The point doesn't need to be to amass followers. It can be to share knowledge and spread news. There could be a more useful variation in this medium than today's Twitter.

Writing also helps develop ideas. Trying to explain things well in short sentences helps develop your mind. Surely this isn't useless.

any means of contacting you in private? (asked on another comment, but I guess it got lost, HNs comments are messy :)

I'm writing a fresh Twitter. Help me build it.

https://foolow.com

I have a few thoughts about what else to try. If you want I can write you a bit about it. I have something in a simmilar state but my back-end partner dropped out and I'm not sure I can learn python quick enough for a prototype. http://malea.lacerta.uberspace.de/up/4cc7b319-8094-423d-beef...

A few things I want to try:

- dismiss all seen links on a page (on mobile in my prototype you flick away a page like a card) by default

- sort by rating rod chronologically, but NOT public/democratic rating, only rating by the one who posts. This is the main thing I want to try :)

- auto-retweet (you can make an account that is essentially a currated list of people or curate "editors" of an imaginary magazine)

- if you retweet normally, you have to give a new rating for your followers

Mainly for sharing links. I want to allow people to share unimportant stuff and still getting the important stuff across. And i want to avoid a suggestion engine, only direct "i trust your rating personally" realationships.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I went ahead and implemented part of (2): letting the user who posts to rate. I'll work on ranking posts by this score.

oh wow :) you are quick.

Can I contact you by other means? Email or some instant messaging? I can sent you an invite to my little alpha.

People of course might abuse the rating, so the question is if one should normalize or at least fine-tune by having rating up and down in your own feed. And if you sort just by rating, without decay, a new user sees ooold posts at the top (because he has not dismissed any by going to the next page).

Good thoughts. I'll add it on my todo list. You can contact me on foolow.

Won't it get annoying if new posts of lesser ranking keep showing up first?

did you just put "send PMs" on the todo? haha. I just want to sent you an invite in private, can we find a channel for that :) ?

And if you're up for it, let's chat a bit or skype.

Other way arround: you most important first of course.

Can I PM on foolow?

How do you expect employers to start giving feedback?

Getting back to candidates within 48 hours with either next steps or ending the process.

You misunderstood what I wrote: why would employers give feedback?

You did write "how" instead of "why":) Anyway, giving feedback about whether a candidate is still under consideration or not is, simply put, the right thing to do, and I think that's reason enough.

Setting aside any moral arguments, it does benefit the company's bottom line too - hiring talented people is an important thing for companies, so it deserves to have some attention paid to the flow from beginning to end.

My operating theory is that companies fail to provide prompt feedback not for any other reason other than apathy or a lack of attention to creating a good process, and not from some strategic deliberation around keeping options open. So failing to provide the feedback is a sign that the company is not putting the proper attention to the overall hiring process.

> I think that's reason enough.

That's not what companies think.

And a candidate that thinks of applying to a position knows nothing about the company's willingness to give feedback.

Candidates can learn about hiring processes before applying, like with talking with friends or sites like glassdoor.

How the hiring process functions is a factor in where I choose to apply. For example Google has a bad rep on this - supposedly it frequently takes months for them to make a decision. As a result I'd never consider applying there.

What's the alternative? Maybe starting a startup your friends.

At this point it appears being a CTO is actually an easier and more viable option for me, I have many offers to be a CTO.

why would an employer ever sign up? sign up and non-0% chance of being on the bad list and end up spending some $. don't sign up and have a 0% chance of making the bad list and spend $0.

Because feedback is something candidates want. A site that had all candidates on it is where employers would go.

Do you see other ways of getting feedback?

You shared a lot of deep insight here. Thanks.

> something I have a solution for in a way that no one is doing

Is the general direction for this something you can share? 30 years of database literature accumulated a lot of knowledge. It's be a bold claim to say there's something powerful yet non-obvious.

Unfortunately, my employer and team are directly involved in this space. We may not go this way (due to the effort), but its something we may tackle.

It's not necessarily new computer science, just a clever (if I can be so bold) way to tackle edge computing in the context of a streaming engine.

