skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Perhaps one way of thinking about FAANG pay level is where the money is coming from. FAANG can pay engineers a lot because they make a lot of money (in a very indirect way, it's like what people always said about "If I make my company a million dollars, I should get a portion of that", just very diluted through many layers). FAANG makes a lot of money because they're huge companies that make money from the entire world. This is unlike most startups and smaller/mid-size tech companies in the US (where FAANG originated). In a way, they're companies who've globalized successfully. The money that they pay engineers, come from money they made from other people all around the world. (maybe citation needed -- I didn't do any research on this claim, don't know % of money a Google/etc would make from the world vs from the US.)

When you think about it this way, FAANG pay isn't truly a bubble, it's more of an effect of their globalization. In that sense, I don't think they would "pop" per se on a timer (although they may eventually pop if their business falls over for one reason or another, like how AOL/Yahoo/Pets.com etc. did back in the 2000).

It's also a little bit unsettling that when thinking about it this way, it's somewhat of a transfer of wealth from people across the world, to a small set of people in Silicon Valley. True, the companies are providing something of value to the world, so maybe it's not so much a transfer, but the end result is still that money was collected from people in other countries, and paid to SV engineers/employees.

Again note that I may be completely wrong in my framework of thinking. Just something I thought up while reading the article, no reference or research on any of the claims.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel going to OU impacted your professional career compared to going to a more traditional university?
I’m in this phase right now where I’m trying to cut off my mother, for the same reasons you listed.

The thing that kills me is she knows she’s hurting me and tries to change. She can make the changes for a few weeks but then reverts back to her “normal” self. It’s like watching an addict relapse, it’s so goddamn hard. I know there’s a human in there who loves me, but goddamn it, the demon who wants clean floors always wins.
The only filter I had was HN, and if I cared about it, those were all surprise usages, as I wasn’t paying attention to the domain. I clicked a link with no intention of using my economist.com credit, but whoops, there it went. I’m certainly not interested in having the same mistake cost me something. (No one said I cared about chickens enough to pay for this insight, and at the very least, when I got blocked from this article, I didn’t care enough to pay for it; my free tier rating attempted to though, and I would have accidentally paid if I had been subscribed).

If I wasn’t going through a content-aggregator, then the only filter I’d have is the title, which is just incentivizing clickbait, and the same issue arises.

As for the threshold question, it depends on trust. I have no issue shelling out cash for (older) nautilus, though content-wise it got me nothing, simply because I had trust that future issues would be (just as) decent, and the print format was nicer.

Same with LWN; it offers me little content-wise (just wait a week, and you’ll get the same thing free), but they’re consistently decent, so I’m fine with ponying up for the week ahead of time.

But economist, nytimes, fox, quartz, etc are much less consistent, and a random selection of 12 articles, or a monthly collection, and you’ll probably get a good deal of trash in there. The good articles are probably better than LWN, but the bad ones are worse, and I have no trust that I’ll get much, if any, value from subscribing.

I shouldn’t have to go to HN for article curation (at least in terms of quality, ideally it should just be subject); I want to pay economist to curate for me, and they’re not doing it. Or rather, they’re doing a poor job of it, and I don’t want to pay up for a poor job done.

A newspaper has two jobs:

1. Put out the news

2. Curate the news and writers

Afaik, they’re generally only managing the first one. On the latter, its a crapshoot.

Not being much of a gambler, I don’t have much interest putting actual money into that crapshoot.
Microservices after Two Years
Red Hat Ansible vs. GitLab
Pay is about the intersection of supply and demand, which is influenced by but not purely a function of the value created by the work. Insane work hours props up wages by decreasing supply since lots of people don't want to work 90 hours a week.
While I will absolutely concede that being born a middle-class white Caucasian male in the US is an objectively advantageous and generally privileged situation to be born in to...

You're going to lose me at the notion that I'm somehow exercising "white privilege" by consuming/offering alcohol at/around/near work functions or venues.

If the author is already making the reader concede an implicit agreement that there is an "inclusion/diversity" problem, then I'd argue the problem exists at a deeper, more fundamental level.

This reeks of selection bias and circular reasoning when you say that things that occur in a non-diverse environment are immediately perfect examples of non-diversity because "look at this non-diverse group of people partaking in $thing".

I'm even fine with saying it's non-inclusive, except that has to cut across all demographics, including white males. There are plenty of white males employed in tech who find the idea of socializing/drinking with co-workers absolutely contrary to what they feel is fun or engaging.

