jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
It is indeed ridiculous.

I am in my early 30s and I am aggressively saving as much as I can while living very frugally, to hopefully retire multi-millionaire abroad or get a lower paid job that won't stress the life out of me before I turn 40. Hopefully I won't become unemployed before hitting my target, or die of a stress-related heart attack.

I am not completely disappointed about my career choice because it allowed me to save a lot of money (see note), but boy, it is an insanely ridiculous career. Very frequently I wish I pursued something else, there is just way too much and fresh new crap keeps coming, every week. Can you believe 4 years ago almost nobody was talking about containers/Kubernetes? Just to name a random niche. Can you imagine what will happen in a couple years? They say "it's all the same, it's a cycle, you already learned it": that might be true if you are a manager or a PM and you just need a very superficial overview of the ecosystem, but if you are a senior engineer you need to master your craft, so even if a technology has been reinvented you need to spend hundreds of hours learning the details of this new incarnation, that's literally what your employer expects. Ask an engineer if being proficient with VMWare is enough to get up to speed with Kubernetes just because one is the sequel in the virtualization scene... exactly.

Also add the effect of globalization: my company hires talent from Eastern Europe (not consultants, entire teams with local management, product, ...) who produce insanely high quality software products at a ridiculous pace, exquisitely documented. Those people are wicked smart and on top of that work 20 hours a day. I am surprised software engineers are still hired in the US, where working 10 hours a day is already considered unhealthy. I feel the same way as a brick and mortar store that's going to get pushed out of business because of the more efficient and cheaper Amazon.

Note: It also helps that I choose to live in the super expensive Bay Area while not wanting kids, so I don't have the same spending requirements of people with kids and can bank the spread that most people would have to spend on schooling, nannies, good housing, ... I rent a studio for $2k in a ghetto-ish area, and that's 70% of my expenses. If I had a couple kids for whom I needed to provide good housing, nannies and private schools, I would be spending all I earn and there wouldn't even be an end in sight to this madness.
Hopefully, when people say "TDD", they refer to the very specific methodology by that name which goes something like this: before making each change, writing a test which fails, and then making it pass with the minimal amount of code, followed by refactoring which keeps all tests passing. No, not exactly unit tests.
A quick look at wikipedia says truth tables were first devised by Charles Sanders Peirce. Though truth tables probably weren't much of an invention - it's just a layout that is fairly equivalent to a record keeping notation used much earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#History
Yes, but the only time that this would be an issue is if someone, somehow decides to install it themselves or the Tesla technicians installing it forget to change the password which is very unlikely considering it's part of the standard process that you have to sign for upon install. You have to choose your own password either way or accept that you didn't.
Random awful thought: it wouldn't be that hard to write a Z-machine LLVM backend.
One angle, which you may or may not have implied:

We can't stop Google or the government to cover the city with cameras.

But we can put up our own camera network!
Author here: I think this is funny because few reads it: posTWOman :/
> It has to exist on a private network behind a firewall with ports open to application servers and other es nodes only.

Have you ever heard of the end-to-end principle, IPv6, or number 4 of the eight fallacies? http://nighthacks.com/jag/res/Fallacies.html
SDRAM is designed to have as much of the complexity located in the controller and as little as possible in the DRAM chip itself.

This makes sense because you'd have a lot of duplicated logic when you gang multiple DRAMs together.

It allows the chip designer to make trade-offs between design complexity and performance. Modern DRAM controllers can be incredibly complex (and large!) when dealing with different kinds of traffic at the same time: prioritizing CPU traffic, which is latency sensitive, over graphics workloads, which is not.

Another, close to the metal, example is the the source-synchronous data strobe signal that travels with the data from the controller to DDR DRAM or the other way around.

Going from the controller to the DRAM, it is 90 degrees out of phase with the data, which allows the DRAM to clock in the data using the rising and falling edge of the DQS signal. It's on the controller to create this 90 degrees phase shift with a DLL or PLL.

But the other way around, from DRAM to the controller, there is a 0 degrees phase shift, once again forcing the controller to create a 90 degrees shifted signal.

This also makes is possible for the DRAM drop DLL and PLL logic in some cases.
Really interesting interview.

Tina Fey was very good; engaging, interesting, funny. Eric Schmidt probably shouldn't give up his day job to become a presenter.

The Google mentions and plugs seemed a bit nauseating. E.g. the fact baby names can be found via Google doesn't really need advertising.
You should block me from redirecting a link to itself.

http://gadaf.fi/5j

And probably block cycles too.
I guess I don't know enough about Chris Dixon.

