skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Coding at work might not make you a worse programmer, but I found that coding outside work does allow me to be of more value at work.

I'm at home fiddling with yarn and webpack - for my own private projects - and I might take that and introduce it at work someday, just as I introduced Typescript, LESS, Knockout.js and made the "back-end of our frontend" better.

In hindsight, this probably was not done if I didn't fiddle with tech at home. Most, if not all, of the collegues in my small team are strictly code-at-work developers, and I sincerely believe that is a risk because you can get stuck in time. We also don't have a 'tech-friday' or some other opportunity to work or experiment with tech, so it really needs to come from free time.

I'm sure others might have a similar experience.
Yep. Just reading that in the prior comment was off-putting.
I read another article describing what doctors concluded after examining the symptoms, which was it was likely poison, as no acoustic effect could have produced those symptoms. They believed the noise complaints were actually a resulting effect of the poison. My guess is a heavy-handed pest control technician.
A key test for rationality is prediction.

If you believe that banning sex education in schools will decrease teen pregnancy, and it turns out that teen pregnancy rates actually increase when teens aren't educated, then your belief about sex education isn't rational.

Many - possibly most - public policy decisions are open to this kind of testing.

The fact that formal testing rarely happens, and that it's consistently ignored even when it does, suggests that politics itself is inherently pre-rational.

Arguably it's then irrational to expect it to be rational - but that's a deeper problem that doesn't just apply to politics.
It seems to me that stats and scientific method are the core of psychology. All the domain-specific content is just common sense. This quote from Brown says something "Not many psychologists are even good at the maths and statistics you have to do as a psychologist.". Perhaps even rename psychology to "statistical study of fuzzy ideas" or something.
Then the fix is to only render the rows currently in the viewport, right? Seems weird to recreate tables using CSS for that reason.
Nasa technology
I think looking at @pixiuPL's commits (https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/commits?author=pixiuPL) and his tall, non sensical claims makes it clear who lacks the basic human communication skills. Just have a look for yourself.

Looking at some issues filed by him (https://github.com/composer/composer/issues/7016) makes the entire thing more clear.
Nonsense. It does make you a worse programmer. "Working on a team" and "testing" skills are not hurt by doing more programming at home.
Can one verify if the published source is the same as the published extension?
For Zsh, add “bindkey '^x^e' edit-command-line” somewhere in your ~/.zshrc and you have it.
Article just describes a hard fork. It would be incredibly hard to switch any significant percentage of Bitcoin network nodes to a new protocol.
Fellow serial selector here. Is there a formal name for what we do?
Cranks generally don't think they are cranks....
Well at least don't tell that to recruiters and hiring managers.

They expect you live, sleep,eat, and poop code.

Also remember to have "passion" making other people rich.
Catching a Ball at the Right Time and Place: Individual Factors Matter
> half of your logic is second class code-as-a-string (e.g. trying to work directly with Gremlin Server from a non-JVM language by POSTing Groovy-as-a-string

It must be particularly difficult when your Groovy-as-a-string script itself has many strings in its code, which is what a typical Apache Groovy build script for Gradle looks like.
I don't think b/w is a problem. They are capturing different large chunks of video data already for improving self driving, and uploading via owner's wifi.

Some owners with rooted cars have reported large video uploads, and have noted that Tesla seems to have a "trigger" system that uploads camera data based on certain conditions. Eg, "it was raining and driver reclaimed control from AP in a curve"..
Sigh.

"British semi-retired network engineer educated in mathematics at Cambridge finds mathematical flaw in popular psychology paper and enlists Alan Sokal's help to debunk it."

Sure wish folks would quit sucking on the "amateur vs. the establishment" teat.

That aside, this was a fun read, and I think it's another example of why scientific progress in the future is going to have to be more multidisciplinary than it has been in the past.
I marvel at the creative genius that can come up with a, with any plausible alternative explanation, to be honest.
There is always a place for APL on Hacker News! But the last couple days have seen a number of follow-up posts on the front page.
not sure if this is the interview OP is referring to, but the timeframe is right: https://sourceforge.net/blog/potm-201301/
Somewhat meta comment: there seems to recently be a huge uptick in the number of articles on this exact topic. What sparked this? Is it a reaction to something specific? Reacting to impostor syndrome, "if I don't code at home like everyone else, I must be useless!"?
The article finds the Buffet's Alpha closer to the end.

Buffet is a good investor, but his real genius is that he has build a permanent advantage relative to other investors. His leverage is cheap and he has money when others don't.

> One reason might be that this structure provides a steady source of financing, allowing him to leverage his stock selection ability. Indeed, we find that 36% of Buffett’s liabilities consist of insurance float with an average cost below the T-Bill rate.

