jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Note that the link takes you to the comments. Scroll up for context.
Yes, this describes nicely what sociopaths seek.

That this is common in most organizations shows that most larger organizations end up being selection systems for filtering sociopathic to the top.

It is not because their are deliberately designed this way, but because this is what sociopaths seek, and the organization fails to actively filter against it.
Kind of providing an ECS-based game pre-2016, before Factorio, Minecraft Non-Java, They Are Billions and Overwatch (as I was told in a comment) got released?
Portion of rice / pasta / bread or derivates /other cereal with veggies => endless variations and very cheap.

During this season it’s also soup time. Our favorite is butternut two oignons a bit of butter and cream or coco milk. Super cheap. Makes 2 to 4 servings depending on dilution and veggie size. Add 1€ for bread (for 2). And bit of cheese and / or fruit.
Wow this looks super interesting. Thanks for sharing :)
I agree that this is definitely tongue in cheek, but "running out of new people" is going to change our economy in pretty drastic ways.

See, for instance, this post on the upcoming issues for China due to demographic difficulties: https://zeihan.com/the-end-of-the-last-best-chance/

It takes 20 years to make a 20 year old, and economies, especially those like the USA where consumer spending drives most of GDP, need to adjust if there's changes in birth rates. We did it one way with the boomers, will have to do it again in a different way if there's a bust.
At the time, the regulatory agency had ordered load-shedding of something like 1/3rd (more? I forget) of all Texas customers due to insufficient power. 1/3rd of Texas was in the dark. So what happened was the market was establishing a new clearing price based on the new, lesser demand for electricity.

What the regulators wanted to do was lock in the demand at "all of Texas wants electricity" until such time as that could be provided.

It's sort of funny that this "super free market" system Texas set up failed in so many different ways. Without this massive government intervention, Texas would still be in the dark because customers in the dark can't demand more electricity and therefore utilities wouldn't have any demand to supply enough electricity to turn them on.
Nice one. Didn't know that. I'll add it to the article :)
To some extent you are correct, but I think you are over-egging your point.

It is, of course, trivially possible to construct a program that halts. Or even to modify an arbitrary program to make it halt (a good debugging tactic when things seem to be running awry). But the programs we write on a daily basis are routinely much more complicated than the threshold where their halting-status is computable.

I agree that we often intend to write programs that are guaranteed to halt. And generally code with some informal heuristic logic as to why our code probably will. But you don't have to do a lot of futzing around with formal methods and algorithm verification to know how loose that reasoning can be.
Liked the finishing touch: "A smartphone can't be smart if it's married to a company as dumb as AT&T."
Pity it was the Romulans with cloak technology and not Klingons.
Dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1413243
I think we are getting to (what I think is) the point: You will be recognized only if your work excites your users so much.
"Let's try an experiment. Think of a project you use all day. Maybe it's Rails or Python or something. Now, name 4 people on the core team without looking them up. I can't do that for anything I use. Alright, let's say you can do that. You know a myriad of things about the people who make your tools, but can you honestly say you know as much about them as you do about the tools they made you? Be honest with yourself and really look at how much you know about the people behind your gear as you do about the gear itself."

This is very bizarre. Isn't this true for all tools/man made artifacts we use? I have no idea who exactly designed my car, my guitar , my cellphone, or even the apartment I live in. And when I do know their names I certainly don't know them better than I do my tools. Why should I want to?

"I still have to do programmer interviews like everyone else. No matter how much code I put out, I still have to solve stupid puzzles about coconuts and manholes. No matter how many web servers or email frameworks or database servers or chat servers or assemblers I write I still have to prove I can code. No matter how many copies of my software get deployed I still have to prove I can make reliable software."

I wouldn't want to comment on what Zed's personal experience is , but I know many programmers who wouldn't have to "prove that they can code". "Fame" sees to correlate inversely with having to jump through hoops. I doubt if anyone really wants to test Linus (or Carmack or DHH or any other "famous" programmer) for "ability to code". Outside the MegaCorp, and especially in startups, a reputation for Open Source contributions helps you avoid stupid questions/tests etc, at least in my limited experience. It is often the undistinguished guy with the undistinguished cv that has to go through the technical nitpick interview.

I think this experience may be somewhat unique to Zed. No harm in that of course. Just pointing out that is far from universal.

Just my perception, but Zed seems to get weirder with every post he writes. I don't mean that he is crazy or anything, just that the logic in his posts seems increasingly frayed.
Instead of number 7, I think "Involve the participants" should be number 2. If the audience is involved, they're more likely to pay attention and retain the information and perhaps even try to replicate it themselves after the session.
> Actually, a lot of programmers are famous for what they've created (code reasons). Think Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, etc.