Yes. I surf the web through Tor and Medium.com asks me to prove I'm not a robot. I don't like that, so I stopped reading Medium.com.

Question: who is going to remember all these conversion rules? By the second bullet you lost me.

Simply run the command below:

   go tool fix -diff -force=context state-of-go/tools/gofix.go

How is typing 59 characters simple?

`staticcheck` will statically analyze your code and suggest all places where the new conversion rule can be applied.

All the other rules are same as the last 7 years, you know them through experience after using Go for a week. Way simpler than most other languages.

That go fix command can be typed once and update millions of lines of code. Pretty simple.

These rules intimidate me (I don't know Go).

You also meant to say the go fix command does a lot (which is great), not that calling it is simple (which is not great).

If you are precise, you will understand that the command is only 32 characters. You should not include the filepath in your length calculation.

And 32 characters is not much longer than, say: python manage.py makemigrations

How lazy are you?

I also hate any command that has more than, lets say 3 spaces, for its complexity, but hopefully this conversion stuff is more or less just a one time job so: who cares ;-)

Will there ever be an easier way to do all these kinds of caching? As in, do nothing at all?

That depends on the popularity of your site and how the content is generated. If it's a relatively static site (eg the pages are generated into flat HTML files before uploading) and/or you only get a few visitors a day then you can probably get away without any server side caching.

However if you're running a relatively heavy site for content that doesn't change regularly (eg many CMS solutions like WordPress) then you'd want to do caching to lesson the burden on your web servers. And if you run a popular site then caching will reduce your bandwidth and thus allow you to serve more traffic on existing (virtual) hardware. Both those reason will reduce your hosting costs in the long run plus make the site feel snappier (thus improving its user experience)

However browser caching is something I'd recommend even on quiet and static sites because that will have a direct impact on the speed the site loads and can also potentially save your visitors bandwidth (this really matters if you're targeting people from less privileged backgrounds or where internet costs are extortionate).

Personally I view caching as important part of the web development and infrastructure design process as writing the code and building the web servers.

> you'd want to do caching

That's not what I meant. I understand caching helps.

What I meant is will there ever be a way for caching to happen automatically behind the scenes without me ever having to do anything at all to make all this happen.

For example, the OS caches files, but I don't have to configure the OS file cache by hand. The OS takes care of it.

Your example is pretty bad for a number of reasons:

1) If you're building a high availability file server then you would expect the sysadmin to configure the way the OS caches files rather than run with the defaults. Likewise, if you're building a busy site then you'd need to configure caching to fit your specific application.

2) The OS file cache can run with pretty basic defaults because file system files are static (yes they can change, but you have to go through the kernel ABIs anyway so easy to track changes). Website content cannot be guessed upon because even static content can and often is dynamically generated. No assumptions can be accurately made. This is also why there's so many different levels of caching that happen on busy web sites.

3) File caching on the OS only needs to happen at one place (as touched on in previous point). However websites are built from a plethora of different frameworks which are literally far too numerous to name.

That all said, there will be some specific web frameworks which will ship with caching defaults (more typically in the case of browser caching) and some web applications will ship with recommended plugins for enhanced caching (eg Redis / memcached). However pragmatically I think if a web developer is smart enough to write code then they should be smart enough to implement caching. In the days of frequent website attacks, the unpredictability of which sites go viral nor when, and the ease of which anyone can build and host a website; I really do think some web developers need to up their game rather than blaming the complexity of the tools nor the lack of sane defaults. Yeah the current web model is a mess of edge cases and hidden traps, but if you're a developer then there's no excuse not to properly learn the tools you've been given regardless (or maybe especially because) of how poor those tools are at protecting you from sawing your own hand off.

With a fast enough computer and network, eventually you just don't need one.

Although the speed of light can be a pesky problem.

Caching isn't just about performance. It can be about reducing costs too. Eg reducing the number of web servers you need, scaling down the size of your persistent storage database (traditionally a RDBMS but these days NoSQL DBs are common too) and shrinking your bandwidth costs. Hosting can be a costly affair at scale.