users .
Having said that if a employee requested system76 or frame.work I would happily get it. Sadly like I said everyone wants Macs.
Not OP, but give MacPorts a try to see if you prefer it to Homebrew. It tends to push more of the configuration onto the user, but if you’re coming from Arch you might well prefer that. It’s also much faster than Homebrew in my experience.
Not OP but it depends entirely on how Linux-y you want your experience to be. I regularly hop between pop, manjaro, and macOS.
Brew is a given, but I also run karabiner elements for key remapping, Yabai+skhd+limelight for windows management, sketchybar as a panel, and Alfred as the run launcher since d-menu for Mac is still in early development.
This gives me some nice consistency between OSs since I use BSPWM+Polybar+Rofi on Linux.
There are several other neat little utilities that could come in handy like bettertouchtool and keyboard maestro for system wide automation with a gui and hammerspoon if you want a lua based automation program.
I personally use hammerspoon to bring up a list of Yabai shortcuts for windows management since I have too many keybindings.
As for dev tools, I use nvim, doom emacs, or VSC so it’s pretty easy to carry my config between OSs.
I try to keep it pretty simple. I use Karabiner for two specific keyboard alterations (swapping : and ;, and mapping cmd+esc to cmd+` for my keyboard without a dedicated ` key). I also use iTerm instead of the built-in terminal. That's about it, at least recently. I do have Rectangle installed but I don't really use it.
Well, I also use Camo so that I can use my iPhone as a webcam, but I'll probably buy a decent webcam soon because I don't want to keep paying the ongoing subscription. (Why is everything a freaking subscription these days ...)
In the past I used the tiling window manager Yabai, but I've gotten away from that recently. It didn't work properly 100% of the time, unfortunately.
If you use a big monitor, Rectangle (https://rectangleapp.com/) is must-have. It’s minimal and works really well. Without it, using multiple windows side-by-side is really painful.
recover configurability for a whole host of missing functionality, like global keyboard shortcuts, through automation (Lua scripting): https://www.hammerspoon.org/
Seeing a lot of recommendations for yabai- but I personally prefer amethyst for window management. Yabai had too much configuration for me- amethyst is easier
You should educate yourself. Energy consumption is an old myth and cryptocurrency pushes a lot of innovations in this field. There is a great documentary on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc.
Energy is a zero sum game. Every watt you use for crypto mining is a watt not used for something more productive.
Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner, is a watt not being used to reduce the use of non-renewables in the wider energy grid.
I don’t care if your crypto gear is hooked up to a dedicated hydro plant, I care that the hydroplant is not connected to the wider grid and shutting down gas fired power stations.
Only from the view of the universe, not from the view of humans. It cost less energy to drill for oil than the energy you get out of the gasoline. It takes less energy to create a solar panel than what you can get out of it. It takes less energy to labor at the factory for an hour than the energy you get from the 150KwH of power you can buy for your house from that hour of motion you performed at the factory.
If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?
> If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?
On an aggregated pre transaction basis we know this isn’t true. Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure. Additionally you’re comparing a small part of a financial transactions (I.e. and database update) to a complete end-to-end transaction, including turning those digital funds into spendable cash.
Unless you friend in Kenya is also capable of spending that crypto, without turning it into fiat, then example is meaningless, because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion.
Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
>including turning those digital funds into spendable cash.
Crypto can be spendable cash. You can buy a coffee or a bar of gold with it, even bullets. Sounds like it can be used as a currency to me. It only takes a willing counterparty.
> Crypto is not more energy efficient than existing financial infrastructure.
That depends on the place and circumstance. I concede that Kenya was a poor example and I should have used someplace like Central African Republic instead.
>Additionally Kenya has digital banking infrastructure. Send a SEPA payment instead, no need to Western Union.
Assuming you are one of the one third of Kenyans who have a bank account. And assuming the one sending the money has a bank account. Both of which involve documentation and KYC, something not necessary in most crypto transactions.
>because your ignoring all the infrastructure need to do that fiat conversion
Not really, crypto to fiat can be done informally. There's several people in my city who buy and sell it and all they need is a cellphone and local currency.
It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
> Crypto can be spendable cash. You can buy a coffee or a bar of gold with it, even bullets. Sounds like it can be used as a currency to me. It only takes a willing counterparty.
All true, but the same also applies to chickens, screwdrivers, oranges, dogs, cats etc. Just because you can barter with something doesn’t make it a currency.
Currencies are better identified by their fungibility (which crypto has), their value stability (which crypto currently doesn’t), and their wide acceptance for use in everyday transaction (also not true of crypto in the vast majority of the world).
> It's only from the perspective of someone that thinks like a loser, always trying to find something wrong, that you can find zero uses where using crypto is more energy efficient than other financial options. And not all cryptos use the same energy or transaction cost as others.
