skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your car has approached the point of difficulty for incremental improvement, which is when human attention is needed, but only very rarely. The way for an incremental approach to get beyond this is to have clearly-defined and well separated domains, one being where automation works safely without a human overseer, and the other being where advanced automation is not used. Furthermore, it must be obvious to drivers when they are one and when they are in the other; a distinction based on features of how the technology works does not cut it unless it also leads to an obvious distinction for the non-technical driver.

Limiting the use to highways appears to meet this criterion, but it does not yet do so, on account of problems, like stationary-obstacle detection and adverse weather, that are relevant to highway driving.
I always use jrnl with vim, and never compose on the commandline.
Labor is usually the dominant cost of running buses in rich countries. You'd still presumably have to hire inspectors to make sure people pay the fare but you only need a small multiplier of those two buses.
> Being able to stand up to authority doesn’t hinge on bravery or courage, confidence or stubbornness. The brain processes and regions essential for rejecting ideas from authority figures are starting to be revealed.

Nonsense. Sure everything stems from chemical processes in our bodies, including the brain -- of course. But they breed the bravery, courage, confidence and stubbornness. I don't see why we must contrast these two things. They have a one-directional causation link between them.
Easy-going AWS CloudFormation: cfn-modules
> One thing I have never understood about the driverless vision is how it seems to ignore economically significant problems like (a) traffic congestion

Capacity is a function of maximum density at speed, which both consistency of behaviour and speed and accuracy of detection and reaction have a role in setting. Automated driving — if it is exclusive — addresses congestion (provided added “deadhead” runs
don't offset max density gains), and that's always been part of the self-driving vision, even back when it was about “smart roads” and not smart cars on dumb roads.

> (b) extremely inefficient energy use in transportation, especially personal vehicles.

Self-driving might help address that, too, as it allows lower friction exchanges between local personal transport and higher capacity—and higher efficiency—shared long-range transport.
It's sad that for something as simple as note taking app (though it seems it's hard to get it just right) to be subscription based and there aren't enough good single time pay app to take it down.
> Imagine that a mass-produced tech item from China came with a QR code certificate authenticity, which the end user could scan to check that the item had been made by a specific factory and a specific company.

Nothing stops entities from entering false or unintentionally-incorrect information into the database.

Honestly, all these supply-chain or authenticity tracking use-cases must have been dreamed up by people who have never worked a simple retail job in their life. If they had, they'd know databases tracking reality very easily (and inevitably) diverge from reality - the store inventory DB says you have two items in the back, but a half hour of searching confirms that is a lie. Stores even have a painful, labor-intensive process - called "taking inventory" - to fix the errors in the DB for a single physical store!

Also, this concept is absolutely not unexplored. It's so popular that Bizonacci made a parody video about it, and several billion dollars of imaginary market cap are allocated to coins working on it.
Could you please shed some light on what made you pursue Truck driving after being a software developer (besides the meetings of course)? Was it out of choice or necessity?
You won't get paid SV FANG money as a remote even more so if your from WP, Developing countries or even the UK / EIRE.

The Uk has been known for ages as a place to get well trained engineers on the cheap.
Let me guess, #4 will shock me?
> My personal theory is that what made Russ Cox cave in was his discussions with Sam Boyer. Cox thought Boyer was going down the wrong path, and thought he had a better solution.

That's certainly my understanding of the situation. Matt Farina has a great commented history of dep and vgo [0] if you haven't already seen it. The comments are particularly enlightening.

Still, it's not clear to me what made the Go team get into the package management game at all. As you say, for years they were happy to leave that as a community problem. But something spurred them to declare that Dep was an "official experiment."

> Dep is okay when it works, but inherits pretty much all the warts of Glide, which Boyer also worked on.

Funny, I've had exactly the opposite experience. Glide caused us plenty of trouble at CockroachDB, but Dep has worked flawlessly, if slowly. I've also found Sam to be exceptionally friendly and responsive to feedback [1] [2].

[0]: https://codeengineered.com/blog/2018/golang-godep-to-vgo/#co...

[1]: https://github.com/golang/dep/issues/1927

[2]: https://github.com/golang/dep/issues/460
Free Speech Doesn't Protect Nazis. It Protects Us from Nazis
Software interviewing has become necessarily (though unfortunately) adversarial for two major reasons; a lot of people are lying on their resume, a lot of engineers have inflated self-worth. If you're competent... don't worry, you will break through. But keep in mind, experience in this trade has a lot of value - and companies can only absorb so many people with 0 experience at any given moment in time.

That said, should you change your track from pure EE?

My personal experience in hiring has been that people with pure CS bachelors/masters are usually a worse fit for highly technical roles than those with another STEM degree. I think this is because it is harder to teach yourself electrical engineering than entry level software development.