>In summary, we find that Buffett has developed a unique access to leverage that he
has invested in safe, high-quality, cheap stocks and that these key characteristics can largely explain his impressive performance. Buffett’s unique access to leverage is consistent with the idea that he can earn BAB returns driven by other investors’ leverage constraints.
Thanks for the textbook recommendation, had no idea that even existed. Very cool.
It really depends on the topic, and there are times where trying to find sense in the other side’s position is the road to madness.

If you’re debating the optimal sales tax rate, yes, being unable to comprehend the other side means you’re doing it wrong. If the topic is, say, wiping out people of a particular religion, not so much.
Snap to lane and quality learned vectors is good to compensate for bad GPS signals.
> However in this instance I think of it as a contribution against publishers (ab)using the justice system

Enforcing that Project Gutenberg actually respects german copyright law when offering service to german users is abusing the justice system? That's a surprising interpretation of these events, in my opinion.
Probably they mean megawatt hours. Which is a common unit of energy in the industry. Then adding per minute makes sense.
I NEED to buy one of these immediately! (at various points my two oldest kids have rick-rolled me and it's pay-back time).
Thanks. Added the year above.
I have a friend who is a linguistics professor at a major public university, and she has complained to me about some of the projects she's been involved with where her fellow researchers really are not good at math.

Among other things, there's a lot of confusion about statistical significance, and how and when it's calculated. There are people out there, especially in the cognitive and social sciences, who think it's OK to run an experiment to gather some data, and then look for statistically significant trends in the data and draw whatever conclusions they can. They're p-hacking and they don't even know they're doing it; they think it's science. And the people judging their papers sometimes think the same thing. How do you fix a field like this?

This issue lies at the root of the reproducibility problem. The example someone gave about an undergrad cheering (that she didn't have to do any more math) points at one of the causes.
I've found that stuff I do at work sometimes sucks the life out of me. Doing a 2-3 day project at home somehow brings the life in me and I no longer find the work so tiring and can again be productive.

If I don't do that, I never recover. I can take a passive or active vacation and get back to work still being unmotivated.
I used Dosbox to run a program to upload source code on old GE PLCs in order to covert to new systems. Couldn't have done it otherwise. Long live Dosbox!
Yep, it seems people need to understand the details of base translation before writing a comment :p

Anyway, IIRC you can round-trip 15 decimal digits correctly with an IEEE double. Don't know if it's floor(15.955) or something else, but it's close enough for me to consider DEC64 quite useless compared to existing, quite well-designed and widely used implementation of FP.
Small scale agriculture is actually very profitable if you do it right. I know farmer making $100,000/year off half an acre within city of Vancouver, and while that's definitely a bit of an outlier, shows that it's very very possible to have profitable small scale agriculture. In fact, most of the big farmers I know are drowning in debt. Sometimes scale is a burden.
Either the author of this article is confused or I am. He describes the situation of a deliberate hard fork into two chains with different consensus rules. He then notes that Alice can spend her original (prefork) bitcoin differently on the two resulting chains --- but where he loses me is where he claims that this somehow represents a double-spend vulnerability.
I would use Andrew Gelman and John Ioannidis as prototypes for the Good Critic and Bad Critic, respectively.

Gelman does real, solid work and confines his righteous takedowns to a side hobby. And his criticisms are directed at individual, specific cases, with evidence, and he reserves most of his wrath for repeat offenders rather than one-off mistakes, which are unavoidable given enough projects. He confines criticisms to his area of expertise, which is statistics.

Ioannidis' claim to fame is writing a hand-waving, philosophical argument in order to cast doubt on all research at once. Followed up shortly by a paper that implied (but didn't directly state!) that regression to the mean on replication implies error or fabrication in the original. And he has ridden this sort of tired argument into a lucrative and prestigious career and Stanford appointment. Never mind the collateral damage on funding and morale. My theory is that people pay attention to Ioannidis and wring their hands about these highly generic issues for the same reason most people pretend to be highly, highly concerned about sexual harassment/discrimination in the workplace -- they're praying that if they act concerned enough, the hammer will fall somewhere else. But indiscriminate criticism like this is highly toxic to science (or anywhere else, for that matter, and has the side effect of letting real bad actors off the hook).

A further moral of the story is that, for better or worse, I don't trust and generally ignore criticisms that do not come from someone who has invested time into a field and made useful contributions to it. 'Full-time critics' strike me as generally sleazy and opportunistic, and I doubt the sincerity of their desire to 'improve' a field if all they can do is tear down others' work and not provide any of their own.
Getting into the course was a strangely sales-y experience. I was working in sales at the time and recognized a lot of similar techniques used by their recruiter/admissions person. I eventually decided to join after considering they were likely to build the best product manager network. There were about a dozen of us twenty-somethings in a twice-weekly night class. Our first instructor was replaced after student complaints that he was phoning it in -- just literally reading slides to us with content seemingly summarized from common wisdom you find on hackernews about lean startups. Our second instructor was much more engaged and enthusiastic. There were assignments that scratched the surface of a few topics within product management like design, engineering, prioritization, and presentations. The end of the course provided some brief interview tips. Alumni have access to a private slack group which, like any networking group, is filled with people looking for jobs and a dearth of recruiters looking for those people.

