jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
You can't be more far away from the truth.

Thinking outside of the box is very much encouraged and more senior engineers are expected to come up or shape, lead and deliver projects.

FB is company where individual engineers could go and do any project they want - they can even invent it - if they believe that it will deliver big enough impact.
After 1 year at FB you can switch team any time you like and your manager does not even need to know what you are working on (it's probably better if they know, as they could many times help you, but no one is micro managing you).

You are assessed every 6 months based on impact you deliver. Your manager supports you, but you need to drive it and deliver it.

Tooling/languages are standardised, but FB does not care whether you do know Hack, or JS. You can do interview in any language (if you are going for generic engineering role). So far at FB I have coded in 4 different languages and picked up all of them as I joined teams.

Even though FB is enterprise company, it feels like startup with great salary, benefits and more manageable work-life balance. Before FB I was 7 years in startups and I have worked longer hours, got paid much less and wasted more time.
I've found these videos enlightening about how pardons work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZc9H54eBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx4FD6xtLJM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMiOMNIRs3k

TLDR: He can pardon any federal offense.
It happens, and it happens more than anyone would like to admit. Remembered me about https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LfNQOOr9aR8
Why would Haskell need to be readable by people who don't know Haskell?
> What was the cause of that?

Well in my case it's quite easy to explain: I'm not a professional driver, but I've been competing in the same races over and over, there are tracks were I have good runs, because I know the place since when I was a kid and I remember every curve and know every trick, others I just try to get to the end safe and am generally terrible with regards to timing.

The other thing is experience in difficult conditions: if my gearbox get stuck in fourth gear I just retire, I don't have the skills to drive in those conditions and still enjoy it, professional drivers know how to handle it to get to the end of the special stage without losing too much time, get the car fixed and keep going.

Every single point counts when you're racing for the lead.

Another aspect is the kind of risks you're willing to take.

In rally competitions in Italy, especially the smaller ones, local drivers usually get out on top after the nightly stages, but when the sun comes up the real pro start climbing the rankings and fight for the victory.

They don't wanna risk anything when it's dark and are simply so much above the average that their "night strolls" allow them to be in the first ten positions, without too much hassles.

Having dealt with pro drivers as a technician on the field and as an hobbyist pilot, the real difference is the attitude.

A professional driver can make mistakes, like everybody else, but won't get easily distracted or get down by them and consistently race at the best of their abilities even when it's not the best day.

That's why they win championships while I simply try to look good when I race in my hometown in front of my friends :)
Yes I would. In general people tend to overuse static dispatch even when it's not really necessary. Of course the issue is a little bit more nuanced than "always use X unless Y" and there are tradeoffs in play here that need to be balanced.

For example, if your function is really small - yeah, it's probably fine to just use static dispatch. If you're writing a generic data structure - you most likely also want it to be a statically dispatched Struct<T>, but with a healthy dose of #[cold] annotated non-generic functions for the cold paths. However, let's say that you have a function that accepts a filesystem path and loads a PNG from it - you do not want the PNG loading code to be 1) duplicated in every compilation unit (compilation time bloat), and 2) monomorphised three times just because you passed an `&str` once to it, a `String` another time, and a `PathBuf` yet another time (compilation time and executable size bloat), so you definitely do want dynamic dispatch here (at least under the hood with the two function trick).

I do think the default should indeed be &dyn T and you should only go for impl T when you can actually clearly substantiate why you should use it, instead of the other way around which is the default now in the Rust ecosystem. (Which is how you end up with 20+ second edit-compile cycles one of the sibling comments mentioned.)
Will the drive to mass online meetings finally revive multicast?
So instead of sending an application the candidate would have to sit down and do a stressful exam, likely to be rejected by a fully automated system?

It's not just a whiteboard challenge after resume and interview were highly promising, with the chance for the interviewer to ask an interesting question relevant to the candidate's supposed strength, but the condition to even apply?

Not sure how to feel about that...
(I'm from Tailscale) You've nailed the problem statement, but we are trying to find a better solution.

The current "zero trust networking" trend is actually not about distrusting the endpoints; it's about distrusting the network, and securing the endpoints. Tailscale lets you distrust the network and allow only trusted endpoints, which is a step.

You're right that more steps are needed before we can also prevent CSRF/SSRF attacks on internal-private services, but that ought to be done at a higher level, not in every single app. The latter is just too error prone, as we see over and over.
I believe it's 5% of those tested; a group which will almost certainly be composed of those more vulnerable. Thus, I don't think it's representative of the entire population.
unintended good news consequence. earth is gonna have a great few months now. maybe a year. less consumption, less traveling, less pollution. nature rejoices
All this article does is summarize four types of meetings from a book, then goes on to say most meetings lack conflict, yet gives no guidance on how to create that conflict besides “use our tool to get data.”

