skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see a lot of red flags in this.

I suspect what happened here was Rick was the type of personality that defined himself by being the person who solved problems. He probably wasn't a genius, he was probably just senior and experienced.

He didn't want it to end up like this, I bet. I bet he didn't expect it. He didn't know how to say no, and even worse: no one knew that he should. Rick had no peers or management that could even faintly empathize. They didn't get that there was simply too much to do.

Rick's first and biggest mistake was long before his absurd outbursts: refusing to admit the project was too big before it was too late. Instead he imploded and started saying stupid and offensive things. He defined his identity by his ability to solve problems but no matter how much he tried, the problem seemed to get worse.

He got fired. He even deserved to be fired, I think. Because part of being the technical adult in the room is NOT letting it get that far out of control.

The ugly part is that it seems no real lessons have been leared by the org. Instead of recognizing the obvious lack of technical management, they're spreading the responsibility across the entire org. Intead of owning their business logic they called up vendors and sold it to them. Instead of broading the scope of the business with these added capabilities early on the entire business is now balanced on top of a pinhead of those few cases.

Everyone made terrible mistakes. And it seems like no one learned from them.
For me, it's when I've expended some effort to gain a new piece of knowledge. I'll have to redo the (debugging process/google trail/staring into space thinking real hard) from scratch next time I do it, because it's too intricate to have memorized it.

Taking notes about routine everyday stuff is boring and worse than useless, because the notes are full of duplicated information that makes searching slower. I imagine the people who take notes for it's own sake are basically listing everything that they do, whether they gained any new insight or not.
I'd reword the title:

"Multi-year management failures result in huge time and resource company expenses".

Outside of that, I'd also fire the person that wrote the article on company image tarnishing grounds.

He may be proud of his decision, and it may have been the right thing to do, but considering what he wrote publicly, anybody sane would stay away from them now.
I've made the mistake of being a "tech lead". The term usually means some who plays a sort of CTO role but is also a key programmer. It's really tempting because you get a star player salary, but also make full use of your technical skills.

A programmer needs a lot of deep, focused work to do their job, whereas a manager needs to be available.

Managers are the spine and nervous system of a company. They need to transfer information from one part to another quickly. They need to communicate a lot, make decisions quickly. They train newbies, manage project progress, deal with issues.

A manager who wants to do technical work should probably limit himself to more shallow tasks like bug triaging or maybe setting up a checklist of things for the other programmers to do.
It’s not the reference and learning materials. It’s the PhD researchers that advance the state-of-the art.

This is why American universities dominate.
Avalaxy, while I know companies use tools to do their thing... I don't, I'm old school. I have files on an FTP server and I write PHP code.

But to explain:

> Author: completely optional, depends on what you are using, you aren't wrong.. since I'm old fashioned, if I were to hire some coder to help me maintain my programs, I'd like to know that he was in there, and I'd have no way of knowing.. again, probably not anyone's issue, but I'm old fashion.

> Status: Not all files are in use, but sometimes they are just leftover and may not be deleted, or sometimes, they might be used for testing purposes -- so Status can be changed to INACTIVE, TESTING PURPOSES ONLY, etc. Maybe the file is inactive because newer code was written, but this was kept as an archive? You never know.

> Purpose: always state the purpose of the code.. if it changes, than this should probably change. If it doesn't, than again: you must be doing your own thing.

> Notes: optional, this is just notes that might be necessary..... again.. Notes to myself: I have some code in there that is not currently being used and if I go into production, I probably won't need it so may as well delete it.

The Notes weren't supposed to be taken as a literal. This is just notes to anyone who reads the file.

Sure, there is a such thing as too much commenting, but no one wants to go through the code to figure out what it does. Leaving a little comment up top of every page, regardless of the simplicity or complications of the function, it is just nice to leave for anyone who has to go in there. It's a better form of organization. Imagine having to go in there 3 years later... would you remember what it does? The little statement up top might help you remember more quickly.
I get what you mean, but I kind of miss the other when working with one. For larger code bases Swift feels "safer", but Julia tends to feel more enjoyable and fast to try out things with.

But yeah I REALLY wish the Julia guys can come up with a nice way of dealing with Nullable.

But I actually don't miss the `object.method()` notation. I find it is so much more straightforward to compose things functionally when everything is a plain function. I feel methods just adds complexity to a language. For readability I tend to use the form `x |> f |> g |> h` if I need to make it easier to read a call like `h(g(f(x)))`.

I agree completion is a bit nicer with `object.method()` but function completion works quite well in the REPL and Juno. I use `methodswith()` to locate relevant functions for a type.

In some ways I think it is actually easier to deal with than in Swift, as Swift base classes have so many methods you can't find the stuff you are interested in quickly.