I might go as far as to say that there really is no such thing as an entry-level PM. Most people who become PMs seem to do so accidentally or because they started as an APM at some company with the resources and retention afford them.

However, in the end, if you do your assignments, you end up with a LinkedIn certification to add to your profile and the confidence that you are probably capable of being a good product manager. Carlos is really an awesome dude (the CEO), but the website's title "Get a job as a Product Manager" is unrelated to the course offered.
As someone who studied Psychology and CS, and is somewhat good at math, it's not necessarily a bad thing that psychology students don't take a lot of math.

I'd say maybe 10% of students who take psychology actually go on to do anything with research. Most of my friends in psychology are now counsellors, social workers, occupational therapists etc., and are good at their jobs, and this would not change if they had to take multivariate calculus.

At the same time, I do think psychological research would benefit if the people performing that research were better trained in math (actually when I say math, I specifically mean statistics and linear algebra).

I think the problem is that psychology is so broad that it can't possibly do a good job at catering to all these different concerns. Even at the graduate level, in order to become a clinical psychologist, you have to do a lot of research. The scientist-clinician model sounds good, but in practice I found that a lot of people who just didn't care about research were doing research. I found the same thing with medical students who were doing research to pad their resumes.

I also think that you can't just take a physicist or mathematician and plop them in psychology and start fixing everything. The problems often require a ton of theory, are really expensive to test, and the data quality is often terrible (because of human error, measurement error etc). Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1831/
Calling this 'a study' is a stretch. This seems more like pure analysis to me. No non-trivial assumptions are necessary to compute the average wage of Uber employees. In this case is was simply a calculation error.
It's actually off-the-shelf tech now. I've been in a number of supermarkets where they use this to beam ads at you while standing in line for the checkout. (All of which have since stopped doing it, for what it's worth. YMMV.)

There was some hope for a while that this might turn out to be a way to hack sound so that you could produce a flat speaker full of those tiny ultrasonic speakers, and then use non-linear interference to produce deep, booming bass sounds, without having to have the much-larger speakers you need today for that to work correctly. Unfortunately, either nobody could crack the technique, or it's simply impossible, because the real speakers that emerged are quite tinny. Here's a commercial offering, where they're only willing to promise down to 150Hz in the text: http://ultrasonic-audio.com/acouspade-technical-specificatio... "The sound is of high-quality, with low noise and great frequency response, which includes authentic reproduction of bass notes and frequencies as low as 150 Hz." Which, if accurate, is better than the speakers I've heard, but still a long ways from "thumping bass" coming out of a square that could be hung on the wall as casually as a picture frame.
"Remote" means to most people that the work can be done from anywhere in the world. Consider rewording it to something like "work from home possible" or similar.
> anything interactive for one

I feel there's a misunderstanding in how you use "non-transformative" versus how I interpret it. E.g. aren't interactive charts mostly about transformations? (data => aggregation => affine transforms => render the graphics)
I think this ignores some ideas which make the topic more complicated. If code is a tool, then like any tool, the more you use it the more adept you are at using it. Almost anyone can hit a nail with a hammer, but a skilled carpenter can drive a nail in one, maybe two hits. A less experienced carpenter, maybe three or four. In software that translates to less refactoring, more thoughtful design on the first go, and fewer bugs. Experience is not an unimportant factor in software quality and "time behind the wheel"--while maybe not the most important factor--does make a difference.

> Enthusiasts often have a strong grasp of the tools and technologies they use. On the other hand, they are sometimes prone to holy wars and zealotry (they feel it’s important to choose the very best tool), and until they finally realize software is a means, not an end, they have a harder time working towards goals that aren’t about writing software.

This is based on the false assumption that enthusiasts fall into a specific archetype. The rest of the article makes the assumption that coding outside of work is a solitary activity that doesn't involve soft skills. Both are not always true. Though I don't find the technology appealing myself, one only needs to look to the cryptocurrency community to see a vibrant and collaborative group of people who are building software outside of their day jobs. Large chunks of Firefox have been built by volunteers. Hell, ECMAScript is built on the shoulders of the community. I don't think it's fair to discount the non-technical skills that one could develop outside an office environment while still working on software. You could just as easily not code outside of work and also not have soft skills that your enthusiast coworkers lack.