Not at all: "Let's try an experiment. Think of a project you use all day. [...] Now, name 4 people on the core team without looking them up." Can you name 4 people on Linux, Perl, etc. core teams? I'd bet you can't. Or do we think that Torvalds, Wall, etc. wrote the software they are famous for on their own? That's what Zed is talking about.
Wait a moment.

Aside from a few exceptions, most product design is unattributed. Can you name four people who worked on the mobile phone you use? Or indeed any appliance you use?

Of the programmers and engineers I do know about, I don't know about them because I use the product, but because there's something interesting or unusual about the person.
I just tested this with GCC (gcc -S test.c --std=c99) and it doesn't optimize out the strlen inside the loop if the string is a variable (even if defined by const char *foo = "constant string";). If you're calling strlen on a constant string directly, it is indeed smart enough to optimize it out.
The explosives detection machinery doesn't care what you look like or believe.

I don't know about you, but I want the TSA / FBI / NYPD to look into it so that they're sufficiently convinced the individual is not a threat.
Well, the complete collapse of your finances is coming soon. That might do it very thoroughly I think. But there will be some side effects.
^This.
Shared iTunes, Netflix, and Amazon Prime (even with nearby extended family).

The economics make the annoyances worth it.
There's already a javascript testing tool called jsmeter at http://jsmeter.info/. Not the same developers.
Thanks for mentioning, I haven't checked up in a while (obviously). Season 2 definitely was my least fav.
> Doesn't matter to me if it bores them. If that's a problem maybe they shouldn't downvote in the first place?

Perhaps the downvotes are because it bores them? I guess it shouldn't matter to you that you get downvoted, either.
This is true, but not entirely relevant. Life-based complex systems often share a propensity for punctuated stability specifically due to their own nature, because of the same circularity inherent in evolution (those that can survive to replicate, do). In this case, systems whose parameters tend towards stabilization persist specifically because they tend towards stabilization. The least self-undermining regularities persist (attractors).

Societies formed and persisted because they were good at it, because they were a stable attractor in a larger system. We might not necessarily be able to formally describe the entire system, but our propensity towards stabilization (at the biological level, the human level, the societal level) means we can do clever things at the stability points, like develop medicines that work, design groceries which are more likely to sell certain products, and predict the outcomes of presidential elections.

Now, whether or not the explanation given for the systemic outcomes are "accurate" descriptions of the underlying mechanisms is in question here, and it's an important one, but it's not a lost cause. When Copernicus set the world in orbit, there was a big argument of whether he was providing an actual explanation of the way the world works, or just a convenient mathematical shorthand for making accurate predictions. It turned out that the most parsimonious shorthand was also (ahem) less wrong than earlier mechanistic theories. So too can historians find explanations that, if not accurate representations of underlying mechanisms, can still be explanations which fit better to systemic tendencies than earlier explanations.

Edit: Which is just saying that the blog author's point is still a useful one, whether or not we can ever achieve complete mechanical account of human activity.
I'd summarize the replication story of postgres to be: "harder to use but easier to understand".

PostgreSQL generally builds things from the bottom up -- first working really hard to get the fundamental infrastructure right, and then the utility starts falling into place.

This has a few advantages:

* The fundamental infrastructure tends to be more general, so many different functional improvements come out quickly after the infrastructure is in place.

* It forces everyone involved to think through the edge cases first, leading to a more robust feature and a better-tested feature.

* When things go wrong, all of the parts make more sense individually, so it's easier to understand what happened and fix it.

* Eventually, the usability issues are addressed in a way that's not dependent on a lot of black magic.

Anecdotally, when things go wrong in $MAGICALLY_REPLICATING_DB, they tend to go very wrong, very fast. I am skeptical by nature, so I generally assume that $MAGICALLY_REPLICATING_DB glosses over a lot of the finer points, which don't get exercised in a normal testing environment. I haven't presented any facts here, so you may disagree.

A lot of people share my skepticism, and are willing to put up with a few rough edges in the usability as long as the pieces make sense and they feel they can understand and trust them. I was at a presentation by Instagram, and replication was one of the primary reasons they went with postgres. They used a tiny engineering team (one and a half engineers working on the database) to scale to tens of millions of active users (also using sharding; another thing that is harder to use but easier to understand in postgres).
less(1)

vi(1)

emacs(1)

firefox(1)

google-chrome(1)

Microsoft Word or Internet Explorer, if that's your thing!

As for "where does your tutorial go," see for example "Control.Pipes.Tutorial".

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes-4.0.0/docs/Pipes-Tu...

