skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> One reason to deny the existence of 10x developers is that some organizations intentionally handicap their developers such that processes prevent anybody from being productive.

So because some developers work for awful organizations, 10x developers cannot possibly exist anywhere? Not following that logic.
> instead of a, s e (the latter 3 are apparently correlated to sending lots of emails somehow)

At least e,t, & a are the three most frequent letters in english. I guess S is for a hotkey or something, idk where he pulled that from.
I don’t know if envy is the correct word, but I do find it frustrating when people are rewarded for making harmful decisions or playing office politics over producing quality output. It’s not so much that I am jealous of their success but that their harms are now enshrined in the organization and everybody else will ultimately pay for it.
How is that an acceptable side effect for approving an off label use?
It also has some subtle transcription errors, which is why I got a copy of the original to host & link instead. For example, I forget which, unfortunately, but one of the later ones makes zero sense in the HTML version, because it's based on some wordplay and the transcriber got a word wrong. (I always thought I was simply not getting it, until I got the original and rereading, realized that the problem wasn't me.)
> The only purpose of TV-serie is to work out a Pavlov dog reflex: they want us to be before a TV every week at the same time. So they are making cliffhangers and misterious faces, and are filling all the emptyness with action scenes and dialogs.

The studio system already assimilated this criticism and Netflix just dumps entire TV shows in one go. It's more like a 10 hour feature, split into easily digestible chunks.

Plus, TiVo et al already killed this "want us to be before a TV every week at the same time". There is a new episode every week at the same time, but I'll see it when I get the chance, I'm not peeing into bottles to watch the opening of The Fugitive.
That is absolutely not what I said. You took part of what I said out of context to fulfill a maximum strawman.
The real issue is the C and C++ languages are horrible languages. They're too high-level to correspond to any real machine, yet so low-level so as to make such an abstract machine useful. The C language leaves the precise lengths of types up for grabs, as merely one example. As for Rust, I'd figure it's poor as well, considering it follows in the footsteps of C++.

I can compile an Ada program that has an uninitialized variable and use it, but I get a warning; there's also a Valid attribute that acts as a predicate for whether a scalar value has an acceptable value or not.

To @userbinator , you're mistaken to believe the C has much design behind it. There are many things where one requires a certain range of values and C forces the programmer to use a type that's much larger than necessary and cope with unwanted values. The C language leaves details to the underlying machine, so long as that machine is determined to pretend it's a PDP-11. Most languages that have a standard expect the programmer to follow it; since most C programmers don't know what the standard says, having been lied to about it being a simple and base language, they're offended when they do something they never should've done; they shouldn't be using C anyway, however.

Abstract language details are necessary for a high-level language and can work quite well if the language is designed well; this then leaves high-level features to be implemented in whichever way is best for the machine; the C language doesn't do this well at all, however, and precisely specifies the nature of irrelevant details and so hinders the machine and implementation possibilities.

The C language doesn't even have true boolean values or arrays thereof. You're expected to use an entire integer that's zero or not and you're left to your own devices if you want an array of these values that isn't grotesque in its wastefulness. Meanwhile, most proper languages have the concept of types that only have two values and can easily use an underlying machine representation for efficiently representing these, without involving the programmer.

In closing, you may argue that C is necessary because it permits specifying these low-level details, albeit required in every case instead of only where necessary. To that, I direct you to look at Ada, which permits the programmer to ignore such details wherever unneeded, and so leave them to the compiler’s discretion, but allows size, address, representation, bit-level organization, and more to be specified in those cases where it's truly necessary.

Here's a link others may like for learning more about Ada and the deficiencies of C:

https://annexi-strayline.com/blog
I just try to start doing a simple example of whatever I want to learn, and after I realize all the things I don't have/know that I need, I start to build out a more organized framework.

For example, a few years ago I had the vague idea that mortgage rates were low and investing in real estate was a good plan. I didn't know where to start, so I just started looking at listings. Quickly realized I'd need an agent to get more detailed info about the properties I was interested in and to make offers, so I Googled "Buyer's agent <city>" and found the local association of Realtors. From there I found an agent who owned similar investment properties to what I was looking at. Once he started getting me more detailed information about properties, I realized I didn't know how to analyze profitability well. Talked to my agent and read books/articles until I could build a basic model with appropriate assumptions. So forth and so on until I bought a property.

I think it's often too challenging to build a plan on how to learn something if you're starting from scratch, so just picking an obvious starting point and doing _something_ is a good way to build momentum and learn a little bit that you can then build on.
Yeh. TBH the video I linked is the only exposure I have to the tooling itself.

