The Stack Exchange link is incorrect about -ite being etymologically derived from lithos, as one of the commenters there noted. Maybe a misunderstanding of this wiktionary note or similar:

> But by the Hellenistic period, both the masculine -ίτης (-ítēs) and the feminine -ῖτις (-îtis) became very productive in forming technical terms for products, diseases, minerals and gems (adjectives with elliptic λίθος (líthos, “stone”)), ethnic designations and Biblical tribal names.

The meaning of that is not that -ite is etymologically derived from lithos. It’s trying to say that mineral names like “hematite” (αἱματίτης - literally “blood-red”) are originally adjectives agreeing with an implied noun lithos.

Comments like this are why I read HN ...

“Developed countries have reduced population growth” is a far cry from “looming human extinction”.

Any fertility rate below 2.1 isn't reduced population growth. It is the literal, factual opposite of population growth... it is population shrinkage/decline/whatever.

These countries we discuss all have population decline. This is masked by multiple factors including immigration and increased longevity.

Pro-natal cultures have thrived vs less-natal cultures for literally thousands of years. That's how we got here. I also don't see the problem.

(I strictly used the word culture and not anything biological or genetic since I'm not aiming at that line of talk in the slightest, to be clear)

It's not “developed countries have reduced population growth”.

It's: ALL countries have reduced population growth in recent decades compared to their historical baselines. Including in "non-developed" countries, like in Africa.

Many (most) countries have also dropped to sub fertility rates or close above.

On top of cultural and other reasons, there are also objective fertility issues with sperm counts and others emerging (likely due to modern food, climate crisis, microplastics, or some such).

Combine that with looming issues emerging from population shrinkrage causing economic decline, pension collapse and things like that, and then add environmental issues and resource wars into the mix.

It's no consolation if some pockets of humanity here and there carry on the torch, if humanity shrinks down to irrelevance.

Originally there was no minuscule/majuscule (uppercase/lowercase) distinction in Greek writing (or Latin for that matter). They did have handwritten forms designed to be written faster, which is what the ω is in this case. Of course, those handwritten forms evolved often evolved into the forms we think of as lowercase forms today.

This is, I think, a learned distinction and not universally observed. I only learned this distinction in university.

Of course, if your relatives uploaded their data then a lot of info about your DNA is exposed regardless of whether you uploaded yours personally.

Wasn’t a cold case solved and a serial killer was caught based on family genetic data?

Yes, the Golden State killer. Noteworthy for some here claiming DNA data is "worthless"

Homeless are not common at any of these places. They’re mostly downtown or close to public transit and tourist spots (Downtown, Castro, Mission). They aren’t known for climbing big hills (Coit Tower) or frequenting museums. I suspect there are some in GGP but it’s such a big place I don’t remember encountering many there (and also probably not the most attractive place for them to sleep at night).

Agreed. I frequently go running by (all?) the filming locations they used. With the exception of the Hippie Hill location in GGP, I rarely, if ever, see homeless at any of the others.

As an aside, a few weeks ago I ran by a film crew with a lot of privacy fences set up at the location by the Warming Hut with bay and GGB in the background. Now I know what they were filming!

Crime don’t climb is the saying.

Technically the British Iron and Bronze Ages are prehistoric since British recorded history begins with the Roman conquest in 43 AC.

I guess you might be technically correct with that date being the official cut-off for pre-history, but the Romans who recorded successfully invading in 43 AD also recorded unsuccessful invasion attempts in 55 and 54 BC, so it's not entirely true to say that's the start of British recorded history.

I also think it's funny that Schama's History of Britain Volume 1 is titled "3000 BC - AD 1603" and yet only has 6 pages of information for before 55 BC, and certainly nothing specific date-wise that would justify choosing 3000 BC over any other random year.

I knew I would be called on that, lol. You're correct.

I think I initially was going to write paleo/mesolithic but couldn't remember how to spell mesolithic.

Supposedly it was very finicky and could only be grown in a small region of eastern Libya.

This reminds me of a story of my friend who had two cats who were brother and sister.

One time when my friend went on a trip and left his roommate in charge of catsitting, the male cat was tragically killed by a car. The roommate found the body and, not wanting to leave it on the street, put it in a duffel bag and brought it home.

Of course the sister cat smelled the bag and knew exactly what was in there. She came to her own conclusions and carried a grudge against the roommate for years (hissing, glaring, etc) until they finally moved out. It was especially peculiar because she is one of the most friendly, cuddly cats with everyone else.

This might be a regional thing, but I have done probably around 100 technical interviews in my career (both enterprise and startups) mostly in the Bay Area and the vast majority of these involved algorithm questions that had no relation with the job function. Most were around the difficulty of "find the largest palindrome in a string" or "reverse a singly linked list". On the harder end were things like "serialize and deserialize a tree".

I'll defend this a little bit in the sense that "had no relation to the job function" is just kind of unavoidable in interviews, or at least hard to avoid without paying major costs. The only way to have an interview that even comes close to reflecting real work is a pretty long take-home, and there are good arguments for not doing those (not least that most candidates really don't want to).

But yeah, the entangling of algorithms questions and coding questions is unfortunate. They're just separate skills. Some people are excellent coders who think "big-O" means something obscene, and some people are a walking discrete math textbook who can't problem-solve to save their lives. Triplebyte split (and Otherbranch splits) the two into separate sections, with coding problems explicitly designed NOT to require any of the common textbook algorithms. It's sometimes a little darkly funny how quickly a particular sort of candidate folds when asked to do something novel that steps outside what they've been able to memorize.

> and the vast majority of these involved algorithm questions that had no relation with the job function.

Consider the problem that you're hiring a software engineer and the company has has openings in several different teams that only have the job title in common.

Do you have four different sets of problems that are related to job functions? Does the interview take four times longer? Or do you extend offers to a dozen software developers this week and then have the teams that have the most need / the applicant appears to be best suited for add the headcount there?

If you are giving the same interview to all the candidates (so that you're trying to eliminate bias of asking different questions of different people) ... would that not tend to be solved by asking more abstract questions that are then compared to an agreed upon rubric as to which candidates were "meets expectations"?

... And what if it is for one team that has one set of problems... Do you have the candidates sign NDAs so that you can show them the actual problems that you then go pursue if something leaks? And if today's actual problem is solved tomorrow (unrelated to the applicants solution ... though I've experienced some "here is some real problems we are having" and startups trying to get an hour or two of consulting time for free with no intent to hire), do you give a different interview for someone next week?

The standardized and unrelated work means that you're not accidentally getting in trouble with HR with some bias in the questions or running afoul of FSLA by having someone do uncompensated work that might be related to real things being done.