I’ll remind you of the guidelines, as you’ve clearly forgotten them.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments and suggest that you don’t actually have very strong argument, instead you’re forced to attack the character of the person your discussing with, due to an inability to attack their argument. Try harder.
I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I admit there are coins out there that potential address these issues, and still possibly have a future as a genuinely useful currency. One not manipulated by a small number of extremely large coin holders. But unfortunately that doesn’t change the damage caused by other coins.
> For an example of transaction efficiency, I can buy a bar of gold from some established bullion vendors in litecoin much cheaper than with a visa card due to lower transaction risks for the merchant and lower transaction fees. If you can't wait multiple days for an ACH transaction and have to buy precious metals online, crypto is actually the cheapest way in the US.
This is just an example of how slow and backwards the US financial system is. Most other countries have far quicker and cheaper payment rails. Here in the U.K. I can send an instant Faster Payment for free from my bank account, and the money moves faster than the app UI (I get a push notification from the receiving bank, before the UI in my banks app has had time to display the confirmation). The whole of Europe has similar payment systems that also work cross border.
The money moves so fast that when trading crypto the slowest part of buying or selling was always the confirmations. The fiat part was instant.
>Ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments and suggest that you don’t actually have very strong argument, instead you’re forced to attack the character of the person your discussing with, due to an inability to attack their argument. Try harder.
I did attack your arguments, including many other points and I never called you a loser. Quit being so defensive. I said those who continually look for ways to make something not work, rather than finding the ways they do, think like losers. And I back that 100%! The only of the two of us who had made an ad hominem against the other is you, by saying I have an "inability to attack their (your) argument." Thanks hypocrite!
>Unfortunately crypto has descended into little more than get rich quick schemes that take advantage of naïve investors, or produce profit by externalising all of the negative consequences of crypto mining (such as CO2 emissions). Forcing the rest of us to bear that long term cost, for a grifters short term profit.
I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich? I hear this sad sad false diatribe over and over, completely ignoring that crypto-currencies are currencies and not investment, with people getting mad that crypto is not an investment that is going to provide returns for naive "investors." And then they go on to attack crypto for not living up to being an investment!
>I used be a fan of crypto, did plenty of trading, bought plenty of pizza etc with it. When to meetups, evangelised crypto to friends and family. Back then it looked realistic that crypto could be a genuine currency, and the concept of DAG was incredibly.
So you were a dogmatist for, and then apparently now a dogmatist against. Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
> The only of the two of us who had made an ad hominem against the other is you, by saying I have an "inability to attack their (your) argument." Thanks hypocrite!
Re-read my comment, that’s not what I said. It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who selectively quotes text, and deliberately ignores the wider context.
> I'm not a fan of stable coins, but how many people you reckon are buying DAI or USDT with the idea of striking it rich?
One of the original stated goals of USDT was to provide an on-ramp to other crypto, and do an end run around KYC and AML laws. People don’t buy these coins to get rich, they buy them to either purchase other coins, or to temporarily insulate themselves from crypto volatility, without having to resort to fiat. Additionally the fundamentals to USDT have been called in to question may times, with plenty of evidence that whole things scam and someone’s stolen the backing fiat.
> Try being a neutral pragmatist that doesn't believe crypto is an investment utility but rather one possible financial engine that allows electronic transactions without KYC or centralized authority.
I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
As I said I believed that crypto could be a very interesting and useful currency, unfortunately it’s not panned out that way. Saying we should treat crypto like a currency when it doesn’t behave like one, and when most people don’t treat it like one, is hardly pragmatic. A more pragmatic approach is to observe how others are using it, observe how it behaves, and treat it like that. If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
To cover your eyes and ignore the reality of the situation is just foolish. It certainly does nothing to advance the cause of crypto being a currency.
Why are you wasting so many 'watts' sending this out? Every watt you use for debating on HN is a watt not used for something more productive. [ Personally I prefer units of energy like joule, power is not a measurement of wasted energy. If I wasted 10 kW for 1 minute it's not as bad as wasting 1 W for 11,000 minutes]
>If it looks like an value gaining asset, and people treat it like a value gaining asset, then it’s a value gaining asset. Not a currency.
>I’m not sure how you’ve ended up deciding that you think I treat crypto as an investment, not a currency, after I’ve explicitly said the opposite.
Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient. You are possibly the most disingenuous, contradictory, hypocritical person I've met on HN. Fine to waste 'watts' on social media news sites but not to send a payment to your unbanked cousin in El Salvador. Have fun thinking like a person who only looks for ways to fail, rather than ways to succeed.
Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
One is not like the other. But please continue to pretend otherwise.
> Again you go on contradicting yourself whenever you find it convenient.