I have kind of wanted Swift to be the solution for everything, but I see that the API design philosophy for Swift makes it difficult to turn it into a language which is as nice for data science as Julia. There is no focus on making stuff like matrix classes, multidimensional arrays, shell integration etc.

Also I don't quite like that Swift ties me so much to an IDE. Writing Swift code with a plain text editor and a REPL isn't as nice as doing it with Julia.
Not to mention throwing away my iPhone and all the software I bought for it to go to something completely different. Seriously, a pocket notebook can record info much more efficiently and effectively, more rich information than any device.
I thought the entire point was to have _cables_ that work everywhere, which is my preference. I think the ports themselves can and should do different things - even my USB-A ports on my laptop have little icons beside them indicating their purpose or capabilities. The point is to not have to keep many dozen different cables on hand for everything.
Come on, if you read my post you would be aware that the TARP program you are referencing was only a small fraction of the bail out.

The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money! They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates, but they also lend through something called the discount window, and by other means. Where in God's name are you getting so misinformed regarding what the Fed does?

>The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks

You would be further behooved to know that since the financial crisis, the Fed has even bought an enormous share of the MBS market, and even other toxic assets! So no, the Fed actually bought many times more assets from the banks than the TARP program.

>The Fed didn't lend any money.

Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have: I don't know where you got it from, and why you are so insistent on reiterating that I am wrong, silly, etc. Here is the reality:

>"Fed facilitated bailouts to financially troubled institutions by invoking its so-called emergency lending authority. The government even forced some banks to take the money against their objections"(1)

So no, no, and no!

And the Fed doesn't need to pay anyone back because they simply print their own money and go buy an asset with it. It is really that simple! It doesn't mean you can get something for nothing, they're just dilluting everyone else's wealth.

Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation.

You've responded aggressively to me like this to me multiple times, and it's coming across as targeted. If you have some personal issue just let me know what your grievance is and we can work towards a solution.

1 - http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what...

Also see (yes they're biased, but it's a great, thoroughly-sourced article nonetheless)
www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/report/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency
Indeed. I'm glad the grandparent saved me from reading the article, but I'm even gladder that you got me to watch the talk.

Yes, it might be common sense (to some). But the talk is a very lucid presentation, and also very technical. Definitely not a "water is wet" scenario.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473657

developers don't need to code a web server from scratch.

I mean, that statement is true. But there is nothing in the Clojure ecosystem anywhere remotely close to the level of functionality contained in a framework like Django - Luminus included. Partially this is cultural: the Clojure party line is that libraries are good and frameworks are baaad.
The internet response is very vague and not particularly insightful to anyone who has worked on any internet protocol. It's not evidence he's an interdisciplinary mastermind. (It's not evidence he isn't, either.)

> Elon: But, yes, it would make sense to strip the headers out and do a UDP-style feed with extreme compression and a CRC check to confirm the packet is good, then do a batch resend of the CRC-failed packets. Something like that. Earth to Mars is over 22 light-minutes at max distance.
Definitely. We have the unicorn on the crest for a reason.
I don't know about Germany, but in other European countries, the judge might also order you to rehire an employee in addition to the back pay and damages.
You are comparing increase in total population to increase in foreign born population. If you convert both to use the same terms, one number is more than 6 times bigger than the other.
This is pure and complete FUD. Clojure is not some esoteric language you can't hire people for. My team has been working with it for over 7 years, and we never had a problem hiring people.

Today, there are plenty of companies using Clojure and consulting. There are literally thousands of Clojure programmers in the US, and many more around the world.

Meanwhile, Clojure is used by companies such as Amazon, Apple, Boeing, and Walmart. This isn't some obscure language anymore.

In terms of performance, Clojure is well known to be fast, and it runs circles around Python without any optimizations.
All the time. Web development is a sad excuse for experience in HPC environments. But node guys always think I/O processing in an event loop must work for everything!!!!

With that approach we can go back to the happy openmpi/mpich days and take the gargantuan performance hit that ended MPI clustering for any serious real time scientific processing.
The famous HP 200A oscillator, which was their first product, used a light bulb in the feedback loop of a Wien bridge oscillator to stabilize its amplitude. Not only was it non-ohmic, but it had a nice dynamic response: Fast enough to keep up with minor amplitude drift, but not so fast as to cause harmonic distortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP200A
I think you agree with me- the comment I replied to appears to conflate concurrency and asynchrony. The article is about async. I’m saying use async when talking about async.

And I avoid using concurrent if I can. It does not have a strict CS definition, and it is prone to miscommunication. Many people use “concurrent” when they are talking about parallelism. Some people’s CS definition of concurrency is not very well matched with the common non-CS definition of the word.