A average candidate knows how to program. A good candidate knows has deep domain knowledge in something. A great candidate has deep domain knowledge and can turn that into code.
Is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17319537 the thread you were thinking of?
Either be a freelancer, or work for American companies remotely. I do both.

French companies pay freelancers not only more than employees, but they are way more annoying with the later. They just give you a better status for some unfair social reasons.

American companies will generally have more interesting projects and higher budgets. They will pay you more than a French company, while it will still feel that it's cheaper for them.

As a freelancer you can still pay for taxes, social security, etc. and yet double what you would had made. Plus you get flexible hours and you can work from home.

The downside is that you can't suck, be lazy, or sick for too long. You have basically no safety net.
While I agree it’s really awful for the “legitimate” companies to jump on this - in reality it wasn’t a boardroom decision, it was some millennial they put in charge of the twitter account who has been raised with the same lack of awareness and social respect as the clowns that recorded it to begin with.
Clark Glymour on philosophy and its relation to science
Nagini: A Static Verifier for Python [pdf]
> Turns out nuclear is the only CLEAN baseload energy provider.

Thing is in the long run we don't even need baseload power. Renewables have become so cheap now that power plants need to optimize for flexibility rather than efficiency to stay profitable[0].

[0] https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.article...

EDIT: emphasis.
I know the guy who made the unofficial Tesla app. He's doing very well now.

Personally, I had an app that was on its way to allowing me to transition to focusing on mobile app development full time. But it turns out you need a license to perform money transference, which was what my app was... and luckily Google shut me down before I got into high volume and any legal trouble.

To your point: my second app was a super expensive (for me) colossal failure.

I know another guy who nets about $200k USD making puzzle apps, though that also includes web apps started in the mid 2000s.
In 2017, US Had Largest Decrease in CO2 Emissions, EU Had 4th Largest Increase
Google's the one dodging taxes and writing bloated crap so why should consumers pick up the tab for bigger hardware? That's subsidizing them for not hiring enough people to do anything but dodge taxes and defraud advertisers, while they hoard over $100b in cash...

I think what we should do is make their carbon footprint tally include their shitty javascript all over the internet and their apps on phones.
Define reasoning?

Technically in some definitions of reasoning, such as symbolic logic solvers that already exist, those are logical reasoning optimization tools.
To be fair, one of the main things Stoll was critiquing at the time was whatever the educational tech hype du jour was which he was more right than wrong about. And twenty years later there's still a huge amount to criticize about how little tech has transformed education, especially in K-12.

ADDED: One thing Stoll did get quite wrong was missing the utility of mass amounts of often uncurated information. Though, in this regard, he has a lot of good company among science fiction authors who mostly envisioned centralized encyclopedias created by experts, not Wikipedia or the Web generally.
Abstract copied from the PDF:
We present Nagini, an automated, modular verifier for statically-typed, concurrent Python 3 programs, built on the Viper verification infrastructure. Combining established concepts with new ideas, Nagini can verify memory safety, functional properties, termination, deadlock freedom, and input/output behavior. Our experiments show that Nagini is able to verify non-trivial properties of real-world Python code.
I think the ultimately important similarity is that of a complex system that consists of (relatively) simple repeating units.
OneNote, it syncs automatically, you can open it on the web, and the dedicated apps are pretty great. I went from not using it at all and eyeing it with suspicion to using it daily about a year ago and haven't looked back.
Are they saying they were misquoted? I'm seeing them unhappy about the publicity, but that's not slander.
Village is a close-knit community where everyone else may easily punish you if you abuse the system of communal knowledge.
In a wider world people can abuse it but won't get any consequences at all because of enormous resources needed to monitor for relatively minor things. So the example is quite irrelevant.
I had your attitude before, with a similar amount of experience. The industry isn't changing it's practices, so seek out more specialized roles related to your experience. This reduces the white board factor.
That's a different choice.

You might be "choosing" not to bother understanding the alternatives, but you're not making a choice between the alternatives because you don't know what they are.
Kind of, but not really.

The combination of type classes (traits in Rust) and HKTs in Haskell mean that you can quite easily restrict a function to only be able to do a subset of what's possible in "the world".

A trivial example would be

foo :: Logger m => Int -> m ()

where Logger is a type class (trait in Rust-speak) which implements the Monad type class (thus allowing 'imperative'-style programming), but also has a "log" method which allows the program to emit a string to the log.

The thing is that given the restrictions of parametric polymorphism that function 'foo' has to work for any Logger instance we give it, so it absolutely cannot do anything other than pure computation or invoking the "log" method. It cannot do any other side effects at all. So, it's not "pure", but it's also much more restricted than "impure".

