skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, let's squeeze another drop of humanity out of conversing. Maybe it's because I'm a remote worker, but I don't mind the "hello" and "hey, are you available for a quick question?" stuff at all. I prefer it, I find it polite and collegial. I'm honestly surprised this bugs so many people. Maybe it's an indication that our working environments are asking too much out of us.
I look forward to people digging into the publication record of every Nobel Laureate next year on this site, arguing about which of them were real.
I love the point the author raised in this article. Companies are spending a ton of money on recruiting and paying commissions to recruiters. If some of that money and effort is channelized toward mentoring, a company can notice a significant change in quality in its workforce. That said, this article fails to address 2 major issues or provide any solutions for that:

1) Every decent size company spends for providing resources like books, learning portals etc. for their employee to grow their skills. There is an entire industry running which caters to provide companies learning tools, for example - safari online books etc. Mentoring is also used a buzzword in these companies. There is a difference between providing tools & books vs creating an environment where people can grow. Mentoring is very inter-personal. Unless companies create incentives for senior engineers to help mentor other engineers there won't be any real change to the way things are now.

2) If your teams or Orgs are always battling to meet the next deadline, how will mentorship happen? You can't expect people to put more than 40 hours of work and expect them to personally mentor other engineers(They still do btw).
A few things. I wouldn't say these if I didn't think you had the capacity to listen and learn.

1. Your tone is excessively combative for Hacker News. If you're put off by my saying that, ask yourself what a non-combative way to take that in and reflect on it would be. As a concrete example, you said "What makes women unable to have male role models, but men able to have female role models?", in a thread after the OP had already replied to you that she had/has men as role models. It implies either that you aren't listening, or that you're being antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. Neither is welcome here.

2. Using phrases like "toxic feminism" make you sound intellectually feeble. Try to be more specific and concrete about what you're addressing without using charged words like that. Unironically using the phrase "toxic feminism" instantly undermines any argument you might make. Again, if your point really is to learn from / share with others, find ways to communicate that don't put up walls.

3. If you're legitimately interested in finding out about why representation matters — and I sincerely hope you are — this is a good piece on it: https://medium.com/@uxdiogenes/just-a-brown-hand-313db35230c...
My feeling: amazon is great in applying ML in the back, e.g. warehouse replenishments, but not so great in the customer facing applications. Only my view from outside
> If certain vile people were still on YouTube, then they could be demolished by argument.

If arguments actually demolished positions, we'd see a lot fewer fools, and their adherents.

People broadcasting outright lies don't care about arguments. They care about exposure. When they are deplatformed, they quantitatively lose exposure.

They get moral outrage, but it's hard to turn moral outrage into viewers... Especially when your views are unsympathetic.
I was hoping for a Hellraiser-looking network of pins sticking into the skull, but they actually sew right into the brain-skull membrane!

Why exactly is this necessary? Does this fulfill an existing need or does it require a few decades of dystopia before reaching maturity?
A Slack bot could reply to solitary "Hello" messages with a link to this URL. Although that might come abrasive to some people.
You obviously don't know css very well or you would know the things you are saying are wrong
This is stupid. There’s a lot of reasons why one might want to establish that a person is there without providing more detail.

I deal with reasonably sensitive material all of the time. Spewing information without context to my laptop when I’m presenting something, for instance is a bad idea.
When time isn't of the essence, I prefer to use email for the same reason. With email it isn't expected to follow the face to face round trip greeting convention, but to greet and then get to the meat. And compared to any kind of chat there's a much lower expectation of immediate response so it's more conducive to a considered rather than an off-the-cuff response. But mostly, becaause it's a more considerate way to address people who depend on being in a flow state and how I prefer to be treated.

I prefer to keep chat questions to occasions when there is actual time sensitivity, or I already know that the recipient is not heads down or is currently chatty.
Synaptics announces shift to RISC-V processors
Just because there are dozens of other pieces of personal information that are collected by the powers that be and used to manipulate people doesn’t mean they all are justified.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/281731/chi...

China is the 'hidden empire'. u.s. is pretty out in the open, and losing the growth and maintanance of its empire viz-a-viz china in almost EVERY part of the globe except brazil, phillipines and a few other crucial locations. they are winning in australia, japan, korea, ITALY, pakistan, and are making inroads to dominate africa and south america.

funny the u.s. empire is not hidden for anyone looking for it.

