The most insidious thing about a lot of these books is the way they can undermine your confidence as a parent at exactly the time you're most vulnerable. Look at these guarantees, look at all these testimonials, look how we use the word 'science' on every page; if your baby isn't sleeping then you're obviously still doing it wrong, you're a bad parent, it's all your fault.
I'm pretty sure it was The Baby Whisperer that nearly drove my wife to a breakdown before we agreed to bin it.
> if your baby isn't sleeping then you're obviously still doing it wrong, you're a bad parent, it's all your fault.
I would strongly hope that parents would draw the conclusion that the book is wrong. With so many contradictory books, some are bound to be wrong, so if a book doesn't work, it must be one of the wrong ones. Try another one to see if it works, or maybe try your own ideas and see if those work.
I've been doing this for years. It's fascinating (and sometimes horrifying) which addresses end up on spam/scam lists. I used to inform companies when it happened, but they almost always go for plausible deniability with "spammers try random addresses at a domain sometimes, it must have been that".
Just a reminder that Adobe, LinkedIn and Dropbox have all been hacked/suffered data leaks - those aliases are the main source of my spam. The other is through mandatory public company registration in Norway that's consistently mined by some halfwits apparently selling stamps etc.
Yeah, I worked for a startup that grew large quickly through a drive to get innovations to market fast and fix bugs later, and what slowed us down was winning enough large contracts with enterprise companies and governments who wanted more and more red tape and documentation and guaranteed processes, and basically exported their risk-averse culture to us.
We worked around this by having separate release channels, one for our enterprisey customers who opposed all change, and one for our customers who just wanted the coolest things first and were willing to accept some rough edges and lack of documentation.
That doesn't work if _all_ your customers are risk-averse, of course.
I recently tried to change my password on my Amazon account (something I do a couple of times per year) and was presented with a multi-factor auth prompt for a long-forgotten and inactive AWS account that I trialled years ago. It turns out the phone number on the AWS account is out of date and the authenticator app was on the same phone that I no longer have, so I can't remove or reset the MFA. All my details on my Amazon account are up to date but these can't be used for resetting the MFA, only the details I entered when I signed up to AWS. I've hit an impasse with support, they'll only accept a notarized identity verification form and affidavit to proceed, which isn't that easy or cheap to do outside of the USA.
At this point I'm snookered - I feel like if my password is ever compromised I'm screwed, but it's not like I can just start a new account because all my digital purchases, my Kindle, my Echo, etc are tied to my old account.
Basically: do yourself a favour and sign up to distinct services with distinct accounts and don't have one global account for everything.
I don't think you should blame Amazon for enforcing the MFA that you set up. Allowing you someone to trivially reset the password on an MFA-enabled account would completely defeat the security purpose of MFA. If you've been reading HN for long, I'm sure you've seen stories of how attackers have used famous peoples' personal information to compromise their accounts at various services by requesting password resets. Respecting MFA and requiring a higher bar for password resets is necessary for defending against these attacks. And of course, if you're using both Amazon.com and AWS under one Amazon account (which it sounds like youare), then it would also defeat the security purpose of MFA if you could reset your account password through Amazon.com after setting up an MFA to protect your AWS usage.
I think your conclusion and advice is good. Separate your accounts for different services.
> I've hit an impasse with support, they'll only accept a notarized identity verification form and affidavit to proceed, which isn't that easy or cheap to do outside of the USA.
This should in fact be very cheap most places in the world. Do they not have notaries public in your country?
Generally you just need to sign a legally binding form asserting under penalty of perjury that you are so-and-so, and this is your account. You do this in front of the notary, and they inspect your government ID to confirm it's really you. Then the notary stamps the document to indicate that they've witnessed you signing it, and have inspected your id. Now you're done.
A number of online businesses require this in certain circumstances, and it's something that you can do in about 10 minutes at a store. In the USA, stores like the UPS Store, Kinko's Copies, etc. often have notary services. If you work for a medium-sized company or larger, your company will typically have a notary in its business center who may be willing to notarize personal documents for free. It should be a pretty simple process to complete, if inconvenient.
The problem is that it isn't really a shared account - the login email and password are the same, but they won't accept any current mobile number/etc entered anywhere but AWS.
I used AWS for a bit and then stopped, and then forgot about it. I've kept my Amazon account up to date, but not my AWS details. For years I continued to use my Amazon account without ever needing to use the MFA, so forgot I ever activated it. This year they've suddenly decided to enforce the MFA globally. I blame myself for not removing the MFA when I closed the account, but you can hopefully see why it's a frustrating user experience also. And like I say, the net result is a less secure Amazon account for everything but AWS until I can remove the MFA requirement.
Re notarizing, my understanding is that I need to use a US notary service for it to be valid for a US document (eg available via the US embassy).
Nobody's ignoring this data, it actually poses a lot of interesting questions like why is that difference only present in about half of OECD countries, why does the difference only occur after a certain age (that varies per country), why do boys overpopulate both ends of the bell curve, how much is biology vs society, etc.
The data isn't politically charged, but the interpretation can be.
I've actually emailed the Guardian before to say I would gladly pay at least whatever they earn from my ad impressions to have an ad-free site. They just pointed me to the mobile apps where this is already an option.
I wish more sites offered an alternative to the dilemma of UX-breaking ads vs ad blocker guilt.
The idea of paying them then paying someone else to remove their shit is a little insane. Until that is resolved, I pay for my ad blockers. The added bonus is that I can remove any content I don't like (lifestyle stories about our rugby players).