If someone can't figure these things out, by all means, go use someone else's library. This sort of documentation would not be acceptable for a consumer product like TurboTax, but a programmer needs to know how to view a text file.
I haven't read Weiss, but I work as a software consultant and while it's true that clients typically expect prices in the form of a money:time ratio (and also true that it is to the consultant's benefit to use a larger unit on the time side of that ratio) the only way to get paid the sort of wages Patrick talks about is to anchor that money:time ratio against value. In other words, the pitch is "I think I can generate $SIX_FIGURES of additional revenue for you over the next year with a project that will take my team $SINGLE_DIGIT weeks. It will cost you $FIVE_FIGURES." So the invoice will probably have a line item that includes units of time with a large price tag attached, but the sales conversation did not revolve around that ratio.

(I want to include the unsolicited caveat that none of this is easy. A less experienced version of myself might have/did read someone else's version of this comment and thought "I should be a software consultant! Thousands of dollars a week! Wow!" when the reality is that you still need people to sell to, you still need to be able to deliver on your promises, and you probably need to offer some level of support and maintenance for whatever you end up developing for your clients. I really enjoy this line of work, far more than a "real job", but it's much more stressful at times and so far--one year in--I'm making less money than I otherwise would be. It's true that the potential upside is greater, but I don't recommend getting into consulting for that reason unless you already have a significant personal network of prospective clients.)
Yeah, these kids today wanting to pay for things that change their appearance in the world where they interact with their friends.

I really don't get this. Did you never buy a ringtone for your phone because you thought it was cool? Or some item of clothing that didn't serve a purely functional purpose. Do you not have any art or photos on your wall? I assume you still have your default desktop wallpaper and phone background.

Like I live my life surrounded by all sorts of random junk that brings me joy. How can you not?
Yes, but if they continue to hemorrhage users they may come to wish they were making $2/user.

Long term, Facebook is dead. Perhaps internally they know that and are already planning for it.
Does that mean a signal user can't change phone numbers without getting a new identity?

I haven't looked at Signal in a while.
Bots will arbitrage up to the transaction costs. (the price is not worth arbing if it is a small difference). Some exchanges, sometimes, lead the price and this can be visible if you are actively trading (you'll notice that the arb bots are selling in one exchange and buying in the other, aka: bearish exchange trailing the market).
I am a customer of Azlo, Simple, and BBVA.

Azlo has been consistently pretty good for my main business account; the only mixup I've had with them was entirely because BBVA is actually their underlying bank.

Simple was excellent while they were my primary account; I got married before they offered joint accounts, and so migrated away.

BBVA has been consistently awful to work with as a business bank. Unable to get online access working for a corporate account, I was stuck calling them every month to manually pay a line of credit or get dinged for a late payment. Their service reps are friendly, but unempowered to do much. All this for a side business--it hasn't been worth the effort. I really don't want to spend the time and effort migrating accounts _again_ but will do so if the conclusion of Azlo closing is to just drop us all into BBVA's system.

The best I can say for BBVA is that they're less bad to work with than BoA and Wells Fargo.

On the personal banking side, Schwab has treated me extremely well for years; I have no complaints. They feel like the Amex of bank accounts.
This doesn’t negate your comment but I would like to add that I support Sci-Hub because I think charging for publicly funded content is just wrong on so many levels. Simply put, the laws need to change; and when/if they do, Twitter won’t have to do this sort of thing.
Simple was good, but they missed a couple of things... First, 2FA. FFS, I don't know who on Hacker News needs to hear this, but _I REALLY DONT want my identity or money secured by my cell number_. I'm incredibly tired of required SMS "2FA", and one of the major reasons I left Simple was their refusal to implement U2F or even TOTP. I'm really hoping there's regulation on this at the federal level soon because it's getting out of hand.

Second, their App never really caught up with the budgeting offerings of Mint. And finally, the Billpay integration never caught up with Ally Bank, which is what I ended up switching to. Ebills should be able to be delivered and paid straight from your bank account in 2020. Simple never unfortunately managed to get this integration.
Shorting is also gambling, but it is not a zero sum game. Because there are now three parties bearing the risk of a stock, there are either two "winners" and one "loser", or vice versa.
> It was really a lot for a startup to do and no third parties would take on a program at that scale.

No one wanted to take the other side of a tail risk trade?

I wonder if they could have made tail risk bets that prices could spike during seasonal occurrences that had small fixed upfront costs, but high enough payout to absorb losses while still keeping prices lower than competitors. If they could have, none of us would be talking about this now (except maybe "How one energy company won big betting that energy prices would eventually spike").
> Do you patch your socks, shirts, pants, jackets?

Socks, generally no - by the time they've got holes, they're usually overall worn down anyway.

I don't generally patch t-shirts or boxers (same reason), but I do sew worn seams, and patch pants, sweaters and jackets. I don't personally replaces zippers, but there's a local shop that does.

For eg gortex outwear, it's possible to fix minor holes (like from sparks from a bonfire) with repair tape.
> The only thing that tail recursion changes is how much memory an operation will take.