As a thought experiment: let's say all tech companies, from startup to FAANG, as of today, went completely "dry" for any and all work-hosted functions, as well the same policy for all corporate offices/locations.

Would diversity get any better? And if not, how can you say it was making it worse?
This predates the formulation of the cap theorem by ~15 years, so I doubt it contains everything relevant to a modern distributed database.
> EU/USA should enforce a common, secure method for sending text messages to mobiles.

No way do we want any regulation here! I will accept balkanization of messaging apps for the lack of government interference here. If a government messaging standard is introduced, it will absolutely be designed to consider lawful intercepts like US CALEA. It would be a key escrow system upon inception.

EDIT: downvoters, join the debate. Do you feel differently? If so, why?
"Maybe with how important software is becoming in the economy this is the new normal"

It is definitely the new normal.
> Before I begin, I want to say that I’ve spent around 10 years curating this opinion.

I don't know what to make of this. Did it require 10 years to write this article? Or is it just "I know what I'm talking about, I've spent 10 years having this opinion"?
`rcvr` is clearly Resistor Capacitor Viewer. Duh. And clearly `rec` is Recovery.

The Story of Bunny Showers:

I worked on a code base where we had, in one class, seemingly endless variations on the spelling of "business hours". There were variables named `bsns_hrs`, `business_hours`, ` business_hrs`. Furthermore, in the object's (horrible, messy, overlarge, mutable as fsck) internal state, there were elements labeled with `busnessHours`, `bsnsHours`, 'business-hours`, 'bnshrs`. And so on.

My habbit when reading code like this is to map each spelling to a phonetically similar word or phrase. So `business_hrs` becomes "business hers" and `bnshrs` becomes "bunny showers". And so forth. It makes it easier to rationalize about what is happening, especially if, like me, you move your lips when you read.

I have ever since called this issue of inconsistent spelling in code the "bunny showers" problem, owing both to the well-known fecundity of rabbits and the hellish proliferation of inconsistent names in that fabled codebase.
Barrelfish is a new research operating system being built from scratch
I luckily never got my account suspended, but I've certainly done some minor violations of the TOS here and there (e.g. in college I downloaded a few copyrighted books and stored them in my Drive for my strictly personal consumption, and I'm sure those files could be fingerprinted and detected by Google, ...).

From what I've heard, when it happens it's not quite easy to regain access, in the best case it takes many days, and the frustrating thing is that there's no support to which you can appeal to, you're mostly left to yourself (e.g. Google employees connections, twitter noise, ...).

I find it silly that my electronic identity would be held hostage in such cases, so with an external domain I can flip a switch and keep receiving my email somewhere else.
This post doesn't present any evidence that drinking is more of a problem for the tech industry than any other industry. Purely anecdotally it seems to me that the service industry (restaurants and bars), medicine, journalism, law and aviation are all worse.

I don't drink myself and haven't found it to be a problem (although I did drink in the past).
Microkernel-based operating systems
Everything you ever needed to know about the Chicago common brick
I don't think this one happened:

2019: "The computational capacity of a $4,000 computing device (in 1999 dollars) is approximately equal to the computational capability of the human brain (20 quadrillion calculations per second)."
We need to bring back abductive/retroductive inference (to the best explanation) as if it were its own mode of reasoning to complement deduction and induction. This is how scientific discoveries are often made IMHO but often chalked up to some kind of intuition. There is actually a logical structure even though is is hard to formalize and prove.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

I am working on dialog management stuff as an engineer who sits between data scientists, NLP, and product people. It is understandable that trained stats people see everything as a stats problem (induction), but we forgot about GOFAI & symbolic AI (deductive) systems along the way.

Philosophy has actually been ahead of the curve on this one for over 140 years. Maybe the "3rd wave" of AI will be to synthesize.

https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/AIFull.pdf

I personally have not had a chance to read Norvig or dive into LISP or Prolog much, but am using CLIPS expert system in a project and have toyed with core.logic in Clojure back in the day. Lots of opportunity to resurrect some of these older methods that may be superior to imperative/bespoke code given modern hardware and infrastructure.
Yeah the data contradict your assertions about career choices. I don't want "I definitely see"s. Data is not the plural of anecdote.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/does-gender-equality-...