Why? because the internet makes it very easy to track a not so well disguised extension of empire through small military bases, but moreso through economic expansion of debt instruments and global petro dollars. But you must look at where empire is going. it used to be based on controlling oil. Data and communications tech are the new oil. AFter banking and finance, the newest most important industry for the next few centuries is telecom/data.

google and facebook , amazon, microsoft and apple are all massively tied into the military system of information in the u.s.

however china doens't have the handcuffs on . It doesn't have to pretend to its own citizens that they are NOT part of the matrix, and thus their citizens are more eager to accept that this digital teletech toolset used to control them, should be used in the most aggressive manner to control those outside their 'country' in order to benefit those inside it, or at least the leadership. In essence, the chinese trust their authoritarian government to be authoritarian, and this is a massive cultural advantage with respect to the aggressive expansion of empire.

thus, the empire of telecommunications based economic-information is spreading globally and rapidly through the emerging markets especially where inexpensive high quality chinese phones and telecommunications infrastructure utterly dominates against western telecom providers.

it's not just cost, but the ease with which chinese will work with other countries. there are not foolish sets of federal western style bribery laws and contract documentation to follow. they ahve already laid down their hidden empire. it will rise over the next hundred years and the tipping point will be recognizeable when western signal intelligence agencies have zero clue what is going on with their puppet dictators because the chinese will have scooped them.
Incremental compilation was a big improvement over the status quo.

I don't follow compiler performance developments. I'm just responding to clarify that there has been performance improvements. They have likely just built up over time. I don't think there was any one specific change that dramatically improved things.
WikiLeaks publishes security files in case Assange got arrested
Or, for sensitive context, "hey, is this alert about to pop up on a projector in front of 50 people?"
Kudos to you. I have tried and failed miserably to learn emacs many times. The switch from vi seems to be really hard but I really like emacs and hope to become a pro user someday.
> All that said, I of course don't promote saying only hello and then waiting for a reply before proceeding. That's just silly.

Well, that's what the article is arguing against. No one is saying you shouldn't start your question with hello. You should just say, "Hello X, I was wondering..."
You're missing something very important. Imagine we are co-workers, and I come up to you and say "hello" and then stand there saying nothing further for an entire 60 seconds. While you stand there and wonder why I'm there and what I'd like to talk about. It would be weird and rude of me.

It is rightfully expected that one gets on with it and says what one has further to say, and in less than sixty seconds from the initial "hello".
No, it's just English. However "grounded" is an Americanism.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with here. The article doesn't advocate being rude, boorish, or robotic, and explicitly points out that if you want to keep up with social niceties, to prefix your question (in the same message), with something like "hi, if you have time for a question, i was wondering, [question]?"

That's perfectly polite and friendly, and also respects your colleague's time.
The linked article contains a hell of a lot of stuff showing men thinking about women in ways that women would not like to be thought about (en masse at least). I'm completely against political correctness, I think Codes of Conducts on Github are progressive nonsense, but I don't really think this is a pleasant thread to be on HN, and I don't think it contributes to a welcoming atmosphere on HN for women and other non-male genders.
How come this isn't a problem for Facebook? I could see some crazy political post right next to an ad, and nobody would say "oh well, the brand from that ad is now associated with <fringe political idea>".

I don't see how this is the case for YouTube, but not Facebook. Why are brands so concerned about association on one platform, yet not the other?
I use defaults, even default control key*

*I use a macbook pro, and my thumb is used to hitting CMD-X, CMD-C, CMD-V, s what has happened is that I hit control with my thumb instead of pinky - I curl the thumb in and below my palm.

But I still love default keybindings, and what is lovely, is that many of the navigation keys are system wide on MacOS: ctrl-a, ctrl-e, etc.

Then CMD-C and CMD-V actually also work on emacs, so I sometimes use those too (I use https://emacsformacosx.com)
$13B Lesson from Salesforce
YouTube algorithm under fire for boosting sexist conspiracy about Katie Bouman
This critique doesn't really make sense.

No matter how the person asks their question your flow is going to be interrupted the moment you open your chat apps. If the person says hello then asks a question a minute later your flow is broken. If the person asks the question right away now you're answering the question and your flow is, just as likely, broken.

As far as flow interruptions are concerned, it's not the fault of the person asking a question but rather the invasive design or reliance on chat, or your own patterns of chat consumption.

The real solution to this problem isn't to impose some kind of rule that people should stop spending an extra minute to be polite, but rather that we should all adopt conscious consumption patterns around chat, i.e. setting aside time each day when you focus strictly on work and ignore chats for x hours (your role permitting). Rather than letting the chat notifications dictate when you attend to them, you should dictate when you attend to chat notifications, and if it means breaking some important flow you have going the chat can probably wait.

Edit: I suppose the only exception to this is when the question is something that requires a one word answer and can be answered instantaneously, but if that's the case that's probably a sign you have larger communication problems in that things that are easily answerable are in the heads of workers and not stored in some uniformly accessible place.
For me personally it's a context switching issue, not a time issue -- It's more of a mental inconvenience to have nothing to switch to.

