skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sometimes you need to micromanage, but if you find yourself doing that you better figure out what is wrong with that machine or person and replace it or them after the engagement/meeting/whatever is completed.

We're conflating micromanagement as the style of management and an instance of micromanagement, which is mostly what I'"m talking about. Quality management should be flexible and a manager should be able to navigate between different levels of involvement. On the CEO side of what you're saying, depending on what it is, micromanagement might be the way to go. That can't be a long term solution but for specific things it might be the most effective.

I think we're saying very similar things, I was just giving you a more accurate BW style management viewpoint. Anyways, Ray's points a guidelines anyways, sometimes rules need to be broken to move quickly, but you can always come back and discuss whether that decision to break them was valid.
> Given a fitness function that is the same as an ant's, it seems plausible that they would.
> The question is, what is that function?

Not necessarily. Everything points to the fact that the humain brain (at least, I don't know much about ants) does not work in any way similar to neural networks, and as such there's no guarantee that you can represent its behaviour by the current algorithms.

For example, real neurons have no supervision signal. Memory is also a big issue (see the work being done by DeepMind and FAIR on differentiable neural computers, and memory networks) and Reinforcement Learning still struggles with long-term planing, switching strategies, etc.
You seem to be ignoring the wheels. Lots of angular momentum there.
..they should offer for the user to pay for gpu access..
I refer to it as "the See Oh Queue theorem proover" at work, which seems to get the idea across.
That would be my guess, but I see lots of other types of vehicles that are normally yellow in other colors. But this specific kind I don't recall ever seeing in another color.

Even here [0] most are yellow despite having a different manufacturer. Maybe the difference is enough to differentiate them though.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haul_truck#Ultra_class
There is a vendor supported tensorflow for AMD devices: https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/hiptensorflow
I have been operating at the intersection of engineering and entrepreneurship for my whole career. Two key traits I notice in entrepreneurs is overwhelming optimism and the ability to take huge risks without batting an eyelash.

Conversely, on the engineering side, my fellow nerds are almost paralyzed by over-thinking things and wondering about what the "experts" say, if a decision is "safe", agonizing over career moves, etc. The result is a safe, careful life with above-average to upper-class income, but avoiding the risks that would lead to super-charged results.

This essay reads to me like the ultimate nerd analysis of why you should never take any risks. Why start a company when every good idea is taken, and MicroApple AmaGooFace can destroy you the moment you get traction? Why buy any stock when the smartest people on the planet already priced it accurately (surely you don't know more than them)? Why do anything outside of mainstream thought at all?

I assume future chapters of his book will address why the rational market hypothesis is incorrect, or why it can be rational to buy AMZN when the market (obviously) knows more than you, but I wanted to comment on this specific post.

The truth is that infinite opportunities exist to make money, make an impact, start something worthwhile. However there is a limited supply of people with the balls (or ovaries) to seize these opportunities and take the necessary risks. So many people settle for the cushy life, handcuffed to the big company.

The risk takers earn the rewards, and even if they fail, the journey to failure almost always leads to meeting tons of people, tons of opportunities, and a future path that leads back to the cushy high-paying job they tried to avoid.

So buy the stock, start the company, assume you know more than the experts, take the risks. You can always go back to the safe life.
How do they keep those cards cool when they are packed so close together? I built a crypto currency mining rig once and I had to have a reasonable amount of separation between the cards so the side mounted fans had somewhere to pull air from.
Interesting, but there's a serious challenge making a high-current electrical connection to a fast-moving part like a battery spinning at 36K RPM.
You can't accidentally mix floats and ints, it's a typed language.
I find the use of Go for the userland pretty cool. It makes sense in this case considering if you disable cgo the only external dependency you have is the Linux syscall table.

I've implemented a number of system tools in Go and it is pretty well suited to this sort of job IMHO. One particular case that I've struggled with however, is when I've needed to modify some characteristic of my running thread using an OS mechanism. For instance, say I have a number of go-routines running and then I want to make sure a filesystem is unmounted from all mount namespaces the kernel has. My only pure-Go option right now, is to execute another go program (or re-execute the same program with some arguments) that will enter the namespace via syscall, do the work in that namespace and then quit. If you have a bunch of namespaces this seems wasteful.

This is because you don't have complete control over what Go does with the OS-thread you are working in. Yes, you can lock your go-routine to a particular OS thread but you can't stop Go from using that somewhat special and potentially more privileged thread, to create other OS threads to service go-routines. Thereby potentially sprinkling your go-routines with different capabilities and/or namespaces.

I ended up using cgo, which was a shame. Perhaps someone knows some neat trick to work around this?
"whereas Linux systems have no such reputation."

Hah. I've been through kernel panic hell more times than years in my age, and I'm OLD. You must be real new to the Linux world if you think it has a spotless record.