The question of how to keep people’s attention in a meeting is interesting. Beyond having a purpose for the meeting and the right people there, what do others do to keep people engaged, especially during remote meetings?
There is a resolution to the paradox. Masks do work (especially when worn correctly), but the net-optimal place to put them to work is keeping medical personnel up and functional.

Have spare masks? We are trying to get them to the people who need them most: https://findthemasks.com/

We are presently listing hospitals accepting small-scale donations in 28 states, growing fast.
That's actually referred to in the third section of what people refer to as 'TFA'.
Could you please share your advices for conducting efficient remote meetings?
>Most people shouldn't be able to afford a car - they should be taking public transit - but they can obtain one because they take out loans.

A car isn't a "want" for most people outside of major US cities. It's a need. Public transport has never been effective in most of the US. Hell, I'd have to cross an interstate on foot in order to reach work. How many weeks do you estimate it'd take me to get killed? Should I be taking that risk because some politician decided my life was less valuable than their golfing buddy getting to work 5 minutes quicker?
StartCom - their "domain validated" certificates (which other CAs charge for) are free: http://www.startssl.com/
If you're truly looking to learn about frameworks, I would suggest checking out Flask.

http://flask.pocoo.org/

It's a lightweight framework on Python. The author is using it to explore the basics of building a famework.

I'm a little over a year into using Django now, but what I've learned is heavily biased towards getting something out the door versus learning the fundamentals. Because of this, I've started looking into Flask so I can gain deeper knowledge.
> For example, they are likely to prioritizing US coverage

This is difficult, because the earth spins under the orbital planes.

> Assuming a 70% broadband uptake rate of assigned locations Clearly not the goal at 12k total satellites otherwise they would not be aiming for a larger network.

This is the locations that Starlink has bid and received FCC subsidy for to provide connectivity for / receive subsidy for that are completely unserved by broadband.

> 500-km coverage radius Doesn’t seem to be accurate based on other sources, but I would accept an actual source such as a current user.

It's somewhat pessimistic, going all the way down to the elevation limit. tangent(55 degrees) * 550 kilometers = 785.481404 kilometers

At the same time, it's not likely you'll often want to be talking to a satellite at the elevation limit, as it'll be 6-7 dB+ further down even before taking into account the phased array will offer less gain.

> For RDOF locations, we have uplifted these estimates of peak usage to establish a minimum capacity required of 3.6 Mbps per subscriber That’s not how users behave, normally people use zero, ~maximum, or stream a specific amount of bandwidth. Which responds to the maximum available bandwidth.

Forecast average peak hour demand was what was used to size these numbers, which is reasonable. Assuming stochastic demand with the same average makes this worse rather than better.

> Anyway, they control the rate and geographic location of new users and can therefore maintain minimum bandwidth standards by slowing adoption based both their current network and user behavior.

Starlink has committed to provide service to these users as a term for receiving these FCC subsidies.
I spent the first years of my career writing "no code" signal processing platform. It had it's ups and downs. We indeed had a lot of non-coder users and it made prototyping simple to moderately complex pipelines quickly. However relatively soon for anything actually useful we had to write more components, some of which were not really reusable because it's non trivial to hide the complexity. At some point most workflows ended up in a "python script executor", because in the end code is always more expressive.

Also, no version control. Or, in our case since we used XML for output: poor version control. Reading horror stories about Excel also confirm this, it is hard to do correct complex programs in visual environments.
Ahaha this was amazing. Too bad HN won't let it hit the homepage :-/
Same here. The home page works great now, but comment pages are as difficult to read on phone as ever.

iPad looks a little more zoomed in, but not too aggressively so.
Because who wants to go to a place called tits? Me, that's who.
ASICs (or mining in general) aren't needed to monitor all Bitcoin transactions. A mining node is indistinguishable from a non-mining (full) node.

The only reason for ASICs is mining (either legitimate or as an attack)
Really good read. It's so easy to fall into the trap of making the product you want to make rather than the one your customers want to buy.
>Obviously they don't have the resources to care about your "personal life", so they're just hunting the Worst of the Worst, right?

Even this argument is flawed, there are FBI documents showing they very much cared about the personal life of noted communist agitator Martin Luther King.
I think that having 5% manufacturing capacity almost might as well be zero given the kinds of things we manufacture today. For example, a car used to have a carburetor that was relatively simple, just a few metal parts. Now we have very sophisticated high pressure fuel injection systems with exotic pumps and valves, all controlled by chips. All of these parts come from different places, and if you don't have a single part, the car doesn't work.