There needs to be something that is simple like QBasic where you can just start programming and have a crack at doing something fun.
And you don't seem like you have any clue about this topic. There are guidelines for that. Professionals (even incompetent ones) do follow them, based on academic research.
I did say in the last decade. The iPod Hifi was discontinued September 2007. I can list many failures before then - the MacTV, the 20th anniversary Mac, the entire Performa line, the Pippin, the Mac clone program, the Apple III, eWorld, Newton, Cube, System 7 Pro, OpenDoc (and CyberDog),....
You can get the tactile feedback from the keyboard minus the sound, it's what the brown switches do :)
Sounds like it's written by a Hollywood script writer.
Getting a given task done fast does not make you a 10x developer.

It's 10x over time, not 10x for a given task.

There's the fast way of doing something, copy and paste some similar code, tweak it with your goals in mind and you're golden.

You also copied every single bug in the code you replicated, and further polluted the base of the software, which is already a steaming heap of unmaintainable garbage because the impetus is for speed over quality, and tacitly encourages developers to do what you just did.

Or you could refactor. You look at what needs to be done and how the current API limits your ability to implement it.

Update the API to integrate the required features, and refactor if the gradual build up of changes has rendered it unwieldy.

Quickly and cleanly implement the new requirements against the improved API.

You just spent a day and a half implementing something that could've been done in two to four hours, ignoring whatever manager was wondering why it was taking you so long - but the next time you need to make a similar change you'll be done with dev in half an hour.

And when that happens the code you write will be clean, simple and unlikely to introduce new bugs.
I've met some wizards. I'm not one of them and that's fine. I don't do any tech stuff once I'm home (I mean until my kids get into Lego mindstorms and such).

But I think being a 1x dev is pretty darn good when a lot of devs I've met are like 0.5x or even the occasional -x.
It’s simpler if you use 0 and 1 instead of a and b. If we want a linear function such that

f(0) = A, f(1) = B,

then the unique solution is

f(t) = (1-t)A + tB

The more general version with a and b is just composing this with a transformation of [a, b] into [0, 1]

Relevant keywords: linear interpolation, affine combination, barycentric coordinates.
A problem I wonder about is that frameworks and doing things well are often diametric opposites. For example, studies keep pointing out that for e-commerce, low latency and ridiculously fast sites matter a lot. They get you from zero to functional really fast, and then you're stuck.

You're not getting that with django, or ror, or ... And no, caching will not get you there, especially not if you take every framework's approach to caching: always set cache headers to never ever cache because it might be dynamic.

The thing is, if you expect to really grow, you're going to have to roll your own, as that's the only way you'll ever get it really fast, really doing what you want.
The issues with mason jars and ceramic cup ends up being the amount of energy required to fire the oven. This ends up putting you in a deep hole when it comes to accounting energy inputs, as consumer plastics are essentially repurposed refinery waste.

This leaves you with the choice to either spend a lot of energy or risk environmental contamination. Chemical accounting ends up being a nontrivial problem to address.
I don't have statistics on this, but I would guess 99% of all jobs in the world, succeeding above and beyond reproach is not (should not be) an enviable goal in life. Really I think the goal should be to find people / environment that works well for you and embrace it, otherwise move on.

But if you do decide to make it a goal then work toward accomplishing it.

It sounds to me like you're wandering aimlessly in life to have decided your goals are to try to find ways to be counter-productive.
Paul Biggar blogs about it on their Medium blog.
This building is a masterpiece and a towering (no pun intended) achievement. If I were 18 I would make this my career, and today would be the day I would talk about with journalists 20 years later when they asked where my ideas came from!
I suspect because people who come in want... something.

I just pass on them.
Yeah, some people are -1x developers. They create more problems than they solve.
It's the opposite - apogee is the point closest to the center of orbit, perigee is the farthest point.
Newer digital sensors can resolve a higher 'resolution' than 35mm film.

Using an older lens with a camera sporting a 20+ MP sensor will give you less sharp results than a similar new lens. But the image will be no worse than that old lens shooting film. And the lens will be much cheaper!

If you (or others) like the results, the technical details do not matter.
Quantum physics is based on complex Hilbert spaces. This is quite different to the theory of functions of a complex variable. I think Dirac was just making s!!t up here.

But anyway, by now modern theoretical physics has hoovered up quite a lot of 19th century pure mathematics, including this theory mentioned by Dirac. Specifically I'm thinking of things like conformal field theory.
Pertussis vaccine is notably unreliable. About 60% efficiency. This is well known and has been for decades.
They probably have to report on loan approval rates by race to demonstrate a lack of bias in their underwriting.
Wiring a home network from the ground-up with Ubiquiti [2017]
Yes, I missed the 'not'. I do enjoy hearing the keyboard.
> bidirectional transformations

Isn't that called an isomorphism?
Read about disparate impact and you will see that it is possible to break the law without taking race, sex, national origin, etc as an input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
Literally the first bullet in the article's body says that there is no such thing as a <1x engineer. What am I missing in what you are writing?
I've been a 10x developer at various points in my career. If you connect with the project on a deeper level the code can just flow.