EDIT: To be clear, I wish you were right. I want you to be right. But you're just not, and it's slightly tragic, but mostly the data should cause us to reorient ourselves around how we interpret the data, because the social constructionists' theories are just wrong.
Can you generate an affiliate link where the affiliate fee is directed to a non-profit?
That's because surpassing human general intelligence in any non-negligible amount is dangerous to humans.
The problem is that people want to dictate publisher's business models.

> they’ll put out a single decent article a month, and you’re currently required to subscribe to everything to read it.

> But you can’t make an informed payment.

It sounds like you are informed about this publisher, but simply don't think it's worth it to subscribe to them. That's fair, but it's not a valid reason to infringe on intellectual property rights.

I fail to see how allowing readers five or so free articles a month fails to give you a proper way to evaluate whether a subscription is worth it.
The writer needs to be exposed to more varieties of tech companies. I've worked at quite a few tech companies and never had any pressure to drink. And even at those few social events, I just ask for a soda or virgin cocktail and nobody made a fuss.
Surrounding towns of LA, like Pasadena, have nice walkable inner cores, though maybe you'll have to bike commute to work. Also, I found the LA transit system remarkably pleasant and useful, despite its reputation.

Seattle is walkable enough for me. It's not a binary variable.
> There must be a "clear affirmative act" by the user

... according to GDPR.

My point is that GDPR is bad (for internet users) at the very core (intent) of GDPR legislation.

I claim that it is bad for internet users to force them to make cookies decisions for every website that wants to use cookies.
After I completed Techstars in 2013, they asked all of us for feedback. My #1 piece of feedback to Techstars was to please stop with alcohol at every event. I had several reasons, most of which aren't really touched on here, but are nonetheless important:

1) I can't hear a damn thing or talk at a normal level to investors or mentors in a bar that is playing loud dance music. (Techstars often held events at local bars.) It is uncomfortable to sit in a barstool and literally yell about your business to someone. I can't imagine this is a gender thing. Most of us, especially introverts, wouldn't be comfortable in that situation.

2) Many people see bars as hookups or pickup spots. The environment is geared toward that. I was in a committed relationship at the time and I'm now married (I'm a woman.) I don't want hookups; I'm there to meet investors or mentors.

3) As in above, even at the office, alcohol blurs boundaries and encourages people to do things they otherwise wouldn't (like yell uncomfortable jokes or hit on other people.) It's not a good look for those of us who are there to work.

4) If you don't like alcohol or don't drink, you miss out on the opportunities to "meet and mingle." I can remember many events I declined because they were alcohol-focused (wine tastings, for instance.) I strongly feel I missed out on potential connections to investors and mentors because of this. I now go more often to these types of events because I feel they further my business, but I wish I didn't have to.

I am not as concerned with statistics as I am with alienation. It's not just women or minorities; I've met plenty of straight, white males who don't like drinking either, or feel pressure to drink more than they otherwise would thanks to these events. Removing alcohol from these events does us all good.
Navigate a forest floor looking for food and avoid predators.
It's simply meant to prepare the reader that I've put a lot of thought into this, and that I have a pretty strong opinion.

If I reflect upon this, it's perhaps to prepare the reader for the idea that it's going to take a very strong counter-argument for me to change my beliefs on this matter.
Salary is restricted to pay band, but RSUs are not, at least not at my company anyway. I've heard of some pretty insane RSU grants well beyond what would be typical for a given pay band (absent negotiation).
I'm on O2 too and it's garbage. I can't wait till my contract is up to switch. I often have full signal but nothing will load, whilst mates on Three or EE are fine. When it does work, it's so slow. And it's not a local thing either, it's everywhere I go.
Aside from type annotations, TS only has one superset feature (decorators). It's already behind a flag.
I can only speak for myself, but I would've used the train if it hadn't been just as expensive and less convenient than the car 3 yrs ago. Now I'm living in biking distance from work and sold my car entirely.

This is coming from Germany though, so ymmv
The problem is the "our industry" problem vs "workplaces that include alcohol" problem.

The latter can exist without the former.
Yeah maybe. How do you define "win" in terms of general intelligence? Outsmart all top human experts at their field?
Every Startup Needs a Mascot
Bias is an inevitable problem but a fixable one. There are also tradeoffs to the way bias works in computers vs humans. If you can successfully point out bias to a computer it will be happy to adjust accordingly, whereas human bias is notoriously stubborn and some humans will even deliberately or covertly embrace their biases despite being aware of them.