When someone grabs my attention to ask a question but leaves me idle for a moment, I'm left to wait. I don't get back to what I'm doing because I'll be pulled away from it shortly. The back and forth is very mentally taxing.

I'd love for it to be different but in my experience it's a physical limitation, just the way I am.
And here it is. You attack _her_ instead of the information she presents. (And then since people always say _something_ debatable, attack only that)

1) Is Dr. Suzanne Humphries a homeopath?

No she is not, yes she has training in it and yes she's removed it from her CV.

In this video she says "No, it [homeopathy] did not work"... summarizing her statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLrqmvjrIjI#t=2m30s

2) Retracted paper

A retracted paper (a pilot study at that) from a journal is not proof against the paper's results. It's only proof that the paper was retracted.

Also, it looks like (from your link) it was retracted because of a "twitter storm"... not a scientific basis.

3.) Her actual views summarized pretty well:

Consider her scientific perspective in the video below on the topic of vaccines. (only 20 minutes, it's worth 1 viewing, even if you disagree in advance)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC0Tbb3diI
Pretty clear case of domain squatting, as they do not posess the same org name and clearly did this out of spite. Clever, but not sophosticated. I can imagine they have a strong case with icann.
I mean, I regularly publish to youtube but I have explicitly avoided monetization of my account. I am not trying to get paid for my content, yet I know that I am at the mercy of youtube's algorithm. I want people to see my content and don't like the idea of a single group being in charge of how it is distributed. I am willing to use it for now, but I long for a decentralized replacement.
Bandcamp for sure. The radio/streaming landscape is extremely bleak for anything that isn't Top 40 material. Fortunately, Bandcamp has become the go-to community to upload stuff that's more indie feeling. As a result, it's the place to go now if you're looking for music off the beaten path. Bandcamp also has a weekly newsletter highlighting artists across many different genres, from African guitar music from the '60s, post-punk and alternative rock, minimal electronic, indie hiphop, you name it.
I hear you. In my twenties I was resistant to this idea also, that growth was the thing. I was mentored for a while by the founder of JD Edwards, and he drilled this idea into me -- if you're not growing, you're dead. I can only speak to my own experience -- I've started roughly 20 companies, and generated hundreds of millions of dollars of earnings and value, and I've lost quite a lot of money and made some terrible decisions along the way as well. I now mostly sit in the investor seat, but I have worn the founder hat many, many times, and I think to a first approximation he was precisely right.

I'll note our own pg says he doesn't really need to understand almost anything about a company, he just needs to eyeball their growth rate to know everything he needs to about a company. And, if you read through the public YC training materials, they hammer this point home, very, very hard for their founders. Weekly compounding growth.

To respond to some of your other questions, I don't really believe in retaining earnings for a company this size -- returns should be deployed somehow, and this deployment should be planned for -- they have certainly not found the end of the list of things they could do with money inside the company that beats some notional outside-the-company returns yet.

I don't know how you would propose to mitigate risk more effectively than growing aggressively, but I would be interested in your perspective -- rapid growth brings its own risks, yes. But it does a few things - it provides an incontrovertible early feedback loop on your continued ability to have product market fit - and it increases your power as you grow your network of stakeholders - and it increases your economic power in that network as you have greater revenue.

In general I'd rather be sitting in the seat of being the largest most influential company in a niche, and being able to acquire or squash competitors (or expand) than finding out I'm up against a deep pocketed competitor with a vastly larger customer portfolio, and if you're starting out organically from scratch the only way to get to that large/influential spot is to put the gas on very fast while you target a small niche, unless you have some extraordinarily special sauce that isn't replicable.

My experience is that generally people are better at thinking about risks from doing things -- risks from growing for instance, risks from taking on capital -- they aren't so good at thinking about risks from inaction -- from doing the same thing they do now.

Finally, I'd say most businesses are vulnerable to well funded competitors; usually though the business they're in isn't juicy enough to really get say the Goldman special situations group interested. You'd better believe if you have juicy at-scale real world returns available to your business then very intelligent very wealthy people are already thinking about how to carve up / acquire those returns.
Are you aware of the Links programming language / research project? It lets you write code in a uniform syntax that compiles down to a mixture of Javascript, server-side code, and SQL - all from the same source file, if you like. Client- and server-side Links code can call each other seamlessly; and it has a syntax for inline HTML fragments is strikingly similar to, and I suspect influenced, JSX.