Please be explicit and show we’re I’ve contradicted myself. I don’t believe I have, but happy to be proven otherwise.
> Not a biblical person myself, but I'm going to take a note out of the bible on this one : " Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself."
You make a good point. Why have I bothered to talk to someone who is so clearly disconnected from reality.
You are completely ignoring the fact that even if connected to the grid all power grids are structured to meet peak demand, and that there will always exist periods of excess power which, until bitcoin, had to go to ground.
Bitcoin makes use of energy that would otherwise be unused.
We don’t operate renewable grids in most of the world, and for most of the world renewable energy supply isn’t great enough to supply the dips without fossil supplements.
All that means is that in almost all scenarios bitcoin mining will be directly causing an increase usage of non-renewable energy. There are of course certain times and places where this doesn’t hold true and there’s a genuine surplus of renewable power that can’t be stored. But that’s an exception not the rule. Try and tell me with a straight face that the majority of power consumed by crypto is surplus renewable energy.
Clearly he thinks that investments in renewables are a good thing, since those would also "reduce the use of non-renewables in the wider energy grid". So I'm puzzled why you'd think what you just wrote.
"Every watt of renewable power generated to power a crypto miner," IS investment in renewable energy.. which he would rather was not invested in renewable energy. I don't see any other way to interpret that, unless you think that paying monies for renewables is somehow not 'investing' in renewables.
So he is turning down real investment in renewables in the hopes that other more agreeable investment materializes out of thin air.. meanwhile his plan crashes the price of renewable energy endangering those industries and shrinking the market.. allowing established fossil fuel industries a bigger share. genius.
Please don’t overestimate the importance of crypto in this world. Crypto investments in renewables are, at best, a rounding error. The ROI from them certainly won’t offset the very real harm being done by all the additional fossil plants being brought online to deal with the increased demand they create.
Fossil fuels being used to fill demand of any sort is its own problem. We need global carbon taxes on a Montreal Protocol level to incentivize any excess demand (investment) to target renewables. -But with this, crypto would be a great boost to renewable technology, guaranteeing a minimum return for business investing in Research and Development.
Its not unique either. There’s a company in the U.K. that bought an old coal plant, to convert to gas operators, to provide power solely for a crypto mining operation.
Simple fact of the matter is that it currently cheaper and easier for miners to use fossil fuels, then build renewables. Which is exactly what they’re doing.
> So he is turning down real investment in renewables
No, he's not.
> meanwhile his plan crashes the price of renewable energy endangering those industries and shrinking the market.. allowing established fossil fuel industries a bigger share
It seems that you have completely missed the past four decades of renewable energy decreasing in price by a factor of 100x. The result of this decrease was not "endangering those industries", but rather making them viable in the first place and broadening the market massively. As per Jevons, the energy market doesn't shrink when prices get lower.
I'm puzzled as to how someone could make such a glaringly obvious mistake.
>It seems that you have completely missed the past four decades of renewable energy decreasing in price by a factor of 100x.
And it seems you have completely missed the fact that investment from crypto miners helped to bring this efficiency saving about, if there wasn't so much demand, there would be nothing to invest in R&D and infrastructure that inevitably lower prices.
Crypto, or specifically PoW acts like a guarantee of sale under a certain price per KwH. It used to be necessary for governments to guarantee power prices, and offer subsidies to encourage investment in their countries infrastructure. PoW in part replaces this necessity and encourages companies to invest in renewable, efficient, power production.
It is a bit annoying that you assume that people critical of cryptocurrencies and specifically Bitcoin's environmental footprint are uneducated about the issues. It is not a myth. BTC's environmental footprint is preposterous. It's estimated that the network currently runs at 165 TWh/a, or around 19 GW, which means that one transaction uses around 5 GJ or 1500 kWh, and produces 800 kg of CO2, and 250 g of electronic waste.
For keeping track of a ledger that one dude in a basement with an Excel spreadsheet could keep track of, more or less.
> For keeping track of a ledger that one dude in a basement with an Excel spreadsheet could keep track of, more or less.
No, for protecting against the untrustworthiness of that one guy in his basement. You may disagree with the value of that function, but that's what cryptocurrency provides.
To underline how preposterous the whole PoW is - BTC is mined by hardware that consumes 2000-3000W each, all the while vast majority of these machines never mine a single block
Technically half true, they share the processing load of guessing the next valid block, and then share the profit when the one piece of hardware finally guessed it.
Those were the bad old days. There are pools now, like the old Seti@Home program. If your mining pool wins you get the percentage of the reward relative to the hashes you tried.
You can try to go it alone but your chances of finding the block reward are incomprehensibly low.
