skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm in the interviewer pool @ Google.

> practice writing syntactically correct code on a whiteboard

This probably differs from interviewer to interviewer as to how strictly it's adhered to, but it's not really a hard and fast rule. I'm sure there are some interviewers that will ding you on a forgotten semicolon, but I suspect that most would not.

Personally I look for code that isn't so far from syntactically correct that it's clear you are trying to BS me. I'll even accept pseudocode for the most part. But I've had candidates that try to make up language features, and that doesn't fly with me.

> practice solving problems with a 30 minute timer

I only give my candidates 30 minutes. The whole interview is 45, I spend 5 minutes introducing myself and setting up expectations, 30 on the question, and 10 on answering their questions (after all, they're also interviewing us).

You can tell pretty early whether they're on a solid trajectory, and I'll offer the occasional hint to keep someone on track, or ask tangential questions if they're doing well on time. Not finishing isn't a deal killer, provided you had a solid approach and weren't just running in circles. But a good candidate will finish in about 25 minutes and we can spend some time talking about alternate approaches. Sometimes I'll show them the optional approach and see how that conversation goes.

Nine times out of ten a candidate scores low because they overlooked an infinite loop or code would crash on boundary conditions and candidate wasn't able to realize that even with hints.
Consistent Data Partitioning Through Global Indexing at Uber
Thank you. I feel kind of silly about this but I feel like I've had a hard time understanding when an org should, or could use something like this. I have seen them mentioned but every time it's explained it's explained with more abstract language on top of it that confuses me. I keep hearing "it manages business processes" but then it fails to mention if this means like, a human being's process within an org, or something coupled with an application of some sort that has business processes in the application? Does this type of thing replace sort of what Jira does, make a ticket and then pass it off to the next team or whatever? Do you ship it with the app for on-premise deployments of a software product? I have a hard time seeing the big picture with things like this sometimes. Then I hear workflow orchestrator and I think, oh okay so like ansible, but for, work...flows? But what is a workflow really exactly?
While unique and somewhat gratifying that you can build a business with just a chance at a good domain and some internal motivations, do you find yourself adding value over other means of onion sales?

Oh, and please downvote. Thank you.
Clipper was a disaster (what? 30 years ago?) but we continually have idiot governments still persisting in trying to make square wheels.
That does seem interesting. I could definitely see that as something I would want to use for the functionality rather than the "underlying feature". The story around this is pretty weak in most language ecosystems from what I have seen.
Why mess around with Paint3D?

Shift+ctrl+s, [win key] pai[enter], ctrl+v, resize canvas, alt+f+s, done.
Not even randomly accusing innocent people of pedophilia?
I really didnt mind when phones were thicker. I'd be happy if my phone was thicker now if it meant having a bigger battery. I'd be even happier if my phone was thicker now and it meant I had a screen that's (optionally) twice as big in my pocket. Just some things off the top of my head that I'd like to have a bigger screen, but not carry around a tablet for: taking notes, maps in the car, gaming, netflix.
And there is the assumption that this will improve greatly over future iterations.
Really great dive into the various workers buying real estate in SF. I did wish they at least quantified how much data is missing due to the LLC purchases excluded from the analysis, but it's a great breakdown of both which company's employees are purchasing houses in SF and where.
Common Lisp is much more dynamic in some ways, but much less dynamic in others. In PHP you can't redeclare functions or classes, while in Common Lisp you can. On the other hand, in PHP you can manipulate the current scope and make variables appear out of thin air, but you can't do stuff like that in Common Lisp.

For example in PHP:

$a = $_GET['greeting'] ?? 'hello';
eval('echo $a;'); // => hello, or an error or anything else if there is a query parameter called greeting.
$c = [ $a => eval('return "hi";') ];
extract($c);
echo $hello; // => hi, or an error or anything else if there is a query parameter called greeting.

While in CL:

(let ((a "hello"))
(eval 'a))
; => debugger invoked, the variable A is unbound.

A CL compiler can make a lot of assumptions about the local environment, and only has to account for real dynamicity in the global environment. For PHP it's basically the other way around. Since most optimizations seem to be relatively localized, that might be a real issue. But then, of course, a good compiler could fall back to unreasonable assembly wherever such dynamic features are used.
And yet, the supreme court has upheld the use of drug sniffing dogs for traffic stops.
Do wasm modules depend on one another? I assumed they were statically linked.

It feels like this is more of a wasm "app store".
I'm working on Nixpkgs support for WASI cross compilation here:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/56555
Do they have the scale to achieve any sort of price advantage? 14nm NRE costs are huge.
> If marking chalk on a car is trespassing then wouldn't throwing a newspaper in someone's driveway also be trespassing?

Yes, without permission, dumping on someone's property is a trespass.

> So to would leaving a hand print on someone's car if you happened to touch it.

