Wonder if you could run your password manager in an isolated sandbox that couldn’t provide the secret behind the TOTP, only the current value.

That’s a good point.

Maybe a good compromise is to use 1pw for most TOTP but keep your gmail / iCloud and a few others in an iPhone only app?

Gmail is what scares me the most. It’s basically keys to the kingdom.

> Gmail

We might all do well to remind F&F to print out account recovery codes, and then put some thought into where they'll be safe.

I settled on that after trying to be extra careful with TOTP. Now my split is 95% of passwords, TOTP codes and passkeys in 1Password, 5% (really important stuff like email) in an offline KeePass DB + passkeys on Yubikeys.

Idk if this is intentional or just part of an innocent site that’s unwittingly hosting these but I just got a “we’re verifying your browser” page, as if _I’m_ the suspicious one. Nice social engineering.

Happens more and more if you're running uBlock.

IYKYK

Is there any chance you made a typo in this comment? I'm not sure why your manager being long-term would result in less frequent one-on-ones...

I don't understand — I use AI to write email particularly _because_ I care about the recipient, and am confident the resulting email will more eloquently and accurately express my feelings. I'll also often edit it afterwards to ensure it's in my voice. Regardless, I don't think it's fair to presume that my boss doesn't case because an LLM generated the email.

^ This was written 100% by hand. Let's have Claude proofread it and make any suggestions:

I'd argue the opposite — I reach for AI because I care about the recipient. It helps me express my thoughts more precisely and eloquently than I might off the cuff, and I'll often edit the result to make sure it sounds like me.

Presuming that an LLM-assisted email signals indifference seems like a category error. The care is in what you're trying to communicate, not which tool you used to get there. -- https://claude.ai/share/3d3d1a78-381c-4fcf-9354-69b10f2d6f4a

Single inline backticks like `this` aren't recognized (although still useful in my opinion, they just don't change the rendering).

Triple backticks also aren't recognized. However, if you indent by I believe 4 spaces, it formats it in a fixed width font presuming it's code.

Let's try (4 spaces):

    func main() {
        fmt.Println("Hello, HN!")
    }

None for comparison:

func main() { fmt.Println("Hello, HN!") }

2 spaces triggers the formatting, the rest just get printed: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

  2 spaces Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
  consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
  tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
  aliqua.

vs

    4 spaces Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
    consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
    tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
    aliqua.

Seems I missed the window to be able to edit my message, but I'll remember this info for next time, thanks!

As someone who's been a hiring manager for around 7 years, I agree with you, but note that the people who screen resumés before they even _get to you_ very well may be looking for those references.

For my own resumé, I include the stack used at each job which I feel strikes a fair balance.

That's what I always did too. Then I removed it because I wanted to focus more on the kind of problems I solve rather than the languages I've worked in, and recruiters complained, so I put it back in.

Same.

If it's something like "Refactored the apartment list service improving P99 Latency from 2s to 180ms", it definitely boosts the resumé in my mind. A good engineer would be measuring their impact and likely have numbers like that off the top of their head.

But if it's like "Increased revenue by $18.7M by reducing time-to-first-interaction latency from 2.3s to 117ms, increasing conversion by 47% and LTV by 28%," with the same fidelity on each bullet, I'm very skeptical.

--

I don't summarily reject AI-written resumés to be clear, as honestly, it's basically a necessity at this point to be competitive with others; it'd be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage on pure principles in a way that has no real positive net effect on society. Even if you disagree with AI resumé screeners, you're only hurting yourself — especially at a time that has the largest impact on your compensation (i.e. negotiating salary at job start is one of the most valuable ways to spend your time since it will pay you back every paycheck).

Though I _do_ tend to question resumés that look like they were written almost entirely by an LLM without the candidate providing significant context and refinement.

> If it's something like "Refactored the apartment list service improving P99 Latency from 2s to 180ms", it definitely boosts the resumé in my mind. A good engineer would be measuring their impact and likely have numbers like that off the top of their head.

> But if it's like "Increased revenue by $18.7M by reducing time-to-first-interaction latency from 2.3s to 117ms, increasing conversion by 47% and LTV by 28%," with the same fidelity on each bullet, I'm very skeptical.

Do you mind explaining why? The former doesn't indicate caring about business impact whatsoever (is this service in the critical path of any online process? Who knows!) while the latter does.

A couple issues I have with this in particular:

> "Increased revenue by $18.7M by reducing time-to-first-interaction latency from 2.3s to 117ms, increasing conversion by 47% and LTV by 28%,"

The first is that they're playing fast and loose with their numbers. Latency has before/after, conversion and LTV have percentages; revenue is just a single number. Did that double revenue? Or is that half a percent, and is it lost in the statistical noise?

The other is that there's nothing there to convince me that the technical work was was the full cause, instead of, say a new marketing promotion that launched at the same time, or another team redesigning the landing page flow, or another team re-doing all the product photography, or any other concurrent work.

Maybe all those questions have good answers, but I would at least want some nod in there to how they validated it. I find people who focus on "business impact" but don't know how to do the math to have confidence in it dangerous, because it's so easy to cherry-pick numbers that will make execs happy at a glance and prioritize for those things instead of actual long-term system or product or customer-facing improvements.

I'm not binning the resume for it, and maybe it helps get past the people who see it before I do, but I'm gonna dig in on it. And I'm usually disappointed by the answers.

Because the latter's "business impact" is clearly made-up bull shit?

I wish it was at least normalized to submit two resumes - one for AI and one for humans. Threading the needle to please both audiences is such a crap-shoot.

im kinda thinking about adding an llm resume to my resume as like tiny clear text somewhere in the corner.

This sounds correct. When I implemented push notifications for an iPhone application, I remainder needing to obtain a store a separate token for each device a user has, and subscribing to a feed of revoked delivery tokens. Seemed like an interesting design intended to facilitate E2E encryption for push notifications.