I'm interested in how you model the strength of players, is that for the whole squad or the expected starting eleven? The prediction that stood out for me was the Wales vs Slovakia which FIFA rankings and betting odds would both suggest will be closer, would love to hear more about the factors behind that particular prediction.
The Wales starting lineup is missing Gareth Bale (arguably in the top 5 best players in the world). His 'kickscore' is listed as higher than any of the welsh players so I don't understand why the model has excluded him from the starting lineup. See also Portugal and Ronaldo (kickscore 100!).
Interesting but perhaps needs some tweaking to match the expected starting lineups.
Hi! I'm Victor, one of the researchers behind this project. We used the most recent lineups (up to yesterday) to do the predictions you see on the web page. We will update them with the latest friendlies (e.g., Portugal indeed) and before every game, as soon as we have the official lineups!
It may be worth taking competitive matches into account over friendly matches, as the purpose of competitive matches is to win at all cost. Friendly matches, on the other hand, tend to be used primarily for match fitness (especially leading up to tournaments), and for trialling new tactics before the competitive games begin.
It will be interesting to see how things change when you get the official lineups. As I'm sure you are aware, teams often rest their 'star' players in friendlies immediately prior to a tournament in order to minimize the risk of injury.
I interview people like this all the time. I'm long enough in the tooth to have been using telnet regularly, and it terrifies me that so many people doing what I was doing 20 years ago have found a path to obsolescence in an industry with such a critical skills shortage.
This bothers me. How are people interviewing for (presumably) admin positions without this knowledge?
When I interviewed for my first real job they included a programming "test". It was basic C stuffs (really, more C pointer focused). Things like 4 swap functions, each incorrectly implemented, what are the resulting values of a and b after running swap(a,b) or swap(&a,&b), etc.
Apparently, I found out after getting hired on, I was the only one to have ever gotten every question correct (note: I was not their only hire, the code there made sense once I heard this, I'm not there anymore). So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that sys admin jobs see similar problems. But it still really bothers me for some reason. This is fairly basic knowledge (telnet/ssh for admins, C and pointers for embedded systems programmers).
How are people interviewing for (presumably) admin positions without this knowledge?
Because once you've logged in to the box, administration via telnet and SSH is exactly the same. It's not that they don't have admin skills, they just don't have updated security skills.
It's not awesome, but if the interviewer doesn't think to ask about SSH skills, and the interviewee doesn't realize their skill is out of date, it's easy to miss.
How often is the focus on what to do once logged in, as compared to how to log in in the first place?
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. But I would specifically say it's not that hard to show someone a different way of logging in, which is why I find the other reactions of shock so weird. I work with one system where I log in via two bastion hosts to a network where there is no direct network access to any host except via load balancers for applications and the bastion host itself. From the bastion host, I SSH to the individual systems on virtual machine network, but I could just as easily use telnet with basically no loss of security since the traffic never leaves the host, and doesn't even hit the network card.
My last CEO thought I was insane because I took a pay cut to swap a 90 minute each way commute for a 15 minute commute, but that's about 600 hours of extra time per year I get to spend with my wife and kids. 25 whole days.
Life is so very short. What value can you put on 25 extra days with your kids in a year. They're only going to be home for ~20 years. That's ~500 more days you get to have with them. An extra year and a half. It's a no brainer. There is no way you could pay me to give up a year and a half of my family.
There is no way you could pay me to give up a year and a half of my family.
You're very special if there is "no way" someone could pay you to trade "family time" for "work"!
By agreeing to participate in the work process, most people these days "give up" not 25 days a year, but full 100. Of course, there is a price tag they put on that time -- the salary.
This single-minded "family time is infinitely more valuable than work time" sentiment doesn't seem to match people's actions in reality. It looks more like some new-age signalling process; a (recent?) social phenomenon.
You are taking the argument to the other extreme: "Family time is SOOOO important, why are you even working? hypocrite"
Of course he has to "trade family time for work" aka salary. Of course he has to spend (probably) 40 hours a week (not including lunch/driving) to keep the bills paid... Everyone - except lottery winners, retired people, those lucky to be born into money, etc - has to do that.
But, as with anything, there comes a tipping point where the time spent isn't worth they money earned.
Assuming he was paid $100k (just a made up number), at 40 hours a week and 30 hours of driving, he would get paid ~$27/hour. (100k / 70 hours / 52 weeks)
If he cuts his pay to $75k (25% pay cut) and instead drives 30 minutes per day, he's now getting paid $29/hour (75k / 45 hours / 52 weeks). He "nets" less, but gets paid more per hour and has more time for "important" things.
Those are made up numbers, but for a "pay cut" he could get paid more per hour and have more time at home.
Does he quit because "family time is infinitely more important"? No... he's not an extremist that has to pull some basic, common-sense notion to an absurd degree. He made a trade off: It's called reality for most people.
No, I am replying to a concrete argument. I quoted it at the top of my post.
That the family-work ratio cannot be extreme, and is very much a personal tradeoff, was the whole point of my post. I am baffled -- what exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're agreeing with a vengeance.
Out of curiosity -- how was I supposed to read your original comment?
What I saw was the OP saying "I saved time commuting, all good" (doh). Then you came in with "no way you could pay me to give up family time", which sounds extremely... extreme.
If that wasn't the core of your message, what was?
The most insidious thing about a lot of these books is the way they can undermine your confidence as a parent at exactly the time you're most vulnerable. Look at these guarantees, look at all these testimonials, look how we use the word 'science' on every page; if your baby isn't sleeping then you're obviously still doing it wrong, you're a bad parent, it's all your fault.
I'm pretty sure it was The Baby Whisperer that nearly drove my wife to a breakdown before we agreed to bin it.