In fact, the chip supply chain is one of the most fragile ones given the extreme complexity and precision of making even older chips, and yet almost every device we use now uses electronics instead of mechanical parts just about everywhere it's possible to make the substitution.
How insulting. I appreciate the fact that my compensation is in writing, not based on my boss' mood that day. That feels like "I'll tip an extra 10% on this meal if you promise not to let my coffee mug go empty."
Yep. Better grind that leetcode and those mock interviews.
I LOVE quordle. found it on an HN post. I enjoy it because it's much more (in my opinion) about reducing unknown information about all the letters than it is about guessing for each possible word.
Yeah, this is basically my take. Not everyone will feel like this, but I often find I have enough friends, but not great ways to connect with them in online spaces. In other words, I'd rather build a tool that helps people understand and relate to each other, not a tool that connects people to others who have the capacity to understand and relate to them but might not necessarily already be in their lives.
Not a bad idea. I’m sure China has its own domestic threat model and maybe this provides some better protection against data encryption malware and whatever other annoying tricks hackers are trying.

Does china have its own desktop OS though? I’d imagine that they have a pretty good domestically designed one.
i kind of like the idea of taking them through your codebase, though. allowing the interviewer to concoct problems leads to something i'm very passionate about, and that's attempting to stifle the ego involved in the interview process. for whatever reason, intellectual prowess, and displaying it, exposes itself in interviews. the interviewer will ultimately end up trying to dominate you intellectually to satisfy their own ego. it's pretty pathetic, and rampant in whiteboarding.
Most people don’t believe the status quo is actively discriminating and harmful.

And you AND them are BOTH actually right because they live in a different circle/town/city/country than you.

I believe Twitter mobs have a factor of American mentality that believe that their personal reality is THE reality. See for example when they harassed the Bulgarian author of the “Rubocop” Ruby library because “cop = bad!”
I've worked on similar projects during my Master's degree. An important trick I learned was to make the controller a function of some kind of discrete feedback in the world (e.g. when the foot hits the ground). In your equation above for example, a simple way to incorporate this would be to reset simulation_steps to zero every time a foot hits the ground.

This is also an important feature in the SIMBICON controller, which is arguably the simplest and most robust walker system. (http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~van/papers/Simbicon.htm)

EDIT: and yes, Reinforcement Learning is much more effective way of attacking this type of problem (e.g. see some recent work from Sergey Levine http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~svlevine/), but I also agree with the author that GA are fun :)
The biggest killer for me are distractions like Facebook and Twitter. I also tend to fall prey to the anxiety of influence. I start feeling like my work will never be as good as other's work and begin to withdraw from creating.
I think it's fooling yourself to claim that you have any idea as to whether this will affect future informers.
Using Ruby extensively with CoffeeScript is also making me long for significant whitespace. I think CoffeeScript gets it perfect. Unfortunately, it's just a wrapper around JS so it has limited uses (until Node.js gets mature).
I'm using Leiningen at the moment, but I don't like importing my dependencies into my project folder. That's why I said "centralized package management". Is there a way to store all your dependencies in a central non-project-specific folder?

I'll have to check out cljr.
The badness of monkeypatching is its ability to make non-local changes that stomp on other code. Monkeypatches aren't bad in a general sense. Take away the stomping behavior and you've taken away the badness.

(They might still be "dangerous" but you've moved them out of the "suicidal" territory I believe non-scoped monkeypatches live in.)

Incidentally, Perl has been able to do this for a long time. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of:

local *{'Some::Module::method'} = sub { ... };
my $thing = new Some::Module();
...
$thing->method(...);
...

It's great for testing, great for modifying the way libraries work locally without globally modifying them (in my case, hacking a bit on code shared by many projects in such a way that I can't really add this thing I really need), and so on. A great addition to Ruby that goes a long way towards mitigating some of my fundamental complaints about the language.
I think there's a lot of value in all our cards being on the table, for everyone. We are playing at just about every table, and this is not a zero-sum game.

I think one of the most important things to recognize here is that we're not the only ones whose cards have been revealed. It sounds like there's verification the Chinese government was behind the attacks against Google, Yahoo and the rest. That's a big deal, and it could hurt China.

I also think that in general, having a clear understanding of US goals makes it easier to come up with creative solutions that benefit all. It does also potentially make it easier to screw the US over - but frankly that's difficult to do, and I'd say given the power the US wields, any direct action against US interests comes with strong likelihood that it's a net negative for both the opposing power and the US. Win-win situations, when you can come up with them, carry far less risk. But you can't come up with win-win situations when people are holding their cards close to their chest.
I also agree that somewhere indeterminable there's a line to be crossed.