It is a trespass, yes. Probably not on its own an actionable one (or at least not one worth civil action) because of the lack of harm, but whether a trespass would be actionable or worth action as tort is irrelevant in the case where you are looking at a Fourth Amendment violation where any trespass by givernment for gathering information to be used against a person (as a violation of legal property rights) is, ipso facto, a violation of an expectation of privacy, triggering the requirements associated with a search.
You are requesting new requirements that are not part of the voting system currently in use.

I currently have to trust a black box whose inner functions are hand-waved away such that I cannot understand it even if I wanted to. Established systems of voting have equally established attack vectors.

If someone cannot understand what a cryptographic hash function does, even if they don't need to understand how, they cannot function in civil society without trusting someone else who can. Someone might go to a hundred HTTPS sites a day, and the security works invisibly to them, with no complaints, and yet while voting once every two years, one of the simplest concepts in all of cryptography is suddenly a problem? It's simpler than Bitcoin. The public can handle it.
How would one know if the Chinese government was supported by the population or not, given that anyone expressing a contrary opinion is likely to be a thorn in the eye that is China's surveillance state?
If the primary issue is "don't remove the protective screen" then I think that might be easy to overlook - to assume that educating the user will take the problem away, for example.
Men with IQs above 100 regularly harass women as even the most cursory engagement with news about academia and science would have shown you.

And no, smiling at someone and 'being nice' nor a invitation to a "cup of tea" would not be considered in itself "harassment", although I'm sure asking repeatedly for the latter after being told 'no' or persistently staring/leering would get over the line.
> I don't quite understand the bad press ... first generation ... Beta testers ... issues.

There's levels to issues. The iPhone 4 had issues but was still a blockbuster hit and the #1 phone in the world for several years. The Fold's problems are severe (phone breaks), very common (happened to multiple prominent reviewers) and occur after light use (within the first few days or for the label issue, immediately after unboxing). That's beyond "beta testing" and is just grossly incompetent design. This isn't some fly by night Chinese startup phone, this is the most expensive phone that one of the 2 biggest phone designers for the last 10 years has ever shipped.
I think in the past, credit reporting agencies did want to make things equivalent to social credit, or make social credit type things apply to your financial credit score, but were stopped by legislation.
Hello,

1. Package managers are very hard! The same problems wrt dependency resolution pop up again and again. Whatever you do, I recommend uhm, copying whatever Yehuda et al did for Ruby, Rust, Yarn, i.e. bundler/cargo/yarn

There's lots of prior art out there, and a few days of reading can save you months of terrible effort! Here's one example but there's loads more out there https://yehudakatz.com/2016/10/11/im-excited-to-work-on-yarn...

2. Namely, I don't see any lock files! I didn't look very hard. But get yourself some lockfiles. I also can't stress this enough.

3. Packaging signing really needs to be baked in from the get go, re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19733085).

Good luck!
That doesn't quite answer my question, I think.

My statement was that:

- if you have an opaque enclave on the device (e.g. a black box you can't peer into), you can't know what it's doing

- if you don't, you can read the private key bits out

Your statement was that it has a private enclave you cannot extract key material out of, which resolves the latter half of the question, but not the former, I think?
I know plenty of conscientious objectors in tech, they just /don't work in tech any more/.
It’s not fair to call my comment uncivil.
My gripe with other people's code in Clojure is less understandability in terms of types and more in terms of style. A lot of major clojure libraries seem to use a really indirect style that brings a bunch of OO-style concepts back in. Like, I'm thinking of libraries like Component and Mount whose authors seem to have been aiming for a dependency injection kind of experience and end up creating a bunch of free-floating state, where, for example, you use a template to scaffold a simple webapp up, and it's surprisingly hard to figure out where in the code it's talking to the database. This actually caused me to leave the clojure ecosystem eventually.
I definitely wouldn't say creepy.

But with the rumours around his drug use and partying, documented issues with Ambien, erratic tweeting behaviour, calling people pedophiles etc. He isn't exactly the straightest CEO around.
Based on the GitHub issues for Azure Functions, I want to say people are using it. The way Azure Functions is implemented you literally just need to be able to run on IIS and thats IF you even need to run on IIS, I've not investigated it since I initially implemented our Serverless Functions two years back. Azure Functions are an extension / implemented on top of WebJobs iirc which is pretty much usable by anybody with IIS or their own Windows Server.