In fact, it's still possible to hardlock the kernel all these years after I reported how. Lemme show you how poorly the Kernel handles an encrypted RAMDisk with a couple configured parameters.
Reminds you? It is completely explicit!

> Lots of London busses have the flywheel, it has found its application in stopping busses and getting them back up to speed quickly.
The market price is based on people's intuition multiplied by the money they control. There are plenty of situations where the majority of the money ends up on the opposite side from the smart bettors. Eventually, in a long enough time frame where agents don't die, yes the smart bettors will control most of the money. But the world is imperfect, there are plenty of fools still with money.
> This essay reads to me like the ultimate nerd analysis of why you should never take any risks.

On the contrary, it analyzes in great detail how you can better calibrate your sense for when you should or shouldn't believe you can do better. Which seems like an improvement both over the "you never can" mindset (which you're arguing against and seem to think the article espouses) and the "you always can" mindset.
I think the premise (neural nets get stuck in local optima) is not trivial, and there has been a lot of research about non-convex optimisation showing that this is not much of an issue. I am not a researcher, but this answer [0] points to this research.

I would also say that there are multiple ways to escape local optima (setting a larger learning rate, multiple random initialisations, ensembling).

https://www.quora.com/How-come-neural-networks-dont-get-stuc...
This article is great for those who view the parent comment optimistically http://firstround.com/review/give-away-your-legos-and-other-...
If you've not seen it, you might like this:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_...

Which talks about literally bulldozing mountains for the markets.
People have also said that about Lisp, TCL, and Haskell.

It's all true ;) Enjoy the sharp!
Gradient descent can also jump out of a local minimum if the learning rate is large enough, so they're equal in that sense.

But it does make sense that a random walk would be more efficient in very high dimensional problems!
I'm not sure that ants are doing a "realistic simulation of the universe", though, or anything like it. From what I understand, they're a lot closer to little robots than they are to something that can do Kip Thorne-level astrophysics, or Thomas Aquinas-level philosophy.

I am thinking, in particular, of an experiment done by Richard Feynman where he got ants walking across small sheets of glass. After shuffling the sheets around so the chemical trail became a loop, he was able to get the ants tirelessly marching around in a circle (which they would presumably do until they dropped).

Heck, you probably don't even need an ANN at all to do that, much less an evolutionary one.
What y’all apparently don’t understand is that people living somewhere permanently have a vested interest in not being dicks to their neighbors (for various reasons that you’re probably smart enough to divine if you dedicate just an iota of thought to it; we’re all smart people, yeah?). If you’re just going to leave in three days, you have no such restriction.
I don't know, I doubt anyone would call malbogue a good language. I mean, it achieves its design goals, but that doesn't make it good.
You have to create and read more tokens in a verbose language. That takes extra time, and the more tokens, the higher the odds are for bugs to creep in.
They don’t even do that. :-)
I'm glad this was the top comment. I'm far from perfect myself, i would be upset if my wife did this behind my back.
"humans didn't spontaneously emerge from a long standing heat bath."

They didn't? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you arguing intelligent design or something? Because the standard evolutionary theories postulate that humans did, in fact, spontaneously arise from a heat bath (the heat coming from the Sun).
Is it just impossible for Hackernews to see the world how other people do or...?
This is very eloquent but somewhat verbose and rambling in parts. The only solid take aways i pulled from it are:

1. The assumption that if its easy than any one would have done it in some markets is very true but is not a universal maxim.

2. You have to search out the markets where that is less true.

To expand on the station analogy with the $20 bill they mention in the middle of the station where the traffic is highest but what about in the alley behind the station or next to the stand with the new careless employee? Arbitrage isnt just limited to the most trodden popular paths (s&p 500). The context always changes the ebb and flow surrounding arbitrage, whereas you cant fight the raging river and expect to beat it, you may find opportunity in a swirling eddie
The author is not saying that you shouldn't take any risks or disagree with the masses - nearly the opposite. Essentially the article states that while there are some circumstances where it is true that you almost certainly can't 'beat the market' (the stock market being one), one shouldn't believe that if something was a good idea it would have already been done. Apparently in the next chapter he will lay out a framework for identifying the specific areas that are most likely to present these opportunities.
What is it with this trend of giving languages unsearchable names?
Drivers tend to get fixed far faster than Kernels do. I'm speaking from personal experience in my reporting multiple issues with the Linux Kernel. In fact, as I look, the eight I reported years ago are still there, which means the inherent memory vulnerability is still there and Linus (improperly) chose to use ASLR to try to mitigate it instead of fixing it properly in the first place.

