skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe there is a limited trial yes, but corporate IT always has hoops to go through
The old "For Dummies" books were very respectful if used self-deprecating humour on authors side often. The polish term used to translate "For Dummies" was a bit better IMO, though not exactly translateable.
This one caught my eye also.

I think the software analogy is not especially good, but it feels like there's some poorly-aligned incentives in landfill engineering. The point of landfills is to make trash invisible, so saving money by hiding engineering faults in the landfill itself is easy, they get buried along with the trash, and by the time the leakage becomes noticeable, the builder is long gone (bankrupt, merged/acquired, whatever), and the community is left to spend more on remediation than would have been required for prevention.

The solution to this sort of problem is generally regulation and oversight. I try not to be cynical about the utility of that approach, but it's hard.

The difference from software engineering is that, for landfills, the specifications don't change on the fly, and the engineering best-practices to build them actually exist.
Also... when you have 15 users (and it’s slow growing) it’s because you satisfy a unique need. These users are actually willing to talk to you for HOURS because they need your product, they know it’s niche, and that their feedback can actually affect the product development. Speaking from experience, I had a customer fly to ME to give me feedback.
Actual title was to long. "A female historian wrote a book. Two male historians went on NPR to talk about it. They never mentioned her name."
The free version uses the h.264 codec of the OS, which limits decoding speed and encoding quality on Windows. OTOH exporting to an intermediate codec and then using x264 or a similar best-of-the-breed encoder is probably preferable anyway, from a quality PoV.
How do I pay a doc for their time? I just sent emails to 35 different PIs this morning trying to find the most suitable clinical trial for my wife. I’ve learned a bit in the process but I’m still funtionally illiterate. Both of the oncologists we are working with just look for trials out of their location. When i ask what else is out there they point me to clinicaltrials.gov and say Godspeed.
Are there any real-world examples of an ML system causing protected-class discrimination based on non-protected criteria?
Bellard isn't a 10x, he's more like a 100x.

people who develop almost purely in one language, within a constrained application space, are able to become extremely productive because their knowledge and experience is very focused.

He mainly uses C and some JavaScript, but a look at all the things he's written suggests that he doesn't really focus on any one area; the first few projects on his page are:

- A Javascript engine (discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20411154)

- Neural networks

- Image compression

- Arbitrary precision floating-point

- JavaScript PC emulator

- 4G/5G base station software

- Tiny C compiler

- A clone of the text editor Emacs

- Pi calculation
> their mechanics/drugs/techniques can be as effective as western versions

This may be true of some indigenous medicines, discovered by trial-and-error and careful observation over multiple generations. These are disappearing fast, and remain largely unsystematised.

But treatments from the major medievalist 'systems' are different - their very strong derivation from fictional rubrics has resulted in their use being insulated from disconfirming observation (as was medieval 'Western' medicine). I'm not a specialist, but results I've seen from contemporary studies of Indian and Chinese treatments seem to show they don't work.

And then there's the more impressionistic evidence from history. The populations of premodern India & China were horrifically unhealthy from all accounts I've read. Their medical systems did nothing for them.
I was curious and disappointed to find that there is no blurb about Nim. Not had a chance to give it a go yet?
These comments just reek of the silicon valley tech-bro myth that because you're good with computers you must know better than the millions of brilliant smart people in $INDUSTRY. The absolute arrogance.
But then this should be documented in the types definition. I don't see this "can also be something else than 0-255" in the in the types documentation (that is arguably not at all detailed).

We use types to restrain complexity. It was a mistake in C# to allow every object to be null. A better type system would allow devs to make a contract to easily disallow this and they try to fix this. Now here we have a blog post that seems to be fine with a function parameter of type u8 not actually being of 0-255. That's a huge change I always understood the type. Do I now have to do implement a null-check equivalent?

Undefined behavior for unsafe code is fine. But there has to be a transition were we go back to classical behavior. And in the blog posts example, this should be somewhere in main. Certainly not the seemingly safe always_returns_true.
I think I got that in the form of type-aware auto completion in Atom with Haskell. It might be partially limited, but I'm not sure. It was rather flaky due to version missmatch between GHC and the language server.

It's pretty awesome.
In particular, it's very unlikely that the software that utilities run today is similar to the software that was running 42 years ago. In 1977, even a big mainframe only had a few megs of memory.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_303X#IBM_3033 (the top-of-the line IBM mainframe as of 1977 had 4 to 8 megs of RAM and 64K of cache).
I don't agree with the bullet. I've worked with people in the past who basically just didn't do their job if nobody was watching and would find ways to stretch their projects out to fill extra time. And I've met people who actively harmed the work environment and code. It's amazing how some people can get away with things and not be fired.

Which leads me to the feeling that if you come to work and consistently do an adequate job, I'd love to work with you. I don't need wizards on my team, I just need the basics.
I like to think there is a victory screen.
Would his property not also experience the same erosion? I could see irrigation from the farming causing extra water erosion but wouldn't that ultimately be the same as when mining operations remove whatever minerals they consider waste?
Bidirectional implies bijections, for isomorphism you'll need a morphism, a function that preserves/transposes some kind of structure or internal composition law (addition, multiplication,...)
Re "Wealthy kids skew male"? Starting references are http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161014-why-billionaires-ha... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/330279... and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Where I live people use Kijiji instead of Craigslist, so yeah it's obvious and proven. Mainstream journalism died when it became about profit (wasn't always).