The dictionary definition of “concurrent”, according to Google, is: “existing, happening, or done at the same time.”

synonyms: simultaneous, coincident, contemporaneous, parallel

Using “concurrent” to mean not parallel, or even out of order or not necessarily parallel, just seems like a bad idea.
> Multiply two numbers without using multiplication operator or loops

Uh, ok:

a * b = b != 0 ? a/(1/b) : 0

Done.

EDIT: handle division by zero.
I don't know if I've ever seen headphones that are reversible like that. Sounds very uncomfortable.
1995-2008? That is some serious self flagellation. I have tried to use various Linux desktops from 2000 onward and, while they have improved immensely over the years, I can't see using one as my daily driver even today.
The categories aren't necessarily as clear cut as label -> effect, though, as in psychedelics (including psilocybin and its relatives) can be dissociating, and ketamine (and other dissociatives) can be psychedelic. That said, not because of particularly similar physiology; they certainly have different receptor targets.
I have several e-readers (what can I say). So it's entirely believable there will be another 10x technology, because people will have many instances of it.
This is probably libel, and regardless it's character assassination that reflects more badly on management than it does on Rick.
It’s not either or.

The point is freedom and privacy, not saving 50 bucks here and there. Which is not available to everyone anyway, think high school kids and developing countries.
Let's talk about the risks then. The fire detector is not a good example because
where I live, they're mandatory (and completely useless- they go off when I boil
spaghetti).

Let's instead look at the risks of boarding a plane. There's a very small chance
that when you board a flight, instead of a plane that will fly you to your
destination safe and sound, you're boarding a Flying Death Trap that will crash
and burn, taking everybody onboard it to their deaths.

The chances of boarding an FDT is very small, infinitisemal. The cost however
may as well be infinite- if you are killed, it's game over, no more rewards, no
way to recoup the cost.

What is the rational behaviour then? To not board your flight, because if you do
board an FDT you will certainly die and pay an infinite cost? Most people -if
they consider the question at all- seem to think that if the chance of paying X
cost is really small, it doesn't matter how large X is.

So people keep boarding their flights, not knowing until the last moment whether
they're on a plane or an FDT. Some do indeed board FDTs and die in aviation
accidents- rarely, but they do.

The article however says that they shouldn't. Since there is maximal uncertainty
at the point where a flight is boarded (you can't know whether it's a plane or
an FDT until the very last moment) you shouldn't be boarding. You shouldn't fly.
At all. Because there's a tiny chance you might die.

Is that a better analogy?
Documenting U.S. Role in Democracy’s Fall and Dictator’s Rise in Chile
Everything is obvious in hindsight. Too bad you didn't write up and publish your brilliant thoughts before this guy did.

The actual talk is pretty technical and sophisticated. The conclusion is not just that neural networks discard information; it's a rigorous derivation of exactly how they do so.
It would be interesting to see if pure psilocybin (or prodrugs thereof) elicited as similarly-successful a response. I wonder to what extent other alkaloids, that are also present in mushrooms, affect the after-effects crucial to anti-depression.
2. Almost all JDs lack information on this front. Knowing how decisions are made, how engineering-driven the company is, and how decisions are made are things we don't find out until a few weeks after we've joined.

5. Support for physical wellness (whether in food or exercise) is also incredibly important to me.
Dynamics of software development by him McCarthy published in 1995 covers this exact scenario in the "beware a guy in a room" rule
Same reason some guitar wah pedals use optical control. There are ones with mechanical pots but you have to keep replacing the pots every couple of years when they become "scratchy" as you move the pot back and forth quite a lot in use
lol and what is, java?
>I am no defender of the banking industry but to say that there hasn't been value added by any of these innovation seems pretty silly.

Come on, you are responding to an argument I never even made. To restate what I said: the value added by securitization is dubious, and likely even negative. I asked what really is the value of modern financial innovation which you addressed. I maintain that it is a fair question to wonder if that value is worth the cost Wall St has on the economy.

All three of your posts in this topic are directed at me, and are unnecessarily negative and condescending, while two of them contain glaring factual errors. What is going on here?
I guess I mean poorly implemented not in the sense that they don't work (early 90's word is an engineering marvel) but the sense that in order to get them to work you are left with enormous amounts of baggage that will come back to haunt you in the future.

The 'classic' windowing toolkits and WYSIWYG implement the 2d portion of a 3d engine using a whole bunch of really cool hacks (necessary at the time) in order to run efficiently on a 286. Now days GPUs give us the luxury of not really having to worry about the cost of repainting the screen. The way QT, gtk, windows, etc. implement their interaction paradigms redraw/etc can all be subsumed by a 3d engine, and when it comes time to say, render a 3d graph inside of a hypertext document, then you don't face the huge abstraction impedance mismatch of having to drop into opengl because nothing else exits.

