skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a very meta response, but the best skill I've ever learned is how to learn. Barbara Oakley's Learning How To Learn class [0] was immensely helpful for understanding how brains work and how I could learn efficiently.

I made it through college with a combination of cramming and bad sleep habits, but focusing on spaced repetition, the diffuse/active modes, and sleep has made classes I've taken since feel like easy mode.

[0]: https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn
Absolutely. That’s the “perhaps 3” part of the above. Avalanche is really interesting. Can’t wait to see Ava.
I'm going to butcher a lot of the physics here, but here's the gist of it that should avoid some quantum myths:

The quantum state of a system is not described by a simple real probability but by a complex number. This means that there is an additional degree of freedom that you can adjust in a quantum state that doesn't change its probability of occurring. The nature of entanglement means that there is constructive and destructive interference when you go through certain quantum operations.

Traditionally, a quantum word can be thought of as being a probability distribution over the various possible values of the word. You can build quantum gates that act like classical gates on the binary values, and it's this property that often causes people to describe a quantum computer as executing every possibility in parallel. The difficulty is that the result you get is sampled by the probability distribution, which means you need some sort of interference between the results to allow you to boost the probability of picking the answer you want. A quantum speedup is only possible when you can find the interference. In the case of Shor's algorithm (for factoring), the interference is basically a quantum variant on FFT; in the case of Grover's algorithm (finding x such that f(x) = y), the interference is something that redistributes the probabilities among a plane of the sphere.
At any one time there are usually <10k airplanes in the sky,and they still hit each other sometimes despite going 23x slower than satellites
The “C” in CSS: a tutorial about the cascade
By playing around with the app, I can totally see that this supersedes Google Sheets and Apps Script by a long way. Yes, the UI layer and the API accesses. In the backend, I feel a lot of interesting things are going around - their relational engine natively supports collaboration, type support, revision history. All your mini blocks can be packaged into one big "base" which forms your workspace.

All of this can be done ... without writing a single line of code, which is impressive!
Care to expand on this about what happened?
Even so, 5% is a lot for one game.

Even if you use the hard drive for only games, if all of the games you wanted to install were that size, you'd be limited to 20 games. On a 1TB hard drive.
Yeah...I doubt that. Especially people attending hackathons. Underlying modern hackathon culture is a serious amount of careerism and showmanship. Most of the kids at hackathons would sacrifice a lot more than morals to get a job at Facebook.
How would PXE boot work on the 3+? It doesn't have Ethernet.
By your argument there can't be a free market in food, you need that even more than you need health care.

Yet somehow in the US there is a market in food. And it is gigantic with way more options than most other places.
Bleh - the router example was bad. Sorry I didn't think that one through too much. I did an update though.

You're right on the signal degradation being significantly lower. But the LEO aspect means that there might be a higher percent of total loss due to rain (and probably adjacent signal interference).

Either way it's a cool problem.
Please be specific. What exactly can and should be done? Clearing brush is labor intensive and expensive. Who will pay for it? Controlled burns are difficult to manage in many parts of the state; there are often no fire breaks so a slight shift in the wind can quickly turn controlled into uncontrolled.
we are engaging fine, it's ok. i removed the harsher wording that was admittedly knee-jerk, although "bs virtue signaling" is still a bit rough around the edges
<10K isn't the problem. It's when that 10K becomes much, much larger because of an unforeseen collision with an unrelated spacecraft/piece of space junk. It only takes one big collision to utterly litter that particular orbit, and thousands of slightly different orbits caused by the new trajectories of the various bits of the original spacecraft.
Counter intuitive, like the "put the armor where the bullet holes aren't" story about WWII bombers.
> It’s a bit like blaming the scientists of the Manhattan Project for dropping the atomic bomb.

I'm the last one to defend Facebook here but I don't see how designing an atomic bomb is comparable to working for Facebook, regardless of what you think about the morality of each.
What a fucking man-baby.

One thing I have always hated in places I’ve worked is any culture of “competitor hating”. You probably know exactly the sort of thing I mean - the pervasive message that your company is better, and your products are better because your team is better and the competitors are all shitty and only idiots would use them, and if you could only get customers to understand how much better your product was then you’d have the whole market, and…

It results in this toxic mindset where people, teams and companies begin to believe their own hubris. Sometimes, our competitors are better than us. Sometimes that advantage is fairly achieved; sometimes it isn’t. But it’s always seemed to me that it’s more effective to have a relatively neutral and objective view of the market and competitors - realising that sometimes you can learn valuable things from them.

