jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
I'm starting to think that being a Wordpress web dev is the ticket.

When I first started in the industry about 6-7 years ago, Wordpress seemed like a total dinosaur. Every instance I worked on was an absolute nightmare -- users installing add-ons that modify the db, introduce security vulnerabilities, etc. I thought WP devs seemed like old fogies -- why would you choose this old, outdated software when you could write beautiful React components and use SSR to deploy your entire blog as a static site?

Well, it turns out that just keeping the dependencies of the fancy React site up-to-date is a full-time job. I have static React sites I made 3-4 years ago that no longer work because they're running a build script on node 10, which Netlify no longer supports.

There's more! clients know Wordpress and are comfortable with it. I've tried every headless CMS under the sun and it pains me to admit that Wordpress's editor interface is better than all of them.

The plugin ecosystem is gigantic. Most likely any feature request a client has can be accomplished by just installing a plugin, if you're feeling lazy.

Will you get paid top dollar by engineering standards? No.
Will you implement beautiful innovative designs? No.
Will you get to use the flavor-of-the-month new hotness JS tooling? No.
Will you get to write elegant functional code? No.
Will your site have a perfect Lighthouse score? No.
Will your client install idiotic add-ons that pollute the database? Probably.

So there's plenty of downsides. The upside is that you can build out the initial site and then literally set it and forget it.

Sure maybe websites are dying but you wouldn't believe how many people out there still need a basic marketing site for their portfolio, small business, nonprofit, whatever. These type of clients are also not particularly tech-savvy (they could probably just do Squarespace on their own if they were), so you have lots of leverage with your schedule and tech choices. If you give them a good deal and treat them well they'll probably stay with you forever.

Once you're tapped into a network of clients and/or have a couple of bigger clients on retainer, you're on autopilot. If you spend a bit of time developing a custom WP theme and a Dockerized hosting solution that makes your setup easy to repeat, your LOE for the initial build-out will be even lower.

I'm still working with the "flavor of the month new JS hotness" but I'm burning out on it and like OP, feel completely disillusioned with the industry post-COvid. I think the tech world would probably be a better place if more people admitted they were just in it for the money and didn't try to convince themselves they're actually saving the world. Good luck to OP and anybody else trying to claw back their personal time.
By their actions, Zygna also signaled to the other employees that Zynga was going play a "heads we win, tail you lose" in the future. Who in their right mind would ever work for that founder again?

Going in, a startup employee gets some stock (upside) in exchange for risk (downside). Zygna used their relative power to reneged on that agreement to capture the employee's upside. "You can give us your money or we can take it AND fire you. Hey, but its your choice."

They were in no way being nice.
It's a matter of ongoing surprise to see many scientist-engineers in my niche, in the USAF-sphere, who are jumping from Matlab to Julia, leapfrogging Python. Kudos to them.
You don't need to strip naked, you just need to show one discrepancy. Cut a hole in a pair of cheap jeans where you have a mole that's not in the video.
Curious how old you are... there are so many things that seemed impossible to forget when I was younger that I have now forgotten.
> And the example is, instead of a chron job just running a process once a month or on some other schedule, it runs more frequently but checks if the change has already been made.

As a property, I think it's even nicer if a script can literally fully run twice and for the outcome to be the same if it only ran once (so skipping the 'did I run before?' check).

Even though this check is useful in general, if you can define your data in such a way if it did somehow run, that this is not destructive / creates incorrect data, it makes the system more robust.

Of course this is not always possible though. For example, if the process results in an email being sent, you need an explicit check to not do that twice.
Oh yes, I remember giggling at Fartlek in high school.
With the productivity drop of lack of tooling for some key .NET scenarios that only consider C# and VB.
They did not require that for Tesla. The Shanghai is 100% American Tesla owned with no joint venture.
The original idea is vastly older than Elon.

From the 1939 worlds fair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_(New_York_World%27s_F...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurama_(New_York_World%27s_F...
I did socket hooking via DLL injection for a company i worked for. I was somewhat amazed that it was allowed, and I'm amazed it still is.
That is beside the point. I could produce something in Haskell, but the "magic" would all done in the compiler, so in the context of my original comment I see no reason why I should.
NASA almost always releases raw data at some point, but not always right away. It may simply be they haven't released it yet. You might be able to get it pre-release by contacting the experiment leads at NASA.
Thanks. I’m not a scientist nor do I need to create posters but I love me some information presentation literature.
…you think the most likely explanation is that the Russians attacked Kyiv because that was the furthest west they wanted? They’d just leave the rest alone?
One of your gender changes was probably a null-modem.
Doesn't something good come out of most corporate rivalries?
Being able to define custom post types is a huge step--it's becoming a more robust CMS than just a blogging platform now.