"I don’t care if you succeed or fail, if you are Bill Gates or an unknown entrepreneur who gave everything to make it work but didn’t manage to pull through. The important distinction is whether you risked everything, put your life on the line, made commitments to investors, employees, customers and friends, and tried – against all the forces in the world that try to keep new ideas down – to make something new."

Frankly, I don't care if Chris Dixon cares. I've got a 'hunch' he probably wouldn't care if I care.

"The important distinction" in his mind is being 'a founder'. Plenty of early-stage employees "risk everything", "put their life on the line", "make commitments to investors, fellow employees, friends and family" and try against all the forces in the world to make something new. It's just that as 'employees' they didn't 'found' it, which seems to be the distinction he's drawing. In certain circles, a 'founder' is actually risking less, because they're the ones out there pressing the flesh, networking, and being in the public eye.

Even if that project fails, they've had months/years of networking with the movers and shakers in their industry, while the other nameless schmucks toiled away in relative obscurity to get absolutely 0. "Fail fast" is a mantra that would be respected enough by many in startup circles to give that founder a second, third, fourth chance at more funding or other opportunities. The opportunities are much less open for someone who's bounced between startups, chasing the dream from founder to founder, but never worked anywhere with any real cachet ("sr lead developer on team of 2 on bijengo.com"). They'll hurt their career later when they go back to 'job' (because funding keeps drying up and they can't live off credit cards forever), and much of the corporate world looks down on job hopping (that's a whole other story).

I've got loads of respect for the doers out there - people who make things happen - regardless of whether they're the 'founder' or just one of the initial core team that made the founders' vision a reality.

EDIT: Argh - the more I think about that post, the more miffed I get. Who the hell works for this guy? Why would you want to work for someone who - by their very public postings and pronouncements - holds the entirety of your chosen life path in contempt? You can say I'm reading too much in to it, but "the important distinction" part of that post - just over the top. How about, "the important distinction" being whether you gave life your all, and used whatever talents you have to create the best possible life for yourself and those around you, "founder status" be damned? hunch.com could not succeed with 50 "founders" running around making pronouncements - any successful company requires the very types of people Chris seems to look down on.

WAY too preachy of a post, and it would make me extremely wary of ever wanting to do business with him. But I'm sure this sort of post rallies the faithful who may be honored to spend $1000 to sit with him at a conference or charity lunch. :)
From personal experience, this is only partially the case. Netflix IS more convenient and the cost is minimal, but their library is limited. I can download any movie/show I can think of via "alternative" means. That's not the case with Netflix, especially when dealing with foreign media that requires subtitles. Netflix still has a long way to go before I no longer have uTorrent running 24/7.
In North America it's a big deal. Smaller, denser areas [Japanese cities] make it easier to afford rolling out networks. Younger infrastructures [the Nordic countries with 100Mbit to each home, IIRC] took the opportunity to roll out a more advanced infrastructure when they could. Here in NA, the incumbents are perfectly happy charging us for slower speeds over cable or ancient twisted pairs, with no need to invest in new infrastructure.
What on earth does that mean, "not finalized"? How is JavaScriptCore on iOS less "finalized" than the same library on every other platform?
Define correctness in this context.
If The Headline Is In Title Case, is it still appropriate to use lowercase letters for her name?
What $288k/yr headache is there around `docker pull buildkite/puppeteer`?

https://hub.docker.com/r/buildkite/puppeteer
Who picks what we vote on in this scenario?
So individuals should be expected to understand and vote on every issue that comes up?
Raising capital from Japanese financiers to run a business in the US is different from launching and running a business in the US
And I think a pizza ordering site is a good case for server-side and mostly static HTML. There's very few things on such page that change more often than every few days, and as for the dynamic stuff, all you really need to manage is a client-side basket, which is trivial in isolation. I believe you could easily cut the time spent on such site by a third if you approached it this way. Even more for people accessing the site from older machines.

I can tell, because I order pizza quite frequently from a variety of sites.
> Look no further than TSA.

I've generally had better experiences with airports whose TSA screening is contracted out to third parties (eg. SFO) than those where it's done by the government agency itself (eg. JFK, Boston Logan).
It looks like this binding has a compile option where Qt itself is statically linked into the resulting executable. That gives this stack (Go+Qt) a very unique deployment story.

There are a lot of people (I'm looking at you, console home-brew community) who build all their little tools to go along with their projects as native GUIs, usually with C# + WinForms—not particularly because they have Windows-specific functionality, but more because they have at least some native functionality (so Electron is out) and C#+WinForms allows them to just make releases as a standalone .exe you can "just" download and run (at least on modern Windows), without needing to first install some external runtime.

