skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One thing that's pretty frustrating about your comments, is how you both have an answer for everything but don't actually give any specifics, which makes it nearly impossible to actually address or consider your advice.

Also, fundamentally, I think you're way out of the norm in terms of system time to build. Getting the kinds of reliability and business value guarantees out of Rust is enormously harder than what you get out of the box with the BEAM. Having to hand-roll everything would take literally months, where I can be done and providing business value in hours in the BEAM ecosystem. Now, could Rust get to this place in another year or two? Completely. But it isn't there now, and, it still ignores my second issue...

...which is difficulty. I've been programming for just under 7 years, and while I've not learned C++, Rust is not only by far the most difficult language I've encountered thus far, it's exponentially more difficult. Months to grok the basics, likely years to be effective in it. You might've had an easy time hiring for this, but that might say more about your social group and hiring channels than the actual availability of talent.
if you can still edit the title would you please change it from ALL CAPS to mostly lower case?
This doesn't do anything harder than a saturating subtract.
> How is it not in the companies best interests to just keep you on and give you a raise?

Better to be less profitable than bankrupt due to lack of cashflow. Mark Zuckerberg would have been a great hire for any company even at a salary of a billion dollars a year, but any startup that hired him for that salary would immediately go bankrupt.
My direct report is a fairly novice developer. We are both Americans at a Japanese start-up, so the dynamic is a little different. We tend toward frequent, shorter meetings rather than infrequent, longer meetings as we've found that works better for us in this particular environment.

Every morning I take a couple of minutes to talk to him, make sure he knows where he's going and that he has the tools (technological and social) to get there.

About once a week, we have a wrap-up meeting to cover what we've accomplished, what's blocking us, and where we're going. This usually doesn't take more than 10 minutes and we'll skip it by mutual agreement if we both feel we're up to date and don't have anything in particular to talk about.

About once a month or so we have a 30-60 minute session over tea or coffee to just discuss communication at work, strategies, his morale, and how he feels he's doing in terms of happiness and making progress toward his personal goals.

Sometimes special situations come up through the course of work and we'll have impromptu sessions to talk about them as necessary.
What's wrong with Erlang, the topic at hand?
Sorry, but this mentality is the same one that would argue that any vehicle should be road-legal, even if it hasn't passed a smog inspection, doesn't have working brake lights, and its turn signals are green and purple.

If you want to use shared infrastructure, you have to abide by a minimum set of requirements that ensures the safety of everyone else around you, end of story.
Erlang's syntax can be learned in a few hours. The language is very small. How is that a "complex learning curve?"
Do you know what the best predictor of future behavior is?
They're acting all nice and friendly right now, wasn't always like that and there's no reason to assume it always will be. Even the catholic church is pretty chill these days, but give them enough power and they'll have people burning at stakes in no time.
One of the reasons I choose contracting over employment (I've been contracting for 4.5 years and was employed prior) is that moving from contract to contract is expected and usually comes with an income increase. If I were to change jobs as frequently as I change contracts, this would look bad on my resume.

This makes the contract market much more liquid than the job market, which has the consequence of arriving at my current valuation quicker.
I am loathe to take advice from Andy Grove, only because I feel that employment rules of engagement have changed drastically when he was a manager.

In the last 5 years, I've seen the minimum time in Silicon Valley to stay at a job drop precipitously from 2 years (the norm that I'm used to going back 20 years) down to 1 year. I see a lot of jumping around, especially at the more junior end of the spectrum, where total comp can jump by 30-50k in the first 3-5 years of experience.

And young people know this, because everyone shares their salaries and total comp openly. This is a big change from my generation. So they're aggressively leaving after the first year, moving a couple of times and earning a lot more than they would have if they simply stayed at their job for 2-4 years.

One thing young people want is to be mentored aggressively, and for them to get their careers on track immediately. I try to cater to this by meeting with them once a week, to show them that I actually do care about their career path, and also selfishly, in hopes that they don't want to leave within a year and I'm left trying to fill another headcount. If I left the 1:1 to once a month, then I would only see them less than half a dozen times before they've decided they're going to leave.

But if they know that I'm working with them to further their experience, that they're not stuck in a rut and if they stay with me, that they can trust me and they won't get screwed doing all the boring grunt work, then I have a hope they will stay 2+ years with me before they leave.
Yeah, but women can’t delay forever and previous generations have already pushed age of first child back way past where it once was.