A good article on custom post types: http://kovshenin.com/archives/custom-post-types-in-wordpress...
Google sounds more and more like a boys club lately. I think some of the employees need to come back down to earth and realize that not everyone at Google is a coding rockstar and there are people doing more important work than Google.

Of course, I've never worked at Google, so maybe they all are coding rockstars and save the world on a daily basis. I find that thought a little unsettling though.
It most certainly is "easier" to not negotiate to get the best value for your money. Businesses love taking your money, especially if you give them extra. Hell, I like it when my customers do this too.

>For many people, the $10/order of rethinking prices isn't worth the hassle of 15 minutes and uncertainty in a less important decision.

I'll just put this here: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-30/consumer-deb...

I'm perfectly aware that people prefer not to actually think about their money. Hell, that's why credit cards are so popular. I'm saying though that whether they realize it or not, it is not in their best interests to value their few minutes of time over the money they have.
Suffice it to say that your experience is not controlling here: I too have clients, and many of them allow iPhones, and all of them use Exchange.

Your "legal requirement" argument is a red herring. I think you just want to argue. Nobody is claiming that companies have a "nuke from orbit" legal requirement; what they have instead are requirements to safeguard data and penalties if the fail.
Not sure how successful we are but my startup was talking to customers for 6 months while we were building our MVP. Wasn't hard to find people wanting to buy.
> But what would even count as an explanation

That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior"

Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
For anyone who is happy about this, imagine if it was done to the politician you support.

"But but but my favorite politician is not an orange racist fascist Nazi piece of shit", you'll probably say, but that doesn't matter. Imagine him being silenced anyway, because "Freedom of Speech !== Entitlement to a Platform", and the platform owners might suddenly decide that it is in their political interest to silence their political opponents.

Would you still honestly think that it is perfectly fine?
Yeah, Saarbrucken is a renowned place for comp ling.
You are incorrect. Censorship is not a legal concept, it a noun.

Oxford English Dictionary definition:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censorship

Nothing mentioned about the government at all.
The semantic arguments are pointless. The question is, do you want a private corporation to dictate whether or not the government of the United States is able to communicate to the citizens? If you do, you are effectively placing the leadership of the country at Twitter's discretion. Do you want to have a democracy where all voices can be heard, or do you want a small cadre of unelected corporate bureaucrats to decide what is allowed and not allowed?

We have an established democratic process to censure (not censor) and if necessary, remove from office elected officials. That is the appropriate venue and the appropriate authority to deal with this, not Twitter.
per the dictionary it doesn't require the government in order to be "censorship."
If only the President had some sort of way to get a message out…perhaps something like a conference…with the press…I don’t know, it’s obviously an idea ripe for disruption.

(Or he could post a message to the White House website.)
> Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization.

Where do you get this from? I do think, of those requiring hospitalization, there is somewhere around a <20% mortality rate (it seems to vary by region).
All that is also possible because of stupidly cheap labor from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and India. Nearly every middle class household here has their own maid. They are not treated that well...

Driving around Singapore you see trucks carrying loads of migrant workers everywhere you go. When you first arrive its heartbreaking to see, but of course one gets "used" to it over time.

I suppose Singapore > Qatar.
It's a rather diminutive term for the newly rich. The tone is almost like dirt barons.
So then these media platforms are in collusion AND own the internet? I'm not one to throw foil ball hats around because I have plenty of my own but your security systems must be awesome.
Families aren't independent of society; family structures and society at large affect each other in many ways. It's hard to have a stable family unit when a large fraction of men are in jail. It's a feedback loop.

Bail system pressure disproportionately affects people without access to financial resources (and through them legal resources), which are not equally distributed.
> None of you ever want to hear it, but everyone goes through this. It’s the human condition.

Comments like this make me angry because it shows how much of a disconnect there is with taking ADHD serious. It's like saying to a depressed person to "just don't be sad and focus on something fun".