Tail recursion specifically changes whether a compiler can optimize away the stack, which means your out of memory will come from lack of memory for a stack. Whether the stack is allowed to use all memory is a decision beyond your control in a language that runs in a browser.
Probably selling user's data? If there's one thing I learned, it is that it's almost always the "too good to be true" scenario.
I’m gambling. Have fun trading!
I know people that said they will get Bitcoin once it falls back to $70. They said that around $150 and they are still waiting :)
Market manipulation is nothing new but with crypto, manipulation is inevitable and unavoidable, partly due to it being born on the Internet.

In fact, the way crypto works, I can only see Coinbase' (and other companies in this space) valuation going up, because for all the hype, crypto is still in the very nascent stages of the adoption curve. A lot is left to be figured out, and that's part of the reason why skeptics and proponents disagree so vehemently. Thus far, the skeptics have been losing, and in my opinion, would continue to.
Thanks for restoring order to my world view. I always face Firefox updates these days with trepidation about what fundamental interface functionality they're going to turn from perfectly adequate to shit this time.
The present update seemed to break the pattern, but apparently things are going according to expectations after all.

And so far it's a bug that has an off-switch. Best kind. Much obliged for the documentation.
> I experienced this when I was climbing in competitive games. The first step was to get over the 'not my fault' mentality and transition to an 'I need to improve' mentality. I began by analyzing everything that I understood, and becoming more conscious and aware of the current situation, the available information and my mistakes and every game I was aiming to improve my play instead of winning.

This is what I've done recently with my approach to playing music. I'd always have described myself as very 'self-critical' of my musical skills, but this criticism was never more than "Ugh, this sucks. Try harder!"

What I've realized fairly recently (and wish someone had told me when I was much younger) is that my self-criticism wasn't constructive criticism. I was aware that I was unhappy with my performance, but I wasn't aware of why. Now when I'm not happy with my playing, I try to stop and think about exactly what it is that's bothering me about it. If it's multiple things, I'll just pick one to focus on and try to improve that. I'm still self-critical, but it's constructive criticism now, and that's something I can improve from.

The "not my fault" mentality you mentioned feels safe, because if someone believes there's nothing that could have done to change the outcome, then there's nothing that might make them feel bad[1]. Of course, sometimes things really aren't your fault, and believing there's something you could have done when there's in fact nothing is also a problem. There's a balance to be struck between the two perspectives.

[1] I'm not saying they ought to feel bad, just that I think it's common experience to feel bad when we don't achieve our goals, and worse when we think of something we could have done differently.
> These are insane fees ripe for disruption.

No other exchange today has my trust, I don’t care if they compete on fees. When your btc is at real risk of they by an exchange, trust is everything. There is no FDIC insurance for exchanges.

Now if Chase were to do BTC exchange at better rates... i would probably switch.
In my opinion, it is not possible to avoid trust issues when dealing with currency. And technology is no solution.

So it comes down to who/what do you trust more?

1) Government and regulated institutions.

2) Technology and non-regulated institutions.

It amazes me that people who don't trust government and banks will trust an anonymous "exchange" to hold their crypto and tell them how much it is worth and maybe even allow them to exchange it on request.

Especially after a number of these unregulated "exchanges" have proven to be untrustworthy. No way they could commit fraud, right? That is simply unthinkable for some people.

It is a major and potentially costly mistake to assume that unregulated institutions will operate with the same integrity as regulated ones.
This is great, thank you.

Is it currently possible to have snapshots, like in VirtualBox, for instance?
I would say the sentence is. perfectly meaningful, it simply directly expresses the opposite of what it is supposed to.

Like "sure it does" does.
Your book explains A/B testing.
If you didn’t buy the dip in March, you never will.
I'm speaking 100% from the perspective of a user, which is what I believe the post was focused on.

I've never developed for Apple platforms.
"On a separate note, I cannot even fathom a user who would call customer support for a cracked version. The only plausible situation I can imagine is that their child installed the app, cracked it and the parent wasn't savvy or strict enough about knowing where the child got the program and just assumed it was legit and therefore subject to support."

I sold B2B apps. These were small business owners emailing and calling us about cracked applications.

Some installed them unknowingly because they searched for our app on Google and thought that a site that offered a crack+download combined was our actual site. Others just didn't see a problem with it.

15 years ago, A friend of mine wrote an app for managing state forms for law firms. He eventually went out of business because lawyers not only would not pay for his software (they would just share it with all of their lawyer friends), but would laugh in his face when he tried to go after them for any kind of money.

My point is that with this sort of unethical behavior that seems like is getting more and more prevalent and accepted, businesses have no choice but to change their tactics to survive. Which means creating a service.