Anecdotally, I look at my Facebook and there are a lot of women on there who will really have to kick things into high gear ASAP to hit two children (since they’re all in their mid 30s and childless).
>People have limited time. We need to figure out what form of excercise gives the most benefit for unit of time spent.

optimizing for the wrong variable.

there's always time which could be spent exercising. people are often too stressed or tired to do it, or don't have enough motivation.

flossing your teeth takes four minutes. but how many people do it?
So the implication is that 2/3 of workers at this pay level will turn over 2x/year? Why publish these “survey” results when that is obviously false?
No.

This is an adorable project that assumes people who are familiar with nmap regularly scan whatever they can.

It’s cute, but I’d expect it to be pretty dull to watch.
> This is what most distributed filesystems already do - have a global write lock on the filesystem metadata

Absolutely untrue. Stop lying about other systems.
Don't they say that mathematical concepts from Eulers era are named after the second person to use them?
I just set this up on LXDE (Lubuntu). It's great. I had to combine it with the Openbox theme 'Micro95' in order to get the correct title bars, though.
Continuous Integration at Intel for the Mesa Graphics Library
I’ve hit that in my market - or a soft cap, at least, meaning if I want to earn more, I’m going to have to make 2-3x as much effort than I did before.

Through working my ass off, and pretty great luck, (working on lots of side projects didn’t hurt either), I recently did some looking just to feel the market out and I’m making like $20k more than I “should” be.

Part of this is because my company is based out of Bethesda, MD and I live in Denver, CO - cost of living differences. My company pays really well which allows them to compete with Silicon Valley and everywhere else for the best engineers.

No complaints here. I’m making double what I thought I would be making at this point in my career.

Anyway, yes, anecdotally, it caps out, but I also like to think that if I really hustled, I could keep raising it. But I’m pretty happy where I’m at and would rather spend my free time doing stuff other than coding and hustling right now.
This is not pg’s best. OOP was invented in academia as a way to scale software design by defining abstractions that you still keep in your head even after it becomes very large. You don’t need OOP to write hello world like many languages such as C# and Java enforces. To pg’s point that hello world becomes quite ugly and verbose. On the other hand I have known C programmers writing million LOC and bragging about never needing OOP features of C++. When I look in to their code I often find that they had just reinvented OOP in their own home brewed way in rather less deciplined and mediocre manner. But still they would consider themselves to be too smart to need OOP.
Suppose salaries are going up, and the average person at FooCorp could get 10% more by changing jobs. You are more underpaid than most; you establish that you could get 20% more by moving, and say to your manager at FooCorp that you'd like a 20% pay rise.

Suppose they say yes. What happens next: other people hear about it and go to their managers saying "I think I'm underpaid; give me a 20% pay rise". If the answer is yes, then FooCorp is paying 20% more in salaries for the same work as before. If the answer is no, then those people have a concrete motivation to go and interview elsewhere, and probably a bunch of them will then leave even if they get counteroffers at FooCorp once they've demonstrated that they could earn more elsewhere.

Suppose they say no. What happens next: most likely you leave for that better-paid job; others at FooCorp hear about this and understand that they aren't going to get paid more at FooCorp even with a job offer in hand. Some of them will decide to move, but maybe fewer than in the first scenario (because they haven't had the specific motivating experience of asking for more money and getting turned down, and because they don't feel like they have the lower-risk option of interviewing elsewhere, getting a counteroffer, and thus being paid more without having to move jobs). And the ones who don't move can go on being paid less.

It's not obvious to me that the first of those scenarios is better for FooCorp than the second, if all they care about is maximizing their profits.
I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist.
Affirmative action is often the scapegoat - legacies and donors are often entirely absent in conversations about it. Which honestly doesn't make much sense.
Show HN: Webpage to PDF Microservice
The lawsuit is technically not about affirmative action. The part of the suit that involved affirmative action was dismissed. Right now what's only being determined is whether Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans in particular.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/anti-asian-bia...
Well,

We have human beings who seem to function normally in situation where their brains have actually shrunk to a fraction of their skull size. And we animals that can do things robots can't do but will very small brains indeed. So something like an intelligent algorithm seems possible with "small" "hardware".

Oppositely, it seems like hypothetically one could pretty easily specify an "intelligent algorithm" if one had a computer of limitless speed and memory.

So approaching AGI would seem to involve producing things of sufficient efficiency and there's reasons to think that's possible.
They chose the lowest priced company because they didn't know how to spec the tender properly and to do a proper risk analysis.

The lowest costs, of course, will win out in this case.
> The engine is only one component of the multi-ton combination of steel, cloth, rubber that is the automobile.

It's not just the engine. Some things EVs don't have or do differently: Engine, transmission, cooling system, fuel system, fuel tank, exhaust system, emissions controls, power steering (electric, not hydraulic), everything else on the accessory belt (which itself no longer exists), vehicle frame (designed for batteries in the floor instead of engine at the front), instrumentation, etc. It's a lot of stuff.

