I used to (half) jokingly tell people to go to the next human unit.

A few days? At least a week.

A week? A month.

A month? A year.

A year? Uh... decade or never...

It's wildly pessimistic but not as inaccurate as I'd like.

I just hopped into the show page - of 30 items perhaps half a dozen are mildly interesting to me. There's a lot of "Something zomething agentic zzzzz..." that may well hide something good. A bunch of things that are perhaps good but not of interest to me personally (your submission would be in this category). Those half dozen that might pique my interest have all been on the front page.

I'd posit that HN is only a good place to promote things that will interest the HN crowd. Ok, not a great insight, but I don't think dropping the submission in Show HN is the problem here.

Does your ISP attack you often?

There's something a little like this in Strata by Pratchett (which is lightly sending up Niven's Ringworld and a non-robot-related but similar idea there).

Best QA people I worked with were amazing (often writing terrific automated tests for us). The worst would file tickets just saying "does not work"

I sometimes suspect that the value of a QA team is inversely proportional to the quality of the dev team.

> I sometimes suspect that the value of a QA team is inversely proportional to the quality of the dev team.

My experience has been that this is true, but not for the reason you likely intend. What I've seen is the sort of shop that invests in low tier QA/SDET types are the same sorts of shops that invest in low tier SEs who are more than happy to throw bullshit over the wall and hand off any/all grunt work to the testers. In those situations, the root cause is the corporate culture & priorities.

I have this printed on a sweatshirt - it saddens me a little that people who get it are so few and far between these days :'(

I have it on a tshirt. Pretty sure most people think it's just an emotional rant in emoji form.

"...nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change..." - Douglas Adams

this is a fashionable sentiment, but as Nietzsche (a man who cannot be accused of having much sympathy for Christianity) pointed out: The notion that a slave, humiliated and crucified, was as worthy of mercy and equal was nothing short of a complete overturning of the moral order of the world. Far from obvious it was radical and subversive. The kind of modern atheist who doesn't see this does so because he has Christian values so deeply in his bones he doesn't even realize it.

Given the prevalence of slavery within the first 1800 years of Christianity's existence, I don't think we can credit it with a value system that has sympathy for the fundamental humanity of the enslaved. More credit goes to the Enlightenment.

> I don't think we can credit it with a value system that has sympathy for the fundamental humanity of the enslaved.

We can because there is a difference between introducing a new moral grammar into the world and what people do with it. The claim is not that Christians as people were any more moral or less power hungry than people tend to be, it's that from that point on in world history, they had to be hypocrites, precisely because something had metaphysically changed.

The Enlightenment doesn't stand in contradiction to this, it's the culmination of it, which was most visible in particular among the American abolitionists. Who more than anyone else staked their claims on Christian (and Enlightenment) grounds.

And as a practical point when it comes to today's issues. Pay attention to what the post-Christian secular America looks like. Because unlike the British humanists who thought equality was just common sense, you're going to be in for a wild ride, which Nietzsche did tell us.

But the slaves were told that there was an afterlife, and that they had a better chance of going there than rich people. That must have been nice to hear for them.

Yup. Which was why some (probably Nietzsche, but AFAICR several people before him too) called Christianity "a religion for slaves": It's very very useful for elites throughout the ages, from Roman patricians to current techbroligarks, to fob the plebs off with "Your reward will come in the afterlife!"... So they don't make a ruckus about getting any reward for their toil in the present. Or, as Marx (no, not Groucho) put it: "Religion is an opium for the masses"; means the same thing.

I'd imagine there are a good few, but that for a lot of them their websites expired when the owner did. For example my Dad's is gone now and he was only a bit younger. Wayback machine likely has a lot of them in its index if you can find them.

This is correct (I've done it a few times). I think there's an edit window though and at 8 hours we're well outside that.

The other option (e.g. when it's not your submission) is to email the mods, which I've just done, and they will fix it up if appropriate.

> In large organizations, decisions get made in meetings you’re not invited to, using summaries you didn’t write, by people who have five minutes and twelve priorities. If no one can articulate your impact when you’re not in the room, your impact is effectively optional.

Very true in large organisations. But... in a company whose stated mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" ... this feels like a failure.

When a truly data driven company manages to quantify impact by more than the volume of hot air emitted :) then it's going to eat the world.

Perhaps it's for the best that nobody does that?