But until I find that line I defer to my juvenile glee of seeing the American government submit to their own (ridiculous) privacy policy: If you don't have anything to hide, all your private, personal and professional life are belong to us.
Domination by large corporations in commodity products isn't necessarily a bad thing. It leaves the brightest & most ambitious entrepreneurs to solve more complex issues. In 2015, should an ambitious 25 year old create a new pizza shop or try to create a new tech or bio-medical research company? The examples I provided are up for debate, but the fact that our basic needs (food, clothes, home improvement) are taken care of by the Walmart & Home-Depots of the world might not be such a bad thing. Just aim higher on society's hierarchy of needs.
Hey, what kind of computer do you run with those programs? Apple or PC?
Reminds me of Jacob Applebaum's udev rules for mouse jigglers: https://github.com/ioerror/udev_antiforensics
I want a room-temperature superconductor!
Nice! Just signed up to host a probe but looks like they'll only send you one if they don't already have good coverage of your location/network. Not holding out much hope as afaict Europe is already pretty much blanketed :(
Most of those programs are trivially small, and often consist mostly of transformative loops. Yes, go will be worse than python for that. But in a real project, the difference will be minimal, a few percent, which will be lost in the noise of the specific implementations, tests, etc.
The majority of the population aren't the rich people with tons of money in the bank or entrepreneurs starting companies. The price of gas and basic food items increasing rapidly is devastating to many people.
The lyrics on the Melvins album "Houdini" are almost entirely gibberish, it's mostly English but the words are half random and half nonsense. If you squint your ears a bit, you can imagine what it's like to have brain damage. Classic! Looks like the whole album is on yourube, check out some examples...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwSOrd4E7yw (Night Goat)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPkHP3a9WKU (Lizzy)
People saying America is broke are looking at future obligations. Doing this, the 12T figure presented by the Credit Suisse link is a joke. The obligations that become current will rise so fast that GDP and household wealth have no chance in catching up and alleviating them. Add in our current run rate, and it is the straw that broke the camels back.
Back in 2009, it was estimated that t Total US financial obligation is around 65 Trillion. Recently i read somewhere that the figure is excess of 100 Trillion now !

src: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851
They have tried to get answers that avoid concepts that have not yet been introduced in the book at the point of the excercise, and to categorize answers based on how well they do that. See http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/name.html for details.

After over a decade, there's still excercises there that have no answers. That's a shame. (On me, I only provided a couple of them.)
I'm not sure it will help, but it's a whole lot better than me guessing... The following is the query used to find flow.io. There's (about) 59 matches.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&pws=0&sa...
My favorite is the Maybe-monad-esque ? syntax. It lets you write expressions like this: obj.a?.b?.c?() which will execute normally if all those properties exist, but return null instead of failing if they don't.
There is more to it than that -- read the article it links to about "Understanding the Modern Monetary System" (http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-s...).

"Government deficit spending and tax collection should be maintained at a rate that does not impose financial hardship on the private sector. Because the Federal government is not a state or household it should not manage its balance sheet for its own benefit. Rather, taxes and government spending should be managed in a way that most benefits the private sector and encourages private sector prosperity."

"The key takeaway here is that the government balance sheet is not like a household or a state. It does not finance spending via revenues or debt issuance. The US government, as a monopoly supplier of currency in a floating exchange rate system never really has nor doesn’t have money."
> I use this widget all the time.

So do I. Wouldn't it be nice if I didn't HAVE to -- that was the original author's point.

The notes and comments on the article suggested that Y5 was a good, free tool for this and I'm going to give it a try.
It's not accounting games to pay lower taxes when you lose a lot of money.
I'm curious about emergent problems that are difficult to diagnose with many systems operating seemingly independently. Systems interacting in odd ways, and ordering of systems (dependency ie one system MUST run before another). Do these come up?
Lots of reasons, see e.g. [0] for a brief explanation of a few of them.

[0] https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is-deflatio...
I've ordered boards made with Eagle, KiCAD, and EasyEDA. I'd recommend KiCAD of that list, but the first board I did with it suffered from the bad defaults for mask distances, and none of the fine pitch parts had mask between pins.

It's only a mistake one makes once but having defaults set for 1980s fab capabilities is annoying.
And volatile down is no worry sitting on a huge pile of cash.

Buffet is well known to play long, big, safe, predictable bets, with recent exception with airlines with bad COVID timing. All this is consistent with his personality and history as an investor.
Is it? That remains to be seen. At the very least, it seems likely that "relevant" knowledge is not infinite. Sure, it seems likely that there will be an unending amount of knowledge about fictional universes like Star Wars or Middle Earth, because content creators "fill it up" with more lore faster than you can consume. But is that really worth spending eternity on?
Perhaps it’s better to only listen to localhost and connect through a SSH proxy connection