Not quite the same thing as you describe, but it's exploring a similar part of the design space:

http://links-lang.org/
This advice functionally doesn’t work. They’ll just intentionally lowball the first offer and then say well they can’t read your mind so you need to tell them what you want.

A better strategy is to really research competitive wages and anchor high by honestly saying what you want. If they can’t come close, then walk away. If they ask you to compromise, tell them you’re not going to negotiate against yourself by stating any specific compromises, that you arrived at what you stated by considering what you’re worth, and that you’re happy to consider any kind of offer they would like to make, but that to accept an offer you have to believe it is competitive for the value you can add.

Any arguments about salaries at different cohorts of companies, or salary bands based on years of experience, just outright ignore and tell them if it’s a dealbreaker, you understand but aren’t going to compromise just because of their pay bands or random assertions about market analysis.
In general, if I have to do consecutive message in a Slack channel (not just direct messages), I try to use Shift+Enter to do a single multiline message so it only does one ping.
There's no way the "hello" should make a difference.

If you're getting so many questions that the removed "hellos" add up to an appreciable amount of time, the real problem is that you're getting too many questions.
To prevent spam (very successfully, so far), I have users fill in their email address instead of displaying mine on my website. They get an email like this:

From: lucb1e-$randomcode@example.com
Subject: Email address for lucb1e
Content: To contact me, just reply to this email!

People use this, but not a single person changed the subject from "Email address for $me" to the actual subject of the message. Not one.
The first example given seems incorrect. The author says that if you combine your greeting/request then you can get your answer sooner, but that's not calculated right. In the first interaction, the time user1 spends on writing out the problem is accounted for, but in the second interaction it's not. The "time savings" the author is referring to assumes that user1 can combine greeting/request without needing to combine the time it takes to write the request. That's ridiculous.
Except when say 18 years ago, you stayed with a handful of friends that year because the bottom dropped out of development jobs and you can't recall every address you might have used.
Except the fact that higher paid CEOs actually perform worse [0].

[0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
indeed. as a sociable software engineer who appreciates the art of conversation, i often have a hard time getting the hang of the mood on my dev team. greetings are generally eschewed, even of the brief-eye-contact-mini-nod variety when passing in the hall. always have to remind myself i'm not getting dissed - they're just shy!
Ask HN: Anyone Use a Standalone Flutter VM?
An independent Flutter VM binary could run Flutter on the desktop today, without waiting for the various "desktop embedding" platforms to mature. Given that the Flutter simulator already performs (very) well on the desktop (Windows in my case), such a VM could take Dart code and run it now, and without a compilation phase.

So:
1) Do you think this is a viable platform strategy to boot Flutter on the desktop?
2) Did someone get such a standalone Flutter VM working? Care to share?

Note: to be useful a Flutter VM would need access to the web, the local file-system, and probably the serial ports. But any functionality like this could also be provided externally, by a customizable local webserver over, say, websockets.
This doesn't worry me, I don't sit there waiting I just carry on until something more substantial turns up. Or I completely ignore it if I'm in the middle of something.
Or simply use your best judgment about how to interact with individuals and to build relationships. We shouldn't rely on blanket rules because people are different. You should know if you're going to sound curt or polite or irritating or friendly, based on your own personality and that of the person you're engaging.

I feel like I'm making it sound complicated, when for most people it's the most natural thing in the world.
I really thought it was about changing one's mind later (which probably doesn't sound outrageous to some people).
Thanks for clearing that up.
If I am talking to a person, I will say hello first.

(and if someone was to send me a link to a website telling me not to say hello, then I would think that person might have some issues)
It's along the same lines but DNA sequencing has very serious consequences in countries that have a history of strict filial piety such as China.

In these countries a family is not just the basis for raising children - families can often act as a sort of "corporation" where everyone is cooperating to enhance the wealth and future prospects of the group.

There was a lot of confusion around family relationships during WWII with the occupation of the Japanese and again after WWII with the Chinese Communist Revolution as children were adopted when their parents went missing or were killed in the war.

If people inside a family are found not to be related to one another there's a serious potential for the social fabric to start breaking down.
Moi? I'd rather say "Hi", get an acknowledgement and then continue. Rather than Hi + type something out; wait; still nothing; move on; find answer elsewhere; and have to remember to go back and say "NVM".

I find NVM semi-offensive. It so often seems to come across as "I'm done with you."

Also, there's the chance the colleague replies for naught, as I've already sorted myself out.
This critique doesn't really make sense.

`sleep 60`

Because one interruption takes x amount of time to deal with and the other interruption takes x + 60 seconds of staring at a chat window that FEELS like 3 times as long
Can you give the n00b's any tips on how to master emacs while keeping it interesting?
Most likely I would, too, as long as they don't go Oracle on it.