> the fact remains that the software did which shows that it inherits human frailties and limitations. It doesn't surpass them.

Well sure, some of them, but it's not as if there aren't other areas where the computer is already superior, e.g. no intoxicated driving, tired driving, road rage, racing or otherwise diving at dangerous speeds, high speed/risky lane merging, driving while eating or applying makeup, texting or watching youtube or fiddling with a GPS or having your kid cry out in the back seat etc etc. So there are a lot of improvements there. Of course, I don't think those systems are anywhere near human-like intelligence, but the current flaws are not a demonstration that these problems cannot be overcome.
My parents were both in the counseling field. Very few people are beyond redemption. While I fully support this in extreme circumstances, more often than not, from what I've seen, estrangements are more about mental health issues with the person who is cutting things off than the person accused of being toxic. The family was for a long time the safety net for people, now we have put that faith in the government... Out of the two I trust my family more than I trust a bureaucrat that has no loyalty to me.

The other issue is that as our parents and relatives get older their mental condition declines. Some of the extreme views and "toxic" behavior that older people can have stems from that. So instead of having some patience and gratitude for what they've done for us we are now taught to cut them off? I guess them raising us as children, changing our diapers, making sacrifices for us etc. doesn't count for any kind of paying it forward because..... me, me, me, me, me.
GNU Linux-Libre, Free as in Freedo
Rise of the planetary labour market and what it means for the future of work
Exceptionally tough concept for many to understand, but I became estranged from my father and step mother during the final six months and two years of life respectively. In my case, it was in direct response to ultimatums given in an attempt to get both of them into recovery / rehab for alcohol abuse.

It’s an exceptionally difficult decision for any person to make; however, it’s often a necessary decision to protect yourself and your family (my wife in my case). It’s unfair to your spouse, as an example, to put them through significant emotional abuse and derision.

In my case, the “how will you feel if they die” example wasn’t a consideration. The parents I had growing up were not the same ones that had been ravaged by alcohol. Those people had long since died, and i had already had to go through that grief process. For people who make the decision to cut ties, they’ve potentially already dealt with the same grief as a death, just without the person actually “dieing”. Hard to comprehend, but that was my experience.
The New York Times is no longer a premier news source.
Yeah but even at that point faang (or well at that point apple, Ms, google, Netflix didn't exist and Facebook broke the cartel) compensation was significantly more than people in Europe were making.
What kind of daily security setup can protect against 5 gunmen with AK47s?
I don’t know why someone submitted it, but we’re reading it because your “in progress” is ambiguous between “writeup/literature summary in progress” and “experiment in progress”. The first is potentially worth reading, the second is likely not.
The difference is we knew what flight was and had an easily visible and verifiable goal that was obvious to all when it was achieved. What is intelligence? How do you measure it? How will we know once we have created? We haven't even defined the problem yet, how can we know when we have achieved it?
The AI singularity, while the assumption is often that it will be smarter "per entity" does not really require individual AI entities to get smarter than a human, as long as we assume that human level intelligence continues to scale if you speed them up and increase the number of entities working together. In that case we could still get the singularity "just" by getting to a level where an AI can optimize its performance and resource use so that it eventually beats us on sheer number of "human-brain-second-equivalents" dedicated to improvement at any moment.
> Each of us has undergone an $age-year period of training, 18 years of which was on someone else's effort and time. I doubt someone is willing to put in that much personal investment to raise a neural net like his/her own child.

Unlike humans, software is reproducable and doesn't expire. So even if such a software took 18 years to develop, it is still a worthwhile endeavor since it has the potential to be used by countless people well into the future. Furthermore it is not necessary that it is developed by just one person, nor is it necessary that it is developed at the same speed that humans develop. The creation of such a software could take 100 years and it would still be worthwhile.
Humans reduced their numbers, but human pollution is what wiped them out.
> On my first computer, you had to read a 100-page user manual and learn exactly what commands to type.

Flipside: I can still write software for my first computer without looking anything up, over 30 years after reading those 100 pages. I still know the memory layout, opcodes, assembly etc by heart and it is still the best way today to program that particular computer (which still works in my man cave) today. Yes, today it is all simpler, but the 100 page example I find a plus, not a negative. Maybe you were referring to something but my 100+ page manual was usage and at the same time programming (using was programming beyond the basics) as that was the only way to use the system.