Also the build system for Azure is open source, and I'm pretty confident it works. They share the core of the product which gets the Azure UI slapped on top of it, that's what you wont see, but you can see the same UI from the GitHub project on Azure if you really dig in through Azure. I've seen the "crappy UI" after looking further in Azure.
Why should I support a project where the people involved can’t even clearly explain what it is?I seriously doubt the ability of anyone to execute a successful business who can’t even communicate their plan.
The US justice scores like COMPAS absolutely cares about your skin color and your sentencing depends on it. It just doesn't have a sexy Chyna-BAAAD label next to it to attract your eyeball.

https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/
MacOS Preview has (very) basic image editing built in, but it’s not widely advertised. Open it up and look through the menus.
As someone who has worked in sf tech for 5-6 years I feel like I’ve gotten to the point where I’ve become too critical of the industry to continue working in it.
I was going to ask if you could then fuzz a physical CPU to find CPU bugs, but sure enough, the paper authors have already been doing that!
To clarify, all references to "Democrats" in my comment above are to Dem politicians, not necessarily their supporters. If I could vote, I'd vote for Dems myself, and to the extent that I can participate in politics by supporting political campaigns, I exclusively support Dem candidates of the more progressive variety.

> If you are you unhappy with forms of identification accepted to be issued a ballot, then you should advocate that all voters are issued a government issued identification for free. Which is pretty much standard practice in most other developed countries.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

The question is, why aren't Democrats doing that? Where is a bill that would package voter ID together with free and easy to get government-issued identification? Put it on the table, then let GOP vote it down and explain themselves.

> Requiring government issued ID to vote that is not free is called a poll tax. And that's unconstitutional.

Agreed. Do you feel the same way with respect to other rights, though? For example, with respect to various licensing and permitting schemes on gun ownership and carry?
Yea, mandatory voting is more of an assurance that everyone is given an opportunity to vote without encumbrance than that they actually express an opinion. I haven't seen a mandatory voting system that requires you to vote for a candidate out of a chosen list, that seems very dangerous.

If voting is mandatory than any impediments to being able to vote (like not giving employees time off) is quite limited by the fact that such impediments are illegal, in the US voter suppression sort of skates by on BS and lots of talking heads explaining how unmotivated millennials are.
I laughed.

I can go glass half-full or empty on OKR's. They obviously have value, but using OKR's at Google is one of the biggest selection biases possible. Google seems to have done so many things in its history that would be death for other org's.

The episode about firing all managers is a great in-depth story of stupidity. Yet Google succeeded because they had and have an absolute lock on the search market.

Dear Doerr, convince me about OKR's another way.

I would also love to see what OKR's looked like throughout some of the products at Google that they have sunset or flopped. G+, RSS, Wave, Hangouts, etc.
- OKR's are a useful tool but they aren't what made Google a $750 billion company.
Yea, I didn't think of that. Lots of possibilities. That's why I asked.
My personal opinion is that the workflow is any business logic that goes beyond a single request reply. Examples of workflows:

* Service deployment.

* Uber trip

* Media processing (download file, transcode, upload result)

* Order processing

* Customer support ticket processing

* Customer incentive program management

* Data pipeline processing

* ML Training

* Distributed CRON

* Customer signup flow

and many others.
I did not say every Atheist. I said every Atheist's arguments I've read so far which, so far, fall victim to the same logical fallacies they argue against. I'll try cover some of the broader points I keep seeing repeated without writing a book here.

1. Assuming all Christians believe the same thing.

I'm Irish-American, my father's side of the family are Catholic and my mother side are Protestant. I can tell you from first hand experience "Christians" don't agree on crap when it comes to Christianity. And the author leaves a telling clue to this towards the end when they mention most of their experience is with Evangelicalism. The Evangelicals are a small minority among Christians worldwide, and most mainstream Christians think Evangelicalism is way out in left field. The author makes no effort to address this issue but instead builds their arguments off assumptive axioms without explanation or clarification.

2. Christians aren't the only people who believe in the Biblical "god"

The author again homes in on specific cherry picked tenants of Christianity, specifically the question of the divinity of Jesus, as an argument against the existence of God. Jews and Muslims don't share that belief. Hell, not even all Christians agree on this point. In fact, the first schism of early Christian church was over the question of the divinity of Jesus. Why is this never addressed?

3. Skepticism = Science

This is another common fallacy I keep coming across. Skepticism itself is inherently unscientific and attempting to contort science to fit an opinion is equally unscientific.

4. Science is an opposing view to belief in "God"

The author attempts to make this same core argument I see used repeatedly. That belief in "God" comes from ignorance of science and rejection of rational thought therefor believing in "God" is unscientific and irrational. This argument is just illogical. If this were true, we should be able to deduce that most scientist are also Atheists but we know that's simply not true. Even Einstein believed in God. One doesn't negate the other. Again this is never addressed.

.....

You'll have to excuse me if that was disjointed and doesn't cover everything. That's off the top of my head, I wasn't expecting to get into this today. And look, as I mentioned before, I'm not a Christian or an Atheist and if you're an Atheist, that's fine. I'm not criticizing you for what you think or believe, but as an outside observer, I don't see much difference in the arguments the author makes and the particular "Christians" they single out to refute.
Cadence looks like an OSS version of Amazon Simple Workflow (SWF) service. The author used to work on SWF at AWS afaik.