It doesn't last and you end up chasing this feeling.

It's easier to be a 10x developer when its your own project with your perfect setup.
several open access journals publish on eScholarship https://escholarship.org/journals
Let me try to clear your confusion: an input my seem innocent (e.g. zip code), but a zip code is likely to correlate to ethnicity and race in some regions. So even if the inputs seem legal, an ML model that’s sophisticated enough can derive illegal results that discriminate against certain populations.
IME, benchmarks aren't enough of an impetus to move between compilers, but are often a not-insignificant piece of what's considered when moving is otherwise motivated.
How does that work? Insurance companies have access to all the prescription purchase and tests ordered,but not the diagnoses?
>Perhaps it was the lack of sleep or maybe it was an existential crisis, but I realized that none of this matters. All these computers, these laptops, these phones, these tools, do the same thing. Sure, some are better than others, but fundamentally, they’re all the same. Did I really waste a week of my life researching tools?

Well, if you're a professional, and use/need certain features, then no, fundamentally they're not "all the same".

Also, some of those go for $2K or more, so you better do some research.

But even more so, if you're a programmer, videographer, designer, etc., you'll be using that "computer, laptop" etc, for 1/3rd or your day (or more).

Some differences (e.g. 20% faster speed in compiling or rendering) can save you (or cost you) many more weeks in the 4-5 years you'll be using them than the "1 week" you mention "wasting" researching them.

>Would I be equally excited if a new version of a hammer, chisel, or anvil came out?

All 3 are very simple tools, so no need. But if you were a lathe operator and wanted to buy a new model, you'd better research it...
That wasn't desperation at all.

Offering their customers exactly what they wanted so that they didn't go elsewhere to get it? That's just a smart business move.
You can totally do better than the average, especially with small amounts of money, but not for the same effort required of an index fund (i.e. close to none).
For everything that’s wrong with Reddit, I don’t think it’s tall poppy problem is as bad as it is on HN.

Most stories about exceptional achievement on HN will be met with all sort of anecdotal derision. “10x developers don’t exist”, “10x developers are sociopaths”, “10x developers are ‘brilliant jerks’”... other common themes are that people must have exploited others to achieve their success, or that their success is unreasonable because they made too many personal sacrifices to achieve it, or that their success is unfair, because not everybody has the same social skills as them, or whatever other ‘privilege’ people want to nitpick in order to deride them.
Humans had plenty of algorithms to substantiate racial discrimination using nonobvious indicators. We can, inadvertantly or otherwise, easily program machines to do the same.
You touched on something there that has been a pet peeve of mine for ages. People dismissing treatments like accupunture wholesale because there’s no scientific evidence for Qi. So what? It’s the effect we’re interested in, not the explanation.
An excellent way to push against addiction is to address the reasons for addiction.

As Dr. Gabor Mate, who has spent a decade working with addiction and written extensively about it says: don’t ask why the addiction, ask why the pain.

Alcohol and other drugs are the means of addiction and in no way the cause of it.

I recommend Tim Ferris’ interview with Gabor Mate for a great honest look into the causes and mechanisms of addiction.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9B5mYfBPlY
my product managers tell me LaTex is to STEMy

https://editoria.pub is a project we were involved with with UC Press

We run an OJS instance for our journal program. We are looking a Janeway too.

Manifold also looks interesting in this space.
Usability should include accessibility when possible, but there is no must here. There are lots of tools that need usability testing that have a sufficiently small team and user-base to make accessibility a waste of time and resources.

Indeed, on teams and products of any size there is always a decision to be made about which accessibility requirements will be met and to what degree.

I would make the separate argument that what you need with accessibility requirements is separate testing expirements for each one. You don't need 100 testers to to make sure you have some special accessibility requirements, e.g. you need 15 normal vision testers and 15 impared vision testers.
This is one of those things that takes a very abstract concept and tries to boil it down a bit too far with a mathematical model. Also, the 5 number in the headline is just misleading, since he clearly points out that the real number is 15.

The reality is that the number of people you need to test with to get the right number of insights (along with the depth of testing for any given user) is going to vary drastically across products of varying purposes and level of complexity. 5/15 users may be a reasonable average, but this is a case where an average of many different things isn't a particularly useful measure for any one of those things.

That doesn't even take into account the quality of people that you're testing with. Five experienced testers is different than five people with domain expertise but not testing experience is different than five people off the street.
What you are calling [“linear”, “affine”] are in some contexts called [“homogeneous linear”, “linear”] or the like.