This could be a good multiplatform alternative to the C#+WinForms stack, with all the same advantages. (The only con being that statically-linked Qt is pretty dang large.)
Yeah, it's a pretty contrived example on my part. My sentiment here is that there's so many inputs to modeling behavior, and trying to find signal in the noise, that at this scale your time is likely spent better elsewhere. Unless you have the revenue stream to do it and do it well, then the effort can be a time sink
I don't have a problem with much really, certainly not language. I've lived all over and can live anywhere. I speak multiple languages and come from an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority (albeit not a visible one).

But it's pretty obvious that tribalism isn't dead. And what makes a tribe? And of course, we're trying to kill tribalism by simply making a more inclusive, bigger tribe. So what are the commonalities we'll have as part of that bigger tribe?

When borders don't exist anymore, racial discrimination doesn't exist, religion is dead, it won't be because we simply killed them. It'll be because we created a new ideology to supercede it.
If moving the project to a new server is not feasible, then how does the client backup their data?

I refuse to work on projects that cannot be installed from scratch in a local VM.
Pretty sick of the constant class warfare nonsense.

People are not poor because Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Oprah have lots of money. They are poor for other reasons which could fill pages to list and discuss. The rich are not oppressing the poor or causing class disparity. Government definitely is by sticking it's grotesque paws where it should not.

Apparently Obama is going to propose a hike in capital gains tax to 28%. If that happens it would have gone up from 20% to 28% under his watch. That is a 40% increase overall! There are consequences to such changes. They are destructive to the country, businesses, the middle class and the poor. We need to go in the opposite direction.

Blaming the rich is just a nice populist way to focus people away from where the real problems might lie.
The DANE TLSA record already provides the complement to HPKP. The SRV record already provides a complement to HSTS, a convention just needs to be standardized. These HTTP header equivalents are providing a protocol-specific partial solution to a solved problem. This is much like HTTP/2 introduces a protocol specific solution to broader problems with TCP/IP. Nobody seems to care about solving problems thoroughly any more.

The choice of crappy ECC isn't really a technical problem, but a political one. The IETF are wrangling as we speak about the introduction of safe curves in to TLS. djb is lamenting the process.

Btw, I'm all for radical overhaul of the Internet stack, from TCP up, but history tells us radical changes struggle to see adoption. DNSSEC is here and it's easy to deploy (really, it is). It sucks, but it has momentum now and it isn't going away. Killing it without a political push behind a better full-stack solution is just a step backwards.

You're probably correct however in that adopting DNSSEC will reduce the chances of a better alternative making headway, just like adopting HTTP/2 is going to further reduce the chances of SCTP (or something better) adoption ever picking up.
I was honestly not trying to be snarky. Can you point out where I was? Seriously, I'm not trying to get defensive here - it would help me if you could point it out.
To my knowledge, the only filters here are human.
I realized I was having a drink or few every day

So, something akin to this then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O50uMRsTd78
A few more important things:

- The manager is often paid less than the top tech talent.

- Managers have to deal with blowback from two directions: upward and downward. Managed talent only has to deal with upward.
re. 1 I mostly just meant that comparing it not being reversible to hashing being one-way, isn't informative about anything. It may be analogous in other ways, sure.

regarding 3, I still don't think the energy use rate would be substantially changed if the target block rate had been somewhat different, so I don't see a reason to connect the energy use to the individual blocks? It seems likely to me that given a fixed issuance schedule, fixed electricity prices, etc. , that probably the energy/block is a result of the energy/time combined with the block/time , rather than the energy/time being a result of energy/block and the block/time . In terms of explanations, I think the energy/time explains energy/block, not the other way around.

Reasoning: miners increase their power usage as long as the marginal expected income rate per watt is greater than the cost per watt, and the expected income rate is determined by the price that bitcoin sells at, times the expected coins mined / time.
We could break the "coins mined / time" into (coins per block) * (expected number of blocks), but this is I think mainly a technicality, and doesn't particularly factor into any decision making.
The power use would, theoretically, increase until no one would profit by increasing how much they spend on power for mining, and so until there is nowhere that the cost of the power of mining more is less than the average rate of income of mining. This ties the power use to the issuance rate (in coins/time,not coins/block), independent of the block rate.
So I have taken the role of 'fact-checking the fact-checkers' only on this article.

> To be a Clubhouse user you must know the right people

Absolutely not true. Just ask anyone on Twitter or even LinkedIn and they will just send you one via a DM.

> On Monday, after a rare moment of cross-border dialogue between users from mainland China and others outside the country, Chinese censors moved in. If Xi Jinping’s administration isn’t ignoring Clubhouse, why should fact-checkers? Why should you?

Well thanks to the whole media reporting that the platform was blowing up due to famous faces and the DAY BEFORE the ban, they speculated if China would ban it. [0][1][2] Then a day after, China banned it!