Sure everyone struggles, but imagine those struggles cranked up by 20x. You overthink EVERYTHING, you're driven by random impulses that make you focus on something new and shiny, that make you yourself believe that this is not an impulsive, but this time something worth committing to, just to lose interest 2 weeks later.

Small negative things like someone not replying to your message right away can result in dysphoric episodes without medicine and completely crush your motivation for days.

You drop everything to do dumb things like replying to your comment even though I should be working right now, but I can't not do it, my brain just doesn't let go.

My brain always works in extremes without a middle-setting. Either I'm 100% into something, or I am so not interested that doing mundane things that don't have an immediate urgency feel like having a tooth pulled out and I'd rather do anything else instead. Try translating that to more boring tasks at work and you can see how this becomes a problem.

The list goes on and on and on. Living with ADHD is a nightmare and constant struggle.
Now you buy something for $100,000, say construction of a building, that building falls apart and breaks down after 39 years, it was not sold.

The day it falls down it stops being useful, the day before that you have full use and therefore value of the building.

Or as I said several posts ago: “The general rule is something is a deductible expense at the point of destruction or sale not purchase.” Sure, it burned in a fire fine assuming you don’t have insurance then it’s a loss at that point.

Really equipment is generally binary either it works or it’s broken, unless you’re selling it then it’s exactly as useful on day 2854 as 2855. Worse, well maintained equipment lasts far beyond the accelerated depreciation benchmarks used. Anything not thrown away the day it’s theoretical value hit’s zero is unambiguously a subsidy, but so is anything with scrap value etc. But, as I clearly demonstrated the idea of depreciation it’s self was created as a subsidy.

> Accelerated depreciation means you pay less tax and have more money at the start of a project when it is needed and pay more to the government later when it has stabilized.

People say stuff like this, yet hopefully suggesting the government hands out zero interest loans to group X raises red flags. Depreciation is a subsidy in effect a zero interest loan and that in and of it’s self is a problem. Opportunity cost is a huge deal and trying to ignore that is why central planning fails.
“Has my credit card number been leaked”.com
Several times since 1945 war between the US and the Soviet Union has been averted by what looks like almost sheer luck. So if the next 65 years look anything like the last 65, war is quite probable.
I think the usual abbreviation is GFW not TGF
If the founder is willing to cash out for current market value, doesn't that imply the founder doesn't believe the equity will quickly grow 1000-fold?

I don't think it is that simple. The reality of startups is that there is too much happening in the market to accurately predict outcomes based solely on actions of the founders.

Given that, a smart founder probably should hedge this inherent market risk by liquidating so that in the case of a failure, given the high percentage chance of that, they aren't destitute and can start something else/get a job.

Arguably an investor should look at this as a prudent strategy given the risk profiles. Unfortunately there are too many confounding factors for it to be seen as a "rational" economic decision. Investors want fanatics and such behavior is way more pragmatic than fanatical, so it signals that the founder isn't rabid for full tipped scale risk/reward balance.

I think red flags start flying if founders are doing this and spending time on other things, but just as a general case it seems very rational to liquidate some portion early if given the opportunity.
From personal experience, the most common way this comes up is that you have a casual hallway conversation with a colleague, they ask "So what are you working on these days?", you tell them, and they respond with "You should talk to so-and-so, he worked on that a year ago and may have some insights" or "Have you heard about technology Foo that's designed just for that problem?" And then you follow up on that lead and realize that the project you just budgeted a week for (and will end up spending a month on, given all the unexpected problems that come up) can be solved in a couple days if you approach it slightly differently.

These are not hypotheticals - there have been numerous points in my career, ranging from being a sole technical cofounder to working in a 50K+ employee company, where a chance meeting has saved me weeks-to-months of implementation effort. And in each of those cases, the solution they suggested was not something I would've thought to look for on my own, because my starting assumption was that it needed code to solve. And similarly, it probably would not have been spotted until the feature was done and the time spent, because usually your coworkers' assumption when you embark on writing a solution is that the solution is necessary.
I think the core issue the author seems to be getting at is bigger than just the Bazaar (Open Source).

Even when it comes to closed source commercial software development I really miss the days of code ownership. When I first started working as a programmer back in the 90's it was common for different members of the team to "own" sections of code in a larger system (obviously I don't mean "own" in the copyright sense, just in the sense of having one clear person who knows that bit of code inside and out (and probably wrote most of it). Of course we'd (preferably) still be beholden to code review and such and couldn't change things willy-nilly so as not to break the code of consumers of our code, but it was clear to all who to talk to if you needed some new functionality in that module.

