>* As a hard bitten senior engineer, I can tell you that I value equity at zero. If I get an equity win, awesome! But I don't count on it. (You don't mention it, but thought I'd share that.)

So much this!! I have been a paper millionaire more times than I care to remember, but none of them have panned out.

I think you mean tether

Ah, yeah right, tether :)

main? trunk? origin? so many possibilities!

Origin already has a specific meaning in the git nomenclature.

That's my thought as well. I'm willing to change the terms I use if it makes this industry even a little bit more inclusive.

101010 in binary... (I owe, I owe, I owe)

Apparently DA didn't think anything of the value of the number and just determined "42 will do"...

I believe it was ”pick a number, any number” which was disclosed by Marvin quite early on, apparently as an easter egg. I read something explaining this somewhere ... don’t have the link to hand ...

You can't get vaccinated before a certain age. If there are unvaccinated people around, spreading the disease, your child has a chance to catch it when they are still vulnerable.

This is a myth. The original reason babies are not vaccinated is that they are supposed to be already protected by maternal antibodies, and therefore the vaccine won't work.

Nowadays there is a new problem of people spreading the myth that vaccination is known to be dangerous to infants, so it is not politically acceptable to lower the vaccination age. This is even though we know the maternal antibodies of vaccinated mothers wear out sooner than those of earlier generations (who generated them in response to a full on infection).

I explained this a number of times in an earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13655795

For example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462

Does it really matter why an infant is not vaccinated in this discussion? Unless we immeduatly vaccinate everyone as soon as they leave the womb (unlikely / impossible) there will always be unvaccinated people.

>"Does it really matter why an infant is not vaccinated in this discussion?"

Yes, for two reasons:

1) It is not the vaccinated/unvaccinated state that determines whether someone is susceptible to measles. Instead, it is whether they have antibodies towards the virus. One reason to have antibodies towards the virus is vaccination, another would be having had a measles infection in the past, and the most important to us here is being recently (~1 yr) born from a mother that has antibodies. The newborns are already protected from measles, there is no reason to be concerned about exposing them to measles until the maternal antibodies wear off.

2) This myth is an obstacle to preventing the spread of measles because it is not possible to lower the vaccination age to account for the more quickly waning maternal antibodies generated by vaccinated (as opposed to previously infected) mothers. By repeating this myth you are helping to spread measles.

> "Unless we immeduatly vaccinate everyone as soon as they leave the womb (unlikely / impossible) there will always be unvaccinated people."

So what if the newborns are unvaccinated? They are already protected by the maternal antibodies. Further, even if you did vaccinate them, it would fail to elicit immunity because the maternal antibodies would just neutralize the vaccine. I feel like I am repeating myself here though...

Thanks for this thorough response.

My last name starts with oo, which many humans struggle to understand. It almost always becomes do, or co.

I started off developing in C, then C++. Then I did Java (late 90's till 2010 or so). I toyed around with PHP and perl somewhere in between. I love modern Javascript, and would be hard pressed to go back to something else.

god, please don't use autoplay videos! I open your link to read later, then I have to figure out where that damn noise is coming from.