I'm a heavy SWF user at work for managing complex data pipelines. SWF requires an important conceptual and tooling effort in the beginning, but it gets reimbursed if you use it a lot.

As for other comments mentioning Airflow: the programming model is quite different , since Airflow as far as I understand forces to provide a DAG of tasks upfront. SWF (and Cadence?) doesn't, it coordinates the work of Deciders and Activity Workers and only acts as a source of truth for the state of the workflow (+ distribute task in a unique manner to many long-polling workers). As a result you don't declare anything upfront and can have deciders take dynamic decisions along the way, which is really nice when you want very dynamic logic for your workflows (e.g. dynamic partitioning of tasks, decisions depending on external factors, etc.).

I'd love to have Maxim insights about how Cadence compares to SWF, and what would be the reasons/challenges behind migrating from SWF to Cadence for SWF users (except that SWF is basically stale for 4+ years and rigged with arbitrary limits)
Loot Box Practices Coming Under Heavy Fire
Nothing unexpected about that ...
It makes sense when you consider that labor is the root of political power, even that wielded by legislators.

See "Forces of Labor".

https://sites.google.com/view/tech-workers-coalition/topics/...
What about Uber and Lyft?

Aren't they known to operate at a loss to undercut the competition, and couldn't taxi drivers bring them to court for that?
> It discourages saving, but not investment (and only the latter has intrinsic societal benefit).

Not true. To begin with, what most people think of as "savings" is actually an investment—unless your savings take the form of cash stuffed in a mattress. An interest-bearing savings account is an investment, after all, even before we consider that larger sums would normally be held in money-market accounts or CDs. Even if you did keep your savings stuffed in a mattress, though, that saving still benefits others. You produced something of value and you're not spending the cash you received in return on things other people also want to buy. This reduces the supply of cash in circulation relative to the amount of goods available to be purchased and thus lowers prices for everyone else compared to what they would have had to pay if you'd chosen to spend the money. Normally in a healthy, growing economy this forbearance would be rewarded through appreciation of the purchasing power of the unspent cash over time—price deflation—but TPTB have decreed that price deflation is evil and must be avoided at all costs. (The key lesson here is that it's a really bad idea to treat any fiat currency as a store of value, since they can always make more and dilute your savings.)

>> 3) It encourages consumption and spending on frivolities.

> Spending is generally framed as societal good and the definition of a "frivolity" is highly subjective.

I'll grant that "frivolity" is subjective but consumption is pretty much the opposite of a societal good. It's not a bad thing, of course. Production without consumption would be pointless and wasteful. However, it's the process of production that provides value to others; consumption is just the opposite, claiming one's own personal share of what all the members of society have collectively produced.

> Are you seriously proposing that only those who inherit riches can improve the world???

It is an objective fact that those few lone individuals who can claim to have lived their lives free of unearned gifts from their parents or other interested parties (apart from life itself, which is a major concession) have not been particularly successful at improving the world beyond the narrow scope of their own necessities. That's because they're spending their entire lives and all of their energies just trying to survive. Just having parents who take even the most basic care of you as you're growing up is a huge inheritance in its own right. More indirectly, we have the vast stores of knowledge left to us by previous generations as well as a huge amount of capital to amplify the productivity of our efforts. We tend to focus on mere differences in inherited material possessions, but in reality that pales in comparison to the vast riches gifted to even the poorest among us has by those who came before.
I think it's a natural consequence of having the front page being made up of a bunch of general interest stories that aren't strictly tech related.
Apple Trial over Defective iPhones Set for October
The Linux program most similar to Paint that I know of is KolourPaint[1]. If my memory of Paint serves me right (I haven't seen that program in many years), KolourPaint seems pretty much like a clone of Paint.

[1] https://kde.org/applications/graphics/kolourpaint/
Absolutely it is possible to do better by specializing, that doesn’t mean we generally expect an auto-maker to be able to successfully make nVidia’s best effort in the same marketplace obsolete in their first go at designing their own chip.

This isn’t quite like GPU vs ASIC for Bitcoin mining, for instance, because nVidia Xavier is already a special purpose chip for doing the Int8 calculations. Tesla isn’t competing against a graphics card being repurposed for FSD, they are competing against nVidia’s FSD offering, and using an industry standard metric (Int8 TOPS) to measure their performance.
I'd love to see a real comparison of the two technologies under the Tesla workload, both for what it would say about the chips and what it would say about the workload.

Having said that, an investor call isn't going to be that and Elon isn't the person to give it, so I'm not sure what Bloomberg (or Nvidia) wanted here. "CEO likes own technology" isn't exactly news.
The biggest issue I have with the application is that it’s not following the Human Interface Guidelines for every platform. A native look and feel for the Mac would make me use it.
Distributed Git Storage Server