Like all new social networks this isn't a so-called "rare moment", if China didn't already know about Clubhouse until the media hyped it up and then speculated if China would ban it. It's like as if they wanted China to ban it anyway. For them it's business as usual.

One more thing. Good luck playing the fact-checker on Clubhouse, unless you want to play the de-platforming game.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-07/clubhouse...

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/06/will-the-clubhouse-model-w...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55971009
A simple and more robust strategy is to force players to open up communication protocols, allowing end-users a variety of (federated) clients to communicate through. Users no more held hostage, that will encourage healthy market mechanisms in policy/curation decisions be it “disinformation” or whatever heuristic. And it would be great to have services with a variety of different policies so people can choose what they like and where to self-associate.

That way there’s no need for detailed and heavy-handed regulation, only an enforcement of a common protocol.
I just tried to copy paste only the emojis and my comment didn't go through. This current comment had the emojis but apparently they were filtered out. Interesting
This resonates so well because LinkedIn is great and terrible.

To give it its due - both my current and previous role materialized because a determined internal recruiter did a thoughtful search and found me on LinkedIn. So: really important career development milestones happened for me because of LinkedIn.

Say it more bluntly - I make more money and have a broader skillset/experience because of LinkedIn. From that point of view it's the most valuable website I've ever visited.

On the flip side, the social elements of LinkedIn feel bolted on and are absolutely horrific.

The classic turd of LI is the "influencer" who crafts a virtue-signaling (I hate that term but it applies here) post of which the linked article has plenty of examples. It tends to be admonishment to either be kind or bold. Either "A man came for an interview. I could tell he was exhausted and said he had kids at home. So I hired him even though he had none of he qualifications" or "Don't be your own detractor - even if you know you aren't remotely qualified for a job, apply."

The key thing here is it's terrible advice. If anyone actually did this, they'd go out of business or be black-listed as a candidate. Nobody actually does this shit but it somehow resonates as "feel good" with enough people.

All of this is magnified by the worst feature LI could possibly have: when someone likes something, all of their network sees it - same as if they actually posed content. I guarantee you, when someone out of he kindness of their heart clicks "like" on the "I hired the unqualified dad" post, they aren't intending to broadcast that post to their hundreds/thousands of contacts, but that's what happens.

There's actually a non-trivial group of my contacts that I want to maintain contact with (key to industry, good friends from b-school) who are terribly guilty of this behavior and there's nothing you can do to protect your feed. It's actually gross.

I don't understand LI's strategy at all. LI is immensely valuable because it has a real deep, proven knowledge of real professionals, who leverage LinkedIn to recruit and be recruited - which are immensely valuable (see my example.) Similarly, it's strategic to be up to date on where my former colleagues are ending up etc, so I'd be a regular LI user for those reasons. I'd even pay.

This bolted on social stuff MIGHT look good on some engagement metric, but it's clearly such low trashy engagement that it detracts from the value of the business, and it's so apparent to me as an outsider that I can't understand what they are thinking.
True enough, but I don't think that should be the horizon. It's worth looking at the system in which we exist, and why the other jobs are so shitty. That goes way beyond semantics.
It's not only about knowing how to build (the lots of tiny specific skills this article mentions). It's also about choosing what to build.

If you study what novelists say, they are extremely uncomfortable when they start new work. It's the same for 10x programmers. There is an initial torment and courage involved in that choice that deters the average programmer. That there will be skills one doesn't have for the new creation is a given.
Its basically a form of the fundamental attribution error. Instead of looking at the properties of the person, we would often be better to identify the tasks themselves as having the potential range 1x-10x. Some tasks admit a narrow band but others (with many bear traps and possible shortcuts) have a broad range. The actual productivity is the fitness of the developer to the task and not a property of the developer.

This "fitness" is how well their skills, their set of learned intuitions, personal characteristics e.g. courage vs. caution etc. fit the given problem which can be sheer luck. This lets us realise that a great developer can have experience that has trained intuitions that actually work against them for a given task and avoid the nasty labelling of them as "they are not a 10x developer".

That said, intelligence and focus are common attributes that undeniably elevate the baseline significantly but by how much? If only we had a way to quantify productivity to test this stuff.
I am not arguing that you should elimate novelty completely. Just that the amount of time you have to learn new things is limited and needs to deliver returns.

Take the iOS app development. Consider someone who has never used Objective-C but has lots of experience doing client side web development. It would probably be faster for them to develop using a tool like Phonegap and use existing skills. It is theporetically sub-optimal to native code but surely the time spent learning phone gap will produce faster results than trying to learn an entirely new stack.