That's a very powerful tool for modeling highly effectful systems.
Hi, you can use https://checkvist.com both for note taking and for any kind of planning. This is a hierarchical outliner with tons of features focused on work from keyboard (tags, notes, due dates and repeating tasks, Markdown with code support, file attachments, public lists, collaboration). Dark scheme if you dare :)

I'm one of the devs, so ping me if you have questions.
I tried to give TiddlyWiki a serious try but eventually had to leave the boat.
On multiple occasions, I lost drafted notes-- I had a couple of notes opened in the unsaved state, I was thinking I would save all of them together but lost them because of some reason.

I understand when it started but why now it has to be a single page JS powered app which comes with so many restrictions.
I’m in the same boat ... but at this point I try not to feel bitter about it. I feel that if a company gives me an interview like that I’ll just do it - 0 prep usually - and if it doesn’t work out, well I’m probably dodging a bullet because I did learn a lot about their culture right off the bat (and I feel you should be equally skeptical about someone who doesn’t try to gauge your skills in any manner).

For better or worse, this practice will take their company wherever it’s meant to go.
There's always the possibility to find work on upwork etc to do freelance stuff.
That does strike me as odd back when I was in my second year of work (no degree) - I came in one day and my boss told me ok we have brought a bleeding edge piece of tech that cost 3x my salary.

"Go hook it up to that PDP get it working and go an talk for Brian and work out with him how to use this to digitise the 3d droplet cloud his experiment is producing.

It didn't even come with a cable just a 20 sheet photocopied technical manual.
In Germany salaries for software developers are also very average
We'll be to busy preparing for the next big thing, in 20 billion years VR will be just a couple of years away.
Necessity. After leaving a software QA job without the next job in hand, I had one interview in a year. Blame it on whatever you want, that was my reality.

As for truck driving ... "They were hiring."

EDIT: I do enjoy it, it's a big and beautiful country, and the work is pretty easy.
Some parts of the solution are left unspecified. Which way do the doors open? Surely not inwards, else someone can intrude. Do they only open outwards? In which case, to get out, does the leaver first detach the rope from the handles?
Ken Ribet's Favorite Theorem
I'm seeing a lot of misinformation / misunderstanding in the comments. My PhD was primarily about nonequilibrium statistical physics, so let me try to give a simple explanation of free energy and its relevance for biological systems.

1. The free energy is a concept from _equilibrium_ statistical physics. Most simply, it accounts for a balance between minimizing energy (what systems do at low temperature) and maximizing entropy (when systems become disordered, as happens at high temperatures). The interesting regime is at temperatures where the energetic and entropic contributions are both important.

2. In biology / biophysics, this is a heavily used concept. For example, the most likely configuration of a protein (that is, the arrangement of the atoms in the molecule) minimizes the free energy. Of course, there are fluctuations, and the "free energy surface" can have multiple minima, corresponding to different states. This is an approximation that usually works because on small scales, the environment of a protein can often be equilibrium like.

3. The idea that a biological systems maintain a nonequilibrium steady state (all living systems are out of equilibrium) by minimizing a free energy functional is kind of like the hidden variables hypothesis in quantum mechanics. Basically, the conjecture described in the articles is that there's some unknown free energy that you can write down (similar to a graphical model with hidden variables) that the cell is trying to minimize.

4. It should be emphasized that this perspective is attempting to map a nonequilibrium system onto an equilibrium system and there are many cases where such a correspondence is impossible (formally all equilibrium systems have a probability distribution called a boltzmann distribution and some nonequilibrium systems have statistics that simply cannot be captured by such a distribution).

5. To editorialize, because nonequilibrium steady states are fundamentally dynamical, I would not be willing to endorse this view. Ultimately, this "principle" asserts that there is some non-dynamical state function for the dynamical systems encountered in biology.
Mark Twain seems like a different breed; a man who could certainly give as good as he got. He didn't court public attention (solely) for the rewards of fame, but because he was whip smart and wanted to engage.

Compare that to Michael Jackson or Britney Spears (or any number of artists up and down the sliding scale of celebrity). Sure, they wanted to engage with the world through their music and their art, but I don't think they defined themselves as people solely through their craft, and I think (opinion) it should have been their right to determine on what channels they publicly engaged with the world. Not legally, but as a matter of common decency.

Or does everyone who e.g. publishes open source software deserve to be doxxed?
Now that you’re a truck driver, what are your thoughts on the future of that industry with regards to self driving trucks? E.g. is it something drivers are worried about in your experience?
Some related work includes operational transformation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_transformation), and Darcs' patch theory (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theo...).
Do you mean the trusted third party could be maintaining a GitHub repository?
Creepy lady with no sense of boundaries got on a plane, switched seats with someone behind her so she could be with her SO. She then spent the entire rest of the flight watching the person she switched with chat with the person she would have sat next to, reading every interaction as a budding romance.