I’m sure it’s mostly a disease that affects smaller teams, but larger companies are not immune.
But Steve Jobs himself didn't do any of the engineering or design either, so...isn't he a people manager himself? And didn't he bring success to his company?
Related, humor, by The Onion

Facebook Employees Explain Struggling To Care About Company's Unethical Practices When Gig So Cushy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiBc1vkTig
As well, large companies may see a product opening in the market, but because they make so much money, a $100m revenue product may not even be in their interest due to time/money ratio. It's somewhat like me and you doing some jobs that pay substantially less than what we think our per hour dollar amount of effort is.
Yeah, if the compiler hoists both loads to before the check that would be a problem. But that's not really anything tied to the architecture, you could have the same problem with the prelude of an unrolled loop on a conventional machine.
Java applets for browsers and Javacards have nothing in common except the name and the language.
Allowing 19-year-old kids to have their name and photo published in the newspaper of record in an article that quotes their snarky comments about how they're not sure if they'd deign to work for any given company is journalistic malpractice.

I don't blame the kids. They're young and naturally earnest, and are marinating in an environment where performative wokeness results in positive social reinforcement. They don't know any better.
> Will FB be chock full of juniors with an ever depleting number of seniors?

Only if everyone that has an opportunity to work there shares your moral compass. This industry is really good at marketing, and not just to customers but employees too.

I mean, look at how popular facebook still is among the public even after all of these scandals. There doesn't appear to be any serious attempt by the shareholders to demand change, and Zuck always seems to escape responsibility. I don't remember the exact number, but someone posted data on HN showing that a high percentage of current employees at FB (far more than 50%) see the company as still providing a net positive impact on the world.
The core argument here, concerning the number of variables that need to be manipulated, isn't very clear to me - I can't tell if that's because it's an unclear argument in general, or if the author tried to simplify it for laypeople to the extent that it became unconvincingly vague for people who know a thing or two about the subject area. Given the status of the author, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (and also assume that some clarity was lost in translation).

Here's an easier-to-follow argument I've heard before (also simplified for laypeople) that might be close enough to the one the author intends to make to be useful:

Quantum algorithms are supposed to be much more efficient than conventional algorithms at certain kinds of tasks. That efficiency is calculated with the assumption that each system starts in a state where it's prepared to execute the algorithm. For conventional computers, that makes sense for a number of reasons (e.g. data/program input is linear). For quantum computers, this assumption doesn't necessarily make sense because it takes a significant amount of work (in terms of measurements, etc.) to get the system (the machinery and physical representation of the initial data) into the right quantum state. In fact, the amount of work required scales horribly with the size of the input (in terms of qubits). If you think of those state preparation steps as part of the cost of the algorithm, the quantum algorithms won't, in general, outperform the classical ones.

I've been out of the quantum computation loop for nearly a decade, so I have no idea whether that's a fair way of presenting the problem, but hopefully it helps someone understand the claims being made in the article.
While I trust FB has very good work perks. I will not be inclined to work there.

It comes down to what do you value in life.

Do you wanna literally help promote fascism and misinformation?
Go work at FB and moonshine at Monsanto on your free time.
They have different company culture for now but at the end of the day, the business practice dictates direction and I don't think there's anything fundamentally different with Lyft.

Their rides are both VC subsidized and unsustainable. They both punish customer loyalty. My wife and I rotate hiring rideshares. If one of us books too many, one person's fare becomes much costlier than the other. They're both godsends when initially disrupting markets (our Egyptian Uber driver definitely took a lot of personal risks engaging in shouting matches against street touts who were throwing themselves at the car and ready to drag us out so we spend our money at their shops) but once they reach semi-duopoly status in mature markets like the Bay Area, more and more crappy things happen. Things like drivers canceling you after 10 minutes or people using GPS spoofers to pick up rides while not even in the same county. And you clearly see both companies, over the years, trying to hide ways to get problems resolved behind more and more layers of circular forms labyrinths.

I've been taking more traditional taxies to keep the balance of power competitive (and because it's sometimes less frustrating).
10 Social Media Marketing Mistakes Financial Advisors Make and How to Avoid Them
How is this permitted into or out of the U.S. under AML regulations? Remitr doesn't appear to be registered with the Treasury as an MSB.
The article is confusing, and the rule doesn't actually have anything to do with the odds of never finding an error. This rule lets you calculate a likely ceiling on the probability of there being an error on the next page, assuming you make some assumptions that nothing tricky is going on.

So after reading 20 pages with no errors and having no other information the odds of finding an error on the next page are no more than 1/60. If you have 19,800 more pages left you'd expect to find no more than about 330 errors.
What It Takes to Get Certified to Review Code at Google
To be fair, a lot of that is because of the fact that planes follow paths that are designed to keep collisions from happening, but aren't always adhered to.
But note that log and exp are inverses of each other, and it's applied to opposite sides of the equation. In particular, this:

1 - exp(-3) ≈ 0.95

Can be rewritten as:

-3 ≈ log(1 - 0.95)
If you get a UPS, make sure you test it at least once per month or so.