This is not “wrong”, but just a different convention.
I don't know. I think there are some parallels, but more in the sense that many audiophile probably don't care that much about the audio. It is more about singling that you are successful enough to buy and care about different things. I think the same can be true of mechanical keyboards (and tech gadgets in general). People like the idea of something being special and having time for that more than they care whether it is. Which is why you will likely find that most people care more about the keycaps than the decaps.
That is more for "why it helps there in the first place" than any disparagement of the rainforests. That the soil is terrible is more reason to leave them there - especially when they provide steady rain.

It isn't like temperate climates where you can rotate between farms, fields, and forrests over time easier.
One of my friends was literally hired as an intern to try to break software last year. He loved it, and found a ton of bugs, which was really helpful to the company- they eventually paid him a $1,000 bonus for his help over the summer.
The Satisfaction Paradox
That sounds like exactly what I want. Are you selling a keyboard around it? I don't need the numpad, but after 10+ years of ms natural, I'm used to the remainder of the layout.
Measuring Long-Term Causal Impact of Ads on LinkedIn Users
Now imagine if your organisation scheduled work in such a way that this could have been done by a "1x engineer" during work hours, instead of relying on this chap to bang it out in the weekend.
which part is ironic?

nytimes is bound to continue, it's a massive cog in the US propaganda engine, and has always been many many times larger than MAD ever was.

MAD didn't really ever poke fun at NYTimes for being on it's last legs, if anything it poked fun at how disconnected from the real world it and it's authors sometimes seemed to be -- this was made very clear when checking out MADs humor from 89-01 regarding the NYTimes and their coverage of the numerous wars in the middle east.

Nothing about this outcome seems contrary to what anyone thought would happen; MAD has been struggling for years.
You're adding less energy to the exhaust and more to the rocket. The Wikipedia article is a pretty good explanation.
One thing that I think gets lost in this conversation is the 0x engineer. I've met a few people who I'd put into this category and I've definitely met people who think of themselves in the 10x mold who I'd categorize as 0x. Ironically in my experience 0x engineers tend to be really good programmers, but they just don't know how to understand or don't care at a deep level what the business wants so they just build whatever is convenient or enjoyable for them to build.They get away with this on poorly managed projects led by non technical people. Eventually, deep into the project the non technical people start to figure out that the thing they are getting is going to be really poorly suited to their needs and by that time they are over commited and totally screwed. Zero or negative value could be delivered over an extended period of time here.

Compared to the 0x developer, a junior developer who gets a basic understanding of what is needed then solved it with a standard well suited tool is an infiniteX developer.

And there is a huge space in the middle here. But I'd venture a guess that all said and done, deeply understanding the problem space and client or business needs correlates more highly with total productivity than programming wizardry over the long run.
So fifteen groups, then?
As far as I can tell, you’re including suicides and attempted suicides, and you’re assuming that gun violence is evenly distributed across the population. If you live in rural America, you probably don’t know anyone who has been the victim of gun violence. If you live in an inner city, you likely know several.
I've confirmed it because you can see the data that the web browsers sends and it was encrypted. I've also tested this on LastPass and Bitwarden and from what I can see 1Password does it the best.
Yes. For example, mortgage lenders in the US are required to obtain and report this.[1] If applying in person the applicant chooses not to furnish the information, the lender is required to guess based on observation.

[1]: http://mortgageporter.com/2010/12/your-ethnicity-and-race-on...
>> even if vaccines did cause autism (which they do not)

> These sorts of comment lack epistemic humility/awareness. We do not know that vaccines do not cause autism. Science does not say this.

This is technically correct, but it's very difficult to discuss against FUD. Let's try another example:

Do vaccines cause earthquakes? Nah.

Is it 100% scientifically proved that vaccines don't cause earthquakes? It looks very difficult to prove, perhaps you can pick some areas in an earthquake prone country and only give vaccines in some areas and placebos in other areas, and see if the earthquake ratio change. I guess you will never get an approval for an study like this.

So the conclusion is that scientist say that perhaps vaccines cause earthquakes? [What is a good answer here?]

---

It may sound weird that someone think that vaccines cause earthquakes, but some people believe[d?] that playing an instrument in the wrong season can cause big frost. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erke

> Traditionally but not commonly, only adult men play the erke, and it is considered profane to play the erke outside of a ritual context. The erke is commonly played during winter, as it is believed that playing it in spring or summer can bring snow.

The English Wikipedia says "snow" but the Spanish Wikipedia says "frost" or "ground frost" like the ones that can destroy crops.

I know the story because part of my family is of a nearby area, but I guess that most cultures have similar stories.
The Funniest Bloopers Video
Not if you've installed Linux on it to run Folding@home!
A female historian wrote a book. Two male historians went on NPR to talk about
> Walking in the woods is probably as effective as the average anti depressant

citation very fucking needed.