I'm not saying that you don't need the constructs that were developed to build the classic 2 interaction paradigms, in fact you will find most if not all of them recapitulated in every 3d engine. The point is that 3d engines are essentially the logical end of any input/rendering loop you can imagine and if you develop tools long enough the infrastructure and abstractions they provide will eventually be needed and if you were using a 3d engine from the start then you won't have to implement all that functionality from the beginning, usually without the benefits of decades of experience and tens of millions of users banging on your code.

To give a more concrete example -- think about how much it still sucks trying to get multimedia or good user interaction _inside_ of a word document. If word were implemented on top of a good 3d engine, then when you get the digital version of a paper the 2d projection graph is now suddenly trivial rendered because that is how it was created in the first place and the document format and editor have those capabilities from the start.

Somehow this reminds me of the first programming I ever really did in Squeak [0].

0. http://squeak.org/
rcs has been around ~40 years. you're not old school. you're sloppy.
Not only that, but if they wound up throwing away so much supposedly unmaintainable code, then he wasn't the great developer they thought he was.
I'd be happy with a port that can accept a plug right side up or upside down. I get tired of peering at the back of my computer with a flashlight trying to figure out which way to put it in.
Is this the technology Tesla used to fire 400 people?
> reason isnt taught in college its taught with experience

I know I learned an awful lot about reason in college, and many others I know did too; sorry you missed out! If you read your Facebook feed and I study the great thinkers of history, guided by modern-day experts, I'm very confident I'll be far ahead. Unless you think you can come up with all that on your own - who needs Descartes or Hannah Arendt, apparently; anyone can figure it out? To disparage all that knowledge and learning is easy to say but very hard to support. To say those people knew and said nothing valuable seems like willful ignorance.

> colleges are there to produce for jobs

Says who? I disagree strongly. I know the parent's claim is fashionable now, but that certain hasn't been true for most of history. The liberal arts, which are not vocational, long (always?) have been dominant - that wasn't for job skills.

I'll add that few businesses value actual job skills learned in college or grad school. A new lawyer or engineer right out of school knows nothing, in many ways, and needs to be trained in real-world job skills by their employer.
What is the read-versus-write ratio of your notes?

I.e., how often do you actually read the things you write down?

PS: Have you ever thought about using a "lifelogging camera" instead? :)
I see your design is lacking and your fud quotient is high. Good on you!
Yes. What defines the protocol is the endpoints, not the cable. Just avoid the "USB 2.0" USB-C cables, which do not connect all the pins (only the ones needed for USB 2.0). Of course, higher speeds and higher charging currents need a higher grade of cable, but that higher-quality cable will work with lower speeds and lower currents. Take a look at the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C
"Old school"? I think it's in most cases irresponsible not to use version control. Sorry to say, but it's "amateur hour". No better than "Rick".

I agree with one of the parents that "Purpose" is probably the most useful, but even there: at that level the code should be largely self-documenting.
Clearly some in American society benefit directly from the outsourcing and others do not.

And, it seems to be the same set of classes benefiting or losing, each time.

So what patterns do you perceive?
Toasters? Pans? Shaving blades? All the small daily things? Also, a lot of steel is used in construction; a road or a bridge upgrade can be feasible or not, and everyone would use it (or not, if it's too expensive to build).
> What are the properties of Clojure that cause programs written in it to have so many bugs?

Well, I can only speak from my own experience, but twice now I've personally seen enthusiastic talent python programmers create clojure projects which 'did all the things':

- used core-async heavily, including blocking channels that are never resolved in the UI.

- massive 'global application state' top level atoms that are mutated arbitrarily throughout the application

- massive complicated one line reduce/map/whatever where people are trying to be clever and reduce the lines of code, because 'fewer lines of code is better'.

I think it's telling when you get a 'walk through' from the person who wrote the code, and they have to stare at it, trying to figure out why it was they needed 10 different channels as they're explaining it.

After thinking about it quite a lot, my conclusion is that I would recommend against clojure for the same reason I would recommend against C: It's easy to mess it up.

Clojure allows you to create very complex applications; and you have all the tools to shoot yourself in the foot.

I don't think I'd tell people to migrate off clojure, but if the opportunity came to work on a new project, I would run away unless at least 50% of the people had actively used it before.

(and by comparison, my experience with a relatively novice team using elixir has been extremely positive; so yes, I do actually think this is a reflection on a clojure itself, not just 'insert any unknown programming language here').
Those older Tektronics are works of art. The boards were meant to be repaired. I still remember the feeling I got when I took the case off mine. Yes, complicated, but so much thought was put into the layout.

I guess those days are over?