They have a huge infrastructure for building oil pans and belt-driven A/C compressors and decades of expertise in valve timing and equipment for compliance with vehicle emissions regulations, and none of that applies to EVs. They have to start over.

But at the same time they have billions in unfunded pension liabilities and debt weighing them down. GM's current total liabilities stand at seventy-six billion dollars. They also have tons of assets, but how much of the assets are facilities for the manufacture of mufflers and fuel filters?

They have the resources and incentive to make the transition, but they've also got a hill to climb and hungry competitors.
Number of deaths isn't the only metric of severity. For example, there is also the number of people who lost their homes (evacuated and not able to return for many years), which for Fukashima was apparently 150,000. [1]

Since nuclear power plants are so expensive to build, even just the loss of plant itself is in the billions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/10/after-fiv...
It is a private organization. Feel free to argue that the policy is flawed or that the government shouldn't route tax dollars to Harvard or discourage people from affiliating themselves with Harvard, but legal constraints on admission would be an overreach that run into 1st Amendment constraints on freedom of association.
Do you think it's possible that reports may think this is a waste of their time?
Because its specifically is outlawed and the store owner is going to try to collect which is the reason it was outlawed in the first place. There is a long history of people / companies extending credit in a manner that would indenture people to the people / company. See any reference to company stores in the US. That's the environment that the law was setup in.
> All spiritual or religious beliefs have no basis

Spiritual and religious people give reasons and justifications for their beliefs all the time. Have you never heard an argument for why the universe couldn't exist without a god? Surely you're aware of all the arguments made in things like the philosophy of religion?

Even if a belief feels to you to have no basis that doesn't mean there isn't one. People often claim that their intuition about something has no basis, but it's actually that they don't have a consciously-accessible basis -- there's all the actual things they subconsciously picked up about, say, the person who seemed shifty, and all the subconscious mental processing that leads to that feeling.
> One thing that's pretty frustrating about your comments, is how you both have an answer for everything but don't actually give any specifics, which makes it nearly impossible to actually address or consider your advice.

What is it you want to know? I'm giving you my personal experience, not an essay. It's hard to find people who have professional experience with Erlang, so I thought it would be useful to other people who are evaluating it to hear from someone who has been there. I'm more than happy to dig into things more if there's a pointed question.

> Getting the kinds of reliability and business value guarantees out of Rust is enormously harder than what you get out of the box with the BEAM. Having to hand-roll everything would take literally months.

It depends on your needs. My issue is that it is enormously hard to fix the BEAM once you have built something successful with it. It's hard to hire for. Working with it involves lots of esoteric knowledge.

We also know that people are adopting highly reliable and scaleable systems. It's just not Erlang. Cloud enables this. Containerization enables this. Instead of Erlang's IPC, you can use an IDL and an RPC compiler. Instead of pids, you can have a service registry using etcd or DNS. You don't have to hand roll any of that.

What Rust gives you is the ability to quickly build correct, fast, and maintainable systems that are easy to scale because concurrency is a central theme of the language.

> I've been programming for just under 7 years, and while I've not learned C++, Rust is not only by far the most difficult language I've encountered thus far, it's exponentially more difficult.

What languages have you learned? Did you learn about manual memory management in school/camp/on your own? What's been difficult about it for you? I'll admit, I know a lot of languages. Most of the things in Rust are familiar to me outside of lifetimes, which I don't consider to be to difficult to learn. It's just making something you consider implicitly explicit.

We have hired three new grads who we started on Rust, and we got them up in running in a few weeks. They did have the books, mentorship, and assigned work involving small tasks to ramp up on.
> that is often cheap if you start with a community college AA degree and then transfer to a state school

And, you know, make your kids get a fucking job and pay for their own education.
The average tenure of someone, particularly a junior person, at an ad or media agency is around 1.5 years.

The reality is that there's always opportunities at other agencies where they'll pay you a bit more than you're currently making (which is still less than paying someone there already more) and give you an inflated title.

Due in part to the nature of the industry, tasks are made to not be dependent on a given individual, and people float around because agency teams are never at equilibrium. They either have too few clients for the team and need to let people go, or too many/too big clients and need to staff up.

Source: worked agency side for most of my career and managed a bunch of people. I'm brand side now at a company with a significant percentage of employees at or over the 10yr mark. There's a reason I left the agency world.
Why are these actions voluntary? Shouldn’t there be regulations that at least ensure we don’t make the same mistake twice?
I just this morning read this interview with Lindsay Holmwood about how he does 1-on-1s, and it's a master class: https://soapboxhq.com/blog/meetings/how-envato-does-remote-o...