And you want to make Microsoft look the worse party. That's hilarious.
similar but for GraphQl:
https://github.com/postgraphql/postgraphql
The Real Truth Behind Tajmahal
I don't think the parent comment deserves all the downvotes.

For programming languages, popularity is crucial. Making them easy to implement, having the compilers as widely available as possible, having the most number of developers pick up the language, etc. That's effectively the thesis of the famous "Worse is Better" essay [1].

As trivial as a name may seem, you're really shooting yourself in the foot if it's something that's awkward to say out loud in a lot of contexts. Workarounds, like pronouncing it differently (as suggested elsehwere in this thread) aren't good solutions, as they hamper communication. Unless the language is already very popular, how do you ensure that everyone else is familiar with the non-standard pronounciation?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
Gee, why didn’t THEY think of that?
True that. There's the other side of the coin though. South bay (excepting San Jose) is what you'd call suburbs. People who choose to live low density areas. Part of it is because of the employers. I, for one, do not like a lot of people around me, and I grew up in a city of > 15M. I like the low density.

I think it goes both ways. companies in the bay area choose to headquarter in low density areas (so they can grow).
I feel like this is EXACTLY why people DO trust the media: they gin up non-stories and whip people into a frenzy.
Wow! Even after only four years he seemed like a veteran at Apple working on some pretty important systems. With his chops though he should be ok. Likely got scooped up by Google or something.
I thought I was saving time with my ~8 aliases...
Exceptional individuals making a difference has been the stock and trade of almost all fiction, of religious and mythical literature, and even a lot of non-fiction like biography and history, for thousands of years.

You have a tough road ahead of you if you want to convince most creators that this is the wrong direction.

That said, there have been some literary periods when writing about ordinary, completely unexceptional individuals was fashionable, and I suppose it still is in some circles.
I would write “aritied.” The article also uses the word “simpliest,” and there are a few other language oddities.
You say "not much of an issue" but your link says that it's an "open question that is probably being worked on in the community".

Those aren't the same thing at all.
I loved this site, it has been very helpful to identify problems on our site.
> I am not particularly shocked that the original developers did not realize the possible double meaning in another language

Most French people seem to know English quite well, so I would expect they'd be aware of it. Not saying I know this is true for sure, though.
At this point, it’s easier to just assume that most people are mentally retarded.
Yep, utterly backwards. That kind of thing should be purely in driver space where it belongs, hooked on a driver model and not a kernel upstream model.

It's funny that Microsoft learned this problem and fixed it back in 2007-ish. Well, in another 30 years Linux will catch up. Maybe.
Venture capital exists in every industry.
Eliezer, as always, vastly overstates the value of his own intelligence and intelligence in general. I believe this essay is one of the worst he has ever written.

The reasoning on this is correct. The problem is, he is arguing from hilariously inaccurate axioms. For instance, he seems axiomatically convinced that "creating trillions of dollars of value" is an objective good. That is totally fine for people ideologically "all in" to ideologically cooky notions of macroeconomics, which is one of the most intellectually shaky disciplines still in circulation.

Since he seems familiar with the "two economists walking down the street" parable, I will offer him this one:

===

Two economists were walking down the street one day when they passed two large piles of dog turds.

The first economist said to the other, "I'll pay you $20,000 to eat one of those piles of turds." The second one agrees and chooses one of the piles and eats it. The first economist pays him his $20,000.

Then the second economist says, "I'll pay you $20,000 to eat the other pile of turds." The first one says okay, and eats the turds. The second economist pays him the $20,000.

They resume walking down the street.

After a while, the second economist says, "You know, I don't feel very good. We both have the same amount of money as when we started. The only difference is we've both eaten turds."

The first economist says: "Ah, but you're ignoring the fact that we've engaged in $40,000 worth of trade!"
The answer is likely going to be IBM. See the end of https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/26/fore_pci_express_40..., as well as https://www.ibm.com/blogs/systems/power-systems-openpower-en...
Good spot - and thank you for the grammar correction.

I agree. Most jobs are boring. Unless employers can articulate what problems the person will solve, learn and what impact their job will have on their peers/employer.
Symmetrical Eyes Indicate Dyslexia
Yes, lots of misunderstood or no-fact-check info here. "Simit business is run by government?" Or did I misread this?
From the reddit thread 2 days ago:

> The whole point of Docker containers is that they're very efficient with their resource and space usage. If you have 15 redundant frameworks pre-loaded in a container, of which you use at most 3, you're using Docker wrong.
I am more concerned about fake news, targeting misguided people, taking advantage of their fears/insecurities/weaknesses at speed and scale never seen before.

It's having serious consequences in so many aspects of life and society.

I have been working with journos and they are getting overwhelmed trying to counter/verify/investigate the tsunami of bullshit they wake up too every morning.