I discovered that my 2 year old UPS failed when the power went out and I got a mere 3 seconds of power to my computer. If it had been being used for what is effectively life support, I'd be dead.
goodbye, great firewall of china...
Didn't Bethesda stop using Gamebryo a long time ago?
This is cool.

The given example of typos on page kind of highlights the fact that more sophisticated math involving a prior might give better results in some cases.

The beta(1, N+1) prior is an assumption that you start with the a priori knowledge that a typo rate of 1% and a typo rate of 99% are equally as likely as each other.

Most people would assume that books don't have typos on most pages and a 99% typo rate is unlikely.

However as your sample gets bigger the prior matters less and less so this rule is still useful.

Just know that it is reasonable to bias the results a bit according to your prior when N is small.
I have to wonder how many of the top 50 or so tech companies have really sterling reputations for warm-hearted goodness. Powerful organizations usually end up stepping on somebody's toes either in getting to the top or staying there.

And really, where else are you going to work if you are a developer and want to make money? One of the big banks? Plenty of dirt there. A defence contractor? Ditto.
The rule of three gives an upper bound estimate that each page has a 3/200 or 1.5% chance of having a typo. For the 20,000 page book, the probability of typo per page is still 1.5%, but you have to roll the dice 19,800 more times, each time you turn a new page. The formula for the upper bound on probability of getting through all the remaining pages without a typo is

1 - (1-3/200)^19800

Which of course is basically 1. The lower bound is 0, the upper bound is almost 1, so the confidence interval is [0, 1). Basically, no information at all. So its much to early to conclude that you're not going to find any typos in the entire book.

The best way to state your conclusions is to say "after sampling 200 pages at random, we are 95% confident that the true typo-per-page rate is in the interval 0% - 1.5% or equivalently the total number of typos in the 20,000 page book is between 0 and 300."
I have concerns about Facebook just like everyone else, but I'd also like to point out that the New York Times is not repeatedly publishing articles criticizing FB simply because of their superior moral stance. They are doing it because FB took away a lot of revenue from publishers like them, and they are very, very angry about it.
My theory is that pay and working conditions at Facebook are as good as they are precisely because of people feeling like this. They are having to pay a premium to attract engineers as a result of the moral opposition.
Not to offend. Just compare the AT growth. In SV the growth is what valued, with revenue and profit being the distant 2nd and 42nd.
I hadn't been thinking of the JIT frontend. It's fair to call that part of the architecture and yeah, I can see how it could be vulnerable to Spectre.
"And we’ve long encouraged our employees and executives to use Android because it is the most popular operating system in the world."

Take away is that FB only suggests popular things...
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic about WebP being brand new - the format's been around for 8 years now.
I just looked at these watches, great choices. Watches for someone who knows about watches.
conventional wisdom is to filter unwanted newsletters and never click the unsubscribe links. Clicking those links confirms that your email address is valid and being monitored which can make it more valuable when the company shares and sells your email address to others. Also attackers can forge newsletters from respectable companies or just made up something new entirely and the unsubscribe links can be used to send you to malicious sites that can open the door to malware infections and phishing. When someone sends you trash, you should assume it is toxic and avoid interacting with it as much as possible.
But if the price you have to pay to get somebody to do the job, it would be true that no american wants that job, as the job wouldn't exist unless it cost less to hire somebody to do the job than it is worth to the one who pays.
What should the age limit be for publishing snarky comments?
Not once you find the right mask and get used to the constant pressure. It is truly life changing in terms of energy level and your own health. I switched from a full face mask, which leaked air to nasal pillows (resmed P10) and I am happy.
Unsigned types don't overflow; they reduce modulo a power of two. This is a predictable, reproducible behavior (albeit, unfortunately, not entirely portable due to the size of that power of two often being implementation-defined).

> Using signed arithmetic means that you can actually trap on overflow and catch these bugs (using fuzzing for instance).

The reason you can't do this for unsigned types is not simply that their modulo-reducing behavior is well-defined, but that it is actually exploited in correct code, which then leads to false positives if the behavior is trapped.

But the overflow behavior of signed types is also exploited.

Either one could be usefully caught with tools, if the tools can simply be told where in the program to ignore false positives. If I'm using unsigned types in foo.c, with no intention of relying on the modulo wrapping, I should be able to tell the tool to report all unsigned wrapping occurrences in just foo.c without caring what is done with unsigned types elsewhere in the program or its dependent libraries.