The author is right that coding outside work isn't necessary, but I think there's a subtlety to the argument that's missed. Enthusiasts who hone their skills correctly do come out well rounded and end up being rewarded for their effort. Pragmatists also can hone their skills--technical or otherwise--and come out more well rounded also. But experience does matter, at least somewhat, and being in an office building isn't a magic bullet for improving yourself.
If you read Quine and Kuhn, you will find that natural science results also cannot really be disproved, only disagreed with.

It is a bit funny to see anecdotic evidence given to support the claim that empiric research is superior. Shouldn't you present data instead of anecdotes?
This has a taste of my employer doesn't care enough, so I do work for free to compensate, although course is not just good for them in this case, but also compensates for their lack of helping you learn more.
Introducing JSON-B with Spring Boot 2.0
Curious incidents: the adventures of Sherlock Holmes in Russia (2014)
For lane snapping to work those lanes need to be in the map to begin with and this is where HD maps come into play since they are on a centimeter scale.

There are a lot of way to compensate or correct for many things however your autonomous vehicle does not and should not rely on GPS or any other positioning system for decisions it's just one source of information which it uses for localization.

You have your onboard base map, you have the map that the car constructs using it's sensors, you have GPS data, your car might also be downloading portion of updated HD maps say 10 by 10 KM grids as you go, data that it might get from other vehicles all of this is used for localization and decision making.

There is nothing wrong with GPS and modern GPS chips like the ones from broadcom are capable of centimeter accuracy (at highway speed it's debatable but still) however you still need a high definition map to take advantage of that because if each pixel on your map is 2 by 2 meters then localization yourself to 10cm won't be possible regardless of which positioning system you use.
Huh. Here in the remote-work mid-south, chickens are commonplace. The eggs just taste better.

I guess every locale has advantages and disadvantages. For me, winter weather gets extra weighting.
He was a personal hero of mine. Its a hell of an accomplishment to break four, and even more impressive that he did it on cinders. Interestingly, he never won an olympic medal and pretty much hung it up soon after breaking four.

Its funny back in the day, there were rumors that a person would die if they ran that fast, but this is also the same time when smoking cigarettes was a training method.
If the suggested `var` is anything like that of c#, there is no performance hit. When you type `Type t = some.expression()`, the compiler has to perform type inference on `some.expression()` anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be able to tell you when you've declared the type of `t` incorrectly. Indeed, when you write the wrong type there, the error message will actually tell you what type was inferred.
zx2c4: Which language is the linux version of wireguard written in?
Gotcha. Through, lack of communications skills and being either delusional or complete dick is not the same. Meaning there are people whose main problem is lack of communication skills and people whose problems run much deeper.
Certication matters more than in your previous role.
IEEE binary floating point is deterministic. There is no such thing as tolerated errors in compliant implementations.

Non-compliant implementations are widespread for performance reasons, but that is a completely different story.

Also I'm not sure about GPU, but FPU are typically compliant in HW, and it is typically the compilers that have faster approximate modes, and I think for mainstream ones only when you explicitly enable such optimizations, which are disabled by default.
That's not the critical factor. The critical factor is sea depth and wind speed.

1. Wind Power ~ v^3 (the power produced is proportional to the wind speed cubed. So a site with 8m/s average speed makes twice as much money as one with 6m/s!

2. Often, that sweet offshore-spot is too deep (in that the cost of monopiles [1] is prohibitive).

So the key decision is: If I can make it go just a little deeper, I can make 2x or 3x as much money. Thus floating turbines can unlock more revenue (but the cost variation is not so important).

[1] http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/monopiles-support-struct...
Lambda + API Gateway + Dynamodb
Surely, this is another trash blog post trying to prove something without doing any work or even defining a goalpost of "better programmer". e.g. "It’s also not true. That inadequacy you’re feeling is based on false assumptions, a misunderstanding of the skills it takes to be a good programmer." - 0 citations. The post is a contrarian thought experiment, I think.

My belief of the opposite conclusion (from the blog post) is based on a simple axiom.
You have restrictions at work. Negotiated technical, and practical (different than those at another location) restrictions. Limiting development to one location necessarily makes you less flexible in thought and skill and practice. This is commutative (the person with 5 years development in school, entering the workforce).
Music was generally composed by an employee until the CD era, so the licensing rules would be basically the same as the game art.
Thanks for that, I'd forgotten where I got it in the first place.
This is really cool!

When I was a kid, I read a book about Eugenia Clark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Clark) who defleshed a dead animal she found as a kid. I found a dead bird and tried to do the same using an old coffee tin over our camp stove in the garage. My parents were nonplused (my dad was a biologist too, but he studied plants so I don't think he was into defleshing dead animals...) and that was the end of my biology experiments.

I'm glad to know to actually do this. Maybe someday my daughter and I can do the project.