I've never had him as a manager, but I really wish I had.
Eh, it depends on how it's exposed.

I used to run a Kippo[1] honeypot on port 22. I'd regularly see automated intrusion attempts, often followed up by users manually interacting with the server (and slowly coming to realize that it was fake). Nowadays I expect the exploitation process is typically much more automatic, so it'd be less interesting to watch.

[1]: https://github.com/desaster/kippo
> The remarkable thing about quaternions is that you can describe rotation around any arbitrary axis! Try doing that with real rotation matrices and you will bump into a major problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#Rotation_matri...
This is fascinating, and I'm happy to see something like this here on HN. It hits close to home too: I'm a nerd, but my cousin is a successful knifemaker. I've picked up some knowledge about the different kinds of steel from following his work.
I don't think that's what "fraudulent" means

Well, its what the government means when it says you are committing fraud. The agency asserted that the transactions were fraudulent, the store owner agreed he ran an illegal credit system thus agreeing he had broken the law, and then could not prove that the transactions were in fact not fraudulent. He admitted guilt (probably to avoid court and the significant penalties the law allows).

To your second point: sure, he probably did something strategically wrong. And yes, he broke the rules. But that's not the question the article is asking. The question the article is asking is, is an agency that brings down the hammer on illegally microwaved burritos actually doing something responsible, just, and good for society?

Well, they should probably highlight someone who did nothing wrong instead of someone who followed all of the steps that a scammer would follow. Stopping scammers is a good thing for society.
This is assuming that they hire someone else to replace you, which is usually the case, so they're only saving a couple of months of salary, but now they have less staff developing the product, the staff they have are busy doing interviews, and they then have to pay a recruiter fee.
Here is why I used a header only library for my last C++ project.

Earlier this year I wrote a Win32 program to solve an obscure issue for my employer.

My main concern was making it possible for programmers with limited knowledge of C++ to maintain the application. We are a C# shop and I want my coworkers to be able to maintain the application after I leave.

Here are some of the other things I did to make life easier for the maintenance programmer.

I documented how the program works, what APIs it calls, and added links to Pluralsight courses on ATL and COM. The program uses printf format strings so there is a link to a tutorial on them.

I added extensive logging with line numbers for every action that the program takes. You can reconstruct the control flow by looking at the log file. Yes, I tried doing this.

I picked a header only logging library so that it would be easier for a maintenance programmer to update it. All they have to do is update the submodule that contains the library.
I’m not sure I agree with the statement—humans overlook basic details all the time. Most computer bugs are “extremely basic”. Multiply times possible failure points and it’s easy to see how basic flaws can easily cause systemic failure. Experts DO miss extremely basic things daily. You have to actively build proccesses to avoid this. Expertise is not enough!
If you check, you will find it is incredibly rare for health and fitness books and articles to define "health", "fitness" or "exercise". Body by Science[0][1] gets right to it on pages 2 and 3 to define all three:

Health: A physiological state in which there is an absence of disease or pathology and that maintains the necessary biologic balance between the catabolic and anabolic states.

Fitness: The bodily state of being physiologically capable of handling challenges that exist above a resting threshold of activity.

Exercise: A specific activity that stimulates a positive physiological adaptation that serves to enhance fitness and health and does not undermine the latter in the process of enhancing the former.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Body-Science-Research-Strength-Traini...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU
The ridiculousness of what you’re saying becomes readily apparent if you substitute cars for children. For instance: cars are more expensive for rich people, because a top of the line Mercedes costs $100k, rather than $15k for a used Toyota. No, cars (and children) cost the same for everybody. Some people choose to spend more because they have convinced themselves that anything less simply would not do.
Can you elaborate on what you do when inheritance feels quite natural? A classic example would be to allow a plugin. For that natural thing to do would be to define base abstract class with bunch of overridables, utility methods and pure virtual interface methods. I can imagine it doing without OOP but it doesn’t seem as clean or natural.
I've seen very few peers feel this way occassionally, and it's insane to me. If you can't find a way to get value from 30m with your manager, there's something obstinate about you, not wise.
People with less prospects are more impulsive because they have less of a future to worry about putting in jeopardy.
I'm surprised to see lots of comments with managers meeting their direct reports for 30 minutes per week...assuming 10 reports, thats 5 hours a week... Or basically 1 hour per day just to talk about someone's career.

My manager blocks off 2 hours per week. If you have something to talk about, put a meeting on his calendar. The only obligation is the semi annual 1:1.

I talk to my manager on a daily basis so any 1:1 is really for career path, no project status, gripes about people, etc.
According to the article itself, it either may or may not. So why say anything about it?