The last few places I've worked for have been the exact opposite of this where everything is some form of "agile" and nobody "owns" anything and stories are assigned primarily based on scheduling availability as opposed to knowledge of a certain system. There is admittedly some management benefit to this -- easier to treat developers as cogs that can be moved around easily, etc, but my anecdotal belief is that this sort of setup results in far worse overall code quality for a number of reasons: lots of developer cache-misses when the developer is just bouncing around in a very large code base making changes to various systems day to day, lots of breadth of understanding of the system among all the developers, but very little depth of understanding of any individual component (which makes gnarly bugs really hard to find when they inevitably occur) and what should be strongly defined APIs between systems getting really leaky (if nobody 'owns' any bit of the code it is easier to hack such leaks across the code than define them well, and when your non-technical managers who interpret "agile" in their own worldview force developers to try to maintain or increase some specific "velocity" shit like this happens often).

Granted, there are some cases in which such defined ownership falls apart (the person who owns some system is a prima donna asshole and then everyone has to work around them in painful ways), but there were/are solutions to such cases, like don't hire assholes and if you do fire them.
I would suggest looking at difficulties that industries like fishing and oil have with offshore operations before considering offshore farming.
You are correct, it is different.

IP Geo-Location is a hack for when GPS Location and uniqueID aren't available, so the prudent choice to gain accurate analytic info would be to use the most accurate. Especially if you are a developer / publisher trying to tailor your functionality to your particular audience.

Android does inform you, in advance of installation of exactly what information the application would like access to so you can be absolutely aware of what information you are freely giving up when installing an application. Your only means to block access however after installation is if you have root access and modify host entries.
So, maybe it's because of culture? As in, we
have so many different races and religions
and creeds, all with their own individual
thoughts and beliefs, and all of them can't
_possibly_ get together as one and get stuff done.

So this one is also the same as Brazil then? ;)
This is "I can't even" levels of stupidity.
> It might sound silly but I'm always amazed at the fresh perspectives I'm able to obtain when I ask "someone smarter" for advice in my imagination.

That sounds eerily like asking GPT3 to pretend to be someone else.
Would love to see what the assignment is like if the code happens to is available to share / public.
Also, check out What the world will look like 4°C warmer (tl;dr: not good)

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l...
Not quite what you're looking for but an interesting tangent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
When a person converts their 100 KLOC PHP command line utility(!) to Rust and that's not a bigger red flag than their negatives list, it's a world gone mad.
I don't know about CS but if you are thinking of doing a PhD in the biomedical field, do it only if you are really really really attracted by the idea of doing research and knowing that there is about 1 academic job for every 10-15 people who start PhD. Competition is fierce, pay is miserable, be sure you are in love with the job.
You may be able to measure deterioration in the brain between 20 and 30, although I am skeptical. I would love to see some supporting links if you have them. What does "somewhat" mean? 1%?

However, there are many other advantages that come with years of experience and learning that I suggest would outweigh such deterioration.

Startup success may perhaps correlate inversely with age increase from 20 to 30 (although I doubt it), but I would be surprised if "brain deterioration" was the cause.

I often compare programmers. I haven't seen the evidence you see.
Location services can be disabled on a per-app basis, or as a whole for the iPhone.
Here's a really controversial one:

There's too much fragmentation among programming languages. For instance, I think Ruby, Python, Perl and PHP all solve the same set of problems. One must win for the greater good. The benefits of unifying the developer community outweigh the benefits of diversity. There I said it :)
"a territory you occupy"

Last I heard, the jury was still out on whose land it is.
+1. I think what you should build is a layer over these websites, sort of like a Planet(http://www.planetplanet.org/).
> blockades are stifling, putting fences through people's land is stifling. Are you really prepared to argue otherwise?

I never argued otherwise. It can be argued that Israel doesn't have a choice, for the reasons of self defense, but to implement security measures which happen to be harmful to the Palestinian economy, effectively absolving Israel of any responsibility of the economic effects and placing it on groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The point is, talbina put the blame on Israel (implicitly), even though that's just typical one-sided analysis that adds nothing to the discussion.