All that said, I believe unsigned types should be eschewed as much as possible because thy have an unacceptable discontinuity right to the left of zero. Suppose A, B and C are small positive integers close to zero, say all less than a hundred or so. Then given

A + B > C

and knowing elementary school algebra, I can rewrite that as:

A > B - C

But I can do that in the actual code only if the type is signed. I cannot do that if it is unsigned, because C might be greater than B, and produce some huge number. This happens even though I'm working with harmless little numbers less than around a hundred.

We should prefer to work with integers that obey basic algebraic laws, at least when their magnitudes are small, so that we don't have to think about "is that test phrased in the right way, or do we have a bug here?"

In any higher level language than C, we should have multi-precision integers. I no longer consider any non-C language viable if it doesn't. If I'm reading the manual for some new supposedly high level language and come across a statement like "integers are 64 bits wide in Fart, but a clumsy library called Burp provides bolted-on bignums", I stop reading, hit the back button and don't come back.
Ranked-choice voting decides Maine's 2nd district congressional race
World Philosophy Day: 70 Philosophy Books Everyone Should Read
I would be surprised if they launch many of the satellites on customer launches. They have some very specific orbits, and are planning on dropping the satellites off in orbits much lower than where they will actually be operating. It would probably be more fuel efficient to drop off a bunch of them in the right inclination all at once, then boost them up into spaced out orbits.
One wonders who would be the likely acquirer-suitor. Microsoft?
Raw NAND is highly preferable to SD or USB drives. You can at least have wear leveling in the OS/FS. SD/USB are bad because most have dumb controllers and just rewrite a page when it changes. Raw NAND is also consistent and meets datasheet specs, whereas SD you never know what you are getting.
Agree 100% - if you as an individual decide you're clearly a "Plant" and so don't need to take care of details, that's bad. Or if you decide you're an "Implementer" and will never do well in a more creative, explorer style role, that's also bad.

I think the Belbin stuff's explicitly designed for managers though: if you have a team of "Implementers" and you know the concepts here, you might go out of your way to blend in a "Plant" to open the team's ideas up.

Much as an extravert might bring a nice element to a team of introverts. Although that could also backfire terribly depending on the personalities.

Obviously all of this has the same limitations and caveats as any other kind of pigeon-holing excercise but I think it's a worthwhile "stretch goal" when it comes to hiring, e.g. I need an accomplished JavaScript person and as a bonus let's look for one that complements and rounds of our current team.

Also agree that team members who can grind away without fuss or drama and finish things are just generally worth their weight in gold. More of those please!
It's very similar to when you hear people say "I love my job but they don't pay a living wage!"

It's because you love your job, you have to pay for that.
Sec-Metadata
If your employees are managers, then it's (sometimes) okay to have no domain experience in whatever it is your company does, because the people you're managing aren't doing that thing. You only have to understand how those people think, and those people think—at least part of the time—like managers.

The job of the team leads—those managers whose only subordinates are domain-worker leaf-nodes—to act as a translation layer between your thought process and their subordinate domain-workers' thought process. They need the experience. (And they're the only "managers" that most people on HN seem to think have any value, given HN's love of flat org-charts like those of Valve and old-Google.)

But to be clear, while "EQ is a thing", for team leads, it's not enough. And in certain sectors (mostly industries where people are promoted into management roles by seniority), that continues to apply all the way up the org-chart, since in those organizations, the middle-managements will be ex-workers and will share the workers' views. So you, as a CEO, can't can't make any top-down decrees that conflict with those views.

For an example: any manager in a hospital, all the way up to the CEO, cannot get away with walking in off a stint at an F500 with no previous hospital experience, and succeed solely because they have high EQ. They need to also understand—deeply and intuitively—that their whole organization is run by people who think saving people's lives is more important than making a profit, and that any changes intended to increase profit at the expense of lives-saved-per-day will either be left unimplemented by the people on the ground, fought, or result in low morale and staff leaving. (Usually all three!)
It works in Firefox, I seem to recall it worked out of the box?
Honestly, if you're looking for a local (Windows) executable, those old 90s tools (VB, Delphi, Xojo [aka RealBasic], even C#) are still great! They're just as good as they were in the 90s; it's just that demand has moved to the web (or mobile).

If what you want is a 90s-shaped experience (installable desktop app), then the best of 90s-era dev tools still kick ass. (It's sad that open source stuff hasn't caught up, but that's mostly because everyone's been focused on...the web.)
There is a startup called... googling... Kymeta. That is creating shape changing satellites for cars, planes, and ships.

Encryption might be handled by default with the https nature of the web now. But it'll just make https even more important going forward. It would also leave a lot of meta data open to sniffing which I don't think people would want either.
OK, yes. This builds on the parts of my intuition that already exist. It's about building a system (from combinations of quantum operators) that maximizes the probability distribution of the result you want. I'm still unsure of the timeline of any quantum operator, and the "finding the interference" seems equivalent to saying something like "find the function" or something more classical.