People are living in a dreamland. This stuff is increasing exponentially across the world and the only solution is to control the flows. Delay the misguided validation people get out of their likes/upvotes/retweet counts.

There is a whole professional class of people now, that spend their entire day promoting an "us vs them" mentality cause it's highly lucrative. It does not matter if they are on the left or on the right. They are causing serious irreversible damage and their influence must be checked.
Reject the First Ideas
They're not going to be able to do that.

Facebook wouldn't be allowed to buy either Snapchat or Twitter right now, it's already past that point in the monopoly curve. They could have still purchased Snapchat four or five years ago. Facebook of course is well aware of this. The only means they have left to cut off the next social competitors, is to get them extremely early, before regulatory authorities recognize an entity as a serious competitor. In the next few years, just the behavior they demonstrated in trying to kill Snapchat, is very likely to trigger Microsoft.v.Netscape-like attention. Already, as the monopoly hysteria against them builds and builds, what they did in attacking Snapchat will be held up as a prime demonstration of anti-competitive behavior.

In fiscal 2018 they're going to be a ~$21 billion profit giant with extraordinary influence over everything in the US. Their life gets a lot harder from here forward, their monopoly is not squishy or vague, it's blatant and easy to spot. Amazon is an ideal example of vague dominance, they dominate ecommerce for now in the US (but still only with a ~40% share of that), but you still have large, very legitimate competitors in retail such as Walmart (~4x the retail sales of Amazon), Target, Costco, BestBuy, etc.

On the way up Google had Microsoft lording over tech, providing convenient cover. Amazon has Walmart. Netflix has tons of competitors in video. Apple has never been in a monopoly position outside of music. Oracle has Salesforce, Microsoft, SAP, AWS and a dozen other relevant enterprise software companies.

Cisco and Intel are among the few long-term stable tech monopolies. They've both operated under government watch for a long time. They're stuck in sandboxes. Cisco can't buy Juniper, and Intel can't buy AMD. Both are also gradually seeing their monopolies unwind or otherwise weaken. Microsoft is in a similar position.

Facebook has Twitter and Snapchat in the US (to a lesser extent services like Reddit, which is a minnow to Facebook), neither of which are growing much these days (while Facebook's global scale continues to expand, slower now but still).

If Facebook is smart they'll attempt to rapidly expand in all directions as cover for their social monopoly, so they can pretend to have competition all over the place.
All good. Thanks for commenting.

I believe recruiters can help employers realise the negative aspects of their culture. I think it's our job to raise them and help employers understand why people will/won't join them.

After all, we used to have the title 'consultant' after recruitment.
If by "spontaneous", you mean a process taking several billion years which included heat from the sun, but also resources on Earth, with billions of previous ancestral forms from simple replicators to complex multicellular organisms, then okay.

That's not what I typically think of when I hear the word "spontaneous". Spontaneous emergence sounds to me like lightning hitting a swamp over a period of time, and then by a pure chance arrangement of molecules, a fully formed swamp man comes out of it.

That's way different than an evolutionary process.
Deep learning training is basically 2 phases: the forward pass and the backwards pass (backpropagation). There are no loops. As such, most DL training is memory bound.
Memory bandwidth of 1080TI is 484.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth of p100 is 720.9 GB/s
Memory bandwidth of v100 is 900.1 GB/s
It appears that the faux-punk consumerist yuppies of HN have found something more cultured to...wine about.
I think you're vastly underestimating amount of work that goes into those things. What if instead what you suggest they do not invest as hard in gaming parts? Design, QA, QC and support cost money after all.
Most bad decisions find their origin in either relying to heavily on ones own thoughts, or not sufficiently trusting them.

Having a good meta-instinct for knowing when to cede to conventional wisdom and when to trust your own instincts is like a superpower. It's standing on the shoulders of giants and then reaching a little further.

Building a strong conceptual foundation around this problem could be really useful.
It’s not really true. There are real cases where people have radical, obvious insights. Look at history of science and math!
So are we just going to pretend Perl doesn't exist?
You're definitely not alone in thinking that there's still a lot of headroom left. It seems like there is a new delivery platform popping up at least once a year, and they're all fairly similar iterations of each other.
That's likely to simply flip your current intuitions in favor of investigating more ideas that pass the weirdness threshold. Without considering the specific context of ideas under discussion, I'm not sure that gets you anywhere.
MS didn't fix it. They simply froze their abstraction and everyone expects it to be the same. Linux supports kernel modularity for a long time already. The only difference - they don't guarantee interfaces to be set in stone. So clearly they aren't interested in "catching up", since they do it on purpose.

I don't necessary agree that it works for their goals (preventing messed up un-upstreamable kernel modules), but they do it for a reason.
This may or may not be what you're looking for (you may already be aware of this), but check out the sibling comment in this subthread.