She took a ton of photos of these interactions, captioned them with her speculations, and posted them to Twitter. This thread went viral.

It’s all pretty creepy and invasive.
tl;dr:

- None of us know everything about every environment, even though we often imagine we do

- If you want a job, and spending a few hours prepping on data structures and algorithms (either to improve your performance, or to verify your performance is in fact perfect) will help your chances of success or your confidence, why not do it?

You might want to consider:

- Just because you don't want to follow the recruiter's advice, it doesn't mean it's a 'stupid book'.

- Although the recruiter mentioned 'programming problems', the problems in the book may test a wider (or just different) range of skills than what you (or I) consider 'programming'

- The fact that you've 'never prepped for a tech interview' may have impacted the set of environments in which you have worked, and it may be hard to know whether you would enjoy working in those places where preparation is 'table stakes' (i.e. necessary but not sufficient) for success.

- Companies that interview in ways that require/expect some preparation might be (intentionally or unintentionally) filtering out candidates who are not willing to do what is required to achieve their aims. (If you're not willing to spend a few hours with a book to increase your chances of landing a great job for the next 2-3 years, then maybe you wouldn't be willing to learn whatever JS library is required to succeed at your next project.)

You and I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. But I know other people with 10+ years of coding experience, and the majority would improve their chances of succeeding at a given interview loop, by preparing using 'cracking the coding interview'.
Are you sure? If you are careful about how you divide these worlds it should work well enough, but then adnzzzzZ goes ahead and makes this statement:

"Stop using luck as an excuse for your failures and other people's failures."

This doesn't really sound they have the objective world setup well, and would trivially slide down to judging unlucky people. I'm convinced that the just-world hypothesis is one of the most evil cognitive biases a culture can have (in terms of how much suffering is created, see some developments in Christian religion), so I'm not sure this is a risk worth taking.

In my life I found the most true view (as far as I can find it) to be the most useful. Knowing that luck is an important factor fairly significant rotates what you do, why you do it, what you consider important, what you think about others, etc. I think if we do develop cognitive adaptations, we should nonetheless root them in what is true. I.e., if we go for the pragmatic adaptation, why? For a lot of people, the idea that luck is important is brand new information they should sit and chew on for a while.

> you should ignore luck on a pragmatic level, because it - by definition - holds no bearing on what you can control.

So this is not quite true, and it's somewhat related to the point above. A lot of luck based events are random to the person they happen to, in the sense that they were chosen for it randomly, but have a non-random source, or arise from a non-random pattern. Someone might get sick, which is random, but how the system deals with it is not random and makes the difference in how debilitating that event can be (in other words, society has ways of modifying the effect of randomness on the system). A person might be randomly targeted, but the source of the targeting is not random (i.e., the target of a robbery may be random, but there's nothing random about the robber and their choice to rob).

The problem with the randomness concept is that it's not symmetric. If you focus on the individual only you miss the cross-effects. What we say, when we say that luck is important, is that a given person cannot conquer the world, cannot override its rules, and many of its rules are unfair. What we are not saying is that we should sit down and do nothing, in fact, we're saying the opposite: the world is broken and requires fixing, and the world should be fixed before the individual is fixed. And it is the awareness of its unfairness that is needed here. What is there to fix if a given person is fully responsible for their lives? We just blame the person and move on, as humanity has done for thousands of years.

This sort of approach (separate things into true reality and pragmatic/relevant reality) requires a lot of justification before it should be adopted.
One other key difference between lisp and haskell... Common Lisp has a standard definition. My code from the last century still compiles and runs as does code from all of the books.

On the other hand, haskell seems to be a struggle. I recently downloaded the book "Write yourself a scheme in 48 hours" written in 2007. Page 18 tries to "import Monad", which fails. I tried surfing for that string and only see "Control.Monad". I tried installing the lastest Haskell and the workbench. Still no luck. So, 18 pages into a book written 11 years ago and the trivial examples don't work.
Possibly answering my own question, I just discovered tagspaces (https://www.tagspaces.org/) for tagging files across a filesystem.
PipesFS: Fast Linux I/O in the Unix Tradition (2008)
I don't believe in the mission of my work. I actually feel guilty. The mentality around me feels just plain wrong.

And collecting with collègues, I think I'm just like you. Superficial chit-chat is difficult for me and I prefer when people get personal or just plain real on the discussion. Something I cannot find where I am because people are just superficial most of the time (well that's my point of view while being depressed).

I've only worked for a bank and this trading firm but I have always felt the pressure I put myself and the comparison to others. I can't be laid-back and take it easy.. It's unnatural and fake it til you make it is hard for me.