> Measuring energy use per transactions makes no sense
I am well aware of the difference between average and marginal energy use. This would be particularly relevant if the blocks were not full, but mined anyway, so that any additional transaction could've been included "for free". However, more often than not, that's not the case, but the mempool is non-empty, and the constraint (of max transactions per block) is binding. [1]
Thus, one can not trivially argue that the marginal cost of a transaction is zero.
Next, yes, my figures (165 TWh/a = 19 GW) from Digiconomist [2]) are at the upper end of the estimates, but other figures (eg Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index) estimate 100 TWh/a, with reasonable bounds of 36 to 376 TWh/a, so 12 to 28 GW, so are largely in alignment, modulo a factor of 2. (Note that your source is also within a factor of 3 of those estimates, pegging BTC at 0.2% of global electricity consumption.)
At any rate, the average cost is just preposterous, even if off by a factor of 3.
> Measuring energy use per transactions makes no sense, as mining energy consumption is not related to the number of transactions processed.
Sure, measure energy use per amount of money transferred. That's not going to be very nice either.
> Also a huge portion of the energy used by bitcoin would otherwise be wasted.
Oh, come on. Now you're just trolling. It would have been used for something else that most likely wouldn't be waste, like in factories or in hospitals and such.
Give me a break. Power consumption numbers are completely meaningless in this argument. Power usage does not correlate directly to CO2 emissions. Crypto can and does run on renewables. If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow. In reality, the climate issue is just a convenient political bludgeon.
> If we were serious about fixing climate change we'd stop all air traffic tomorrow.
The fashion industry alone has more climate impact than air traffic and maritime traffic together. Aviation contributes around 1% of air pollution (though 5% of greenhouse effect, due to high altitudes).
But all of those (transport, fashion) provide utility. BTC usurps nearly 1% of world electricity without providing commensurate discernible utility.
I'm sure people who don't fly or follow fashion feel the same way about the perceived utility.
I for one think not having to pay 20% for a remmitance for someone who is trying to help their famiy in another country has huge utility, maybe others disagree.
Its not complicated. It is not necessary for crypto PoW to be powered by CO2 emitting fuels. It can be powered with renewables. Therefore the power usage of Bitcoin can't be used to infer its environmental impact. You need to know how much of that usage was on the back of fossil fuels.
Energy is fungible. Unless those renewable-generated watts were unable to be used for other things, then all marginal use of energy uses emitting sources, since we are not yet at 100% green energy. There are a few exceptions where mining is done on grids that are at 100% green energy, but this is not the norm.
Sure in theory. In reality not all energy is fungible because not all power generating systems in the world are connected. If I stand up a geo-thermal farm to run my crypto mining operation that power would not have been available to the grid anyway because the economic incentive to build the power station was crypto, not selling it to the grid.
These cases exist, but they are not the dominant form of mining. If all mining was done in such circumstances (and the energy source couldn't be connected to a useful grid) then people wouldn't be as upset.
> It is not necessary for crypto PoW to be powered by CO2 emitting fuels. It can be powered with renewables.
That's completely irrelevant for the correlation. Renewables are theta-bound by fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are theta-bound by renewables. Only at zero emissions for a source this would stop being true. This is first semester math.
> renewable power sources that operate in a closed zero emission fashion
If you mean operational emissions, then this is a trivial statement. If you mean total emissions, then this is a wrong statement, unless these people manufactured their own generators using zero emissions in the process.
If base load were to drop due to crypto miners being turned off, the energy with highest marginal cost would be turned off, which means fossil fuels, not renewables.
The fungibility argument doesn't work when you consider that not all power generation in the world is connected to the same grid. There are crypto operations that use their own renewable power infrastructure. That energy never would have made it to the grid because there was no incentive for it to be put there (otherwise it would already have been there). The incentive is to use it for crypto not your mom's blender.
Oh, the old "EDuCaTE UrsElf" argument? I'm sorry, but Bitcoin's energy use doesn't even pass the smell test. If you're consuming ~1% of global power generation while providing only ~2% of world's narrow money, that's not very optimistic. The fact that its deflationary nature makes it unappealing for actual cash transactions should make it even worse should you go for transaction volume comparisons.
Regular websites: DNS + server
Decentralized websites: decentralized name service + decentralized storage.
How much it costs? Depends on how you "keep it alive" in the network. There always needs to be at least one person with a copy of the website. If it's you, it's for free - but you can pay a service.
Try fish shell. It has auto completion by default and is easy to configure with web interface "fish_config", no need to rely on some community repo like oh-my-zsh. There can be bugs if you set it as default shell but i just append "fish" at the end of my .bashrc :)
I don't really use `oh-my-zsh`, I just built my own prompt. It's pretty snappy, so I don't feel a huge need to switch, but maybe on a slow day I'll install fish to give it a whirl.