* Interesting note. I've seen many complaints and unofficial redesigns touted for Craigslist, but go and take a look at the monstrously ad-ridden Kijiji on your phone in comparison. Craigslist is holding up pretty strong.
Didn't MBS lock up a bunch of "tribal leaders" (for lack of a better word) in this luxury hotel and made them kowtow to him? Not sure I would characterize that as a federation of peers being consulted.
Take two nominally identical physical products (from IKEA, for example), one that’s on the shelves today and the other produced several years ago. There’ll be lots of subtle changes that got made as the manufacturer figured out how to improve the product, by cutting costs or improving reliability.

The frameworks you mention are great prototyping tools but as a community, we’re missing the knowledge of how to take a proven prototype and continue improving the quality rather than bolting on questionable new features.
People can do more than one thing at once. We spend a lot of money studying the Earth, from space and the surface. Studying other planets helps understand things about the Earth that would be difficult to figure out by only studying the Earth. Studying other stars helps us understand the Sun.

In another comment you say:

> If we are able to reliably extract energy from lava/volcanoes,

That's already being done at scale, especially in Iceland.
Don't obsess over anything would be good advice but sometimes it's hard not to.

Also, sometimes obsessing is just part of the early phase of learning or doing something new and over the years it wears off.
If they're my direct peers and colleagues, and they're not assholes, I think it's better for me if people around me are successful as well. I remind myself that I'd rather not be the smartest person in the room so that way I'm always driven to do better. And I can learn from people around me. I have to consciously remind myself of that, but after a while that perspective becomes instinctual- make them part of your "tribe" and you'll switch to wanting your tribe to succeed.
You can take it up another level where the 10x developer goes over the project managers and gets a better understanding of the company goals directly from the decision makers. Then he becomes a 100x developer because he eliminates the communication overhead of the middle man.
Or, for an American developer, what are the odds that your 15-user sample will find usability problems having to do with your icons only making sense to someone in the US? There's more to localization than just translation. Or if you have a product that does voice recognition, what range of accents are you covering with those 15 users?
Frankie Zapata sells his hoverboard to the French army ? Or just a demo exercise ?
I'm so confused. At times I thought I was a 10X or maybe just a 5X. Being a humble person, I don't self-promote. My current team seems to have few problems dealing with me and we have had a lot of success this year. It's also a really big company, and I think I do best at these big places where things are generally impersonal and the sheer number of employees averages out the rough edges in peoples' skill sets.

My last team, however, was a different story. It was a small shop of only 7 developers and everyone knew everyone else's business and I swear they spent a lot of their time gas lighting me into believing I was somehow "not right" which I found amusing at times and heartbreaking at other times. The one female on the team was an absolute man-hater and the architect, an alcoholic. So clearly other issues going on. I just can't figure why any of it was taken out on me, I didn't do anything to them that I know of. I don't want to say they are assholes, but maybe just "people with major issues?" That would be more kind.

Anyhow, yes, I may be austistic or something along those lines although I was never diagnosed as such. The only thing psychologists told my parents was "gifted" and sort of left at that. I've had a troubled career and looking back it was never to do with technical abilities, which I have in spades, but always with the interpersonal skills, empathy, etc. But I've been married for 16 years and I have two kids, so clearly I'm not some hopeless case.
This is really good and thank you kind internet stranger!
I just append '.compact" to the URL.

Unrelated, but I also use m.facebook.com and the non JS version of gmail.
I think his point is that typically the context of all the particular aspects of that person's life feed into the reason why they have that one thing you want.
I'm reminded of an apocryphal story I read somewhere about an exchange between Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller that was supposed to have taken place at a fancy party hosted by a successful hedge fund manager.

Google reveals various versions and sources of the exchange. Here's mine:

Vonnegut: Can you believe this guy? He makes more money in a single day than we'll make in our entire lives. And you wrote Catch-22!

Heller: Sure, but I have something he'll never have.

Vonnegut: Yeah, Joe? What's that?

Heller: Enough.
> They arranged the former horizontally, with the young Brad Pitt to the left and the old Brad Pitt to the right. But the same people arranged the pictures of Jet Li vertically, with young Jet Li appearing at the top and old Jet Li appearing at the bottom.

It is actually surprising that researchers asked same group of people both questions. Shouldn't they had randomly separated their subjects into "Jet Li" and "Bradd Pitt" groups and asked each group only one question, so that subjects do not realize what is the purpose of the experiment?
This was literally unreadable for me on Firefox. It insists on me rotating my phone (?), even though I'm viewing it on a desktop computer.

The entire article is blocked behind that "rotating device" icon. Really terrible job.
First, let me say that I'm sorry that harm seems to have come your way.

Second, unless you are extremely rich and can privately employ a doctor like a saudi prince would do, I do not know of any (non-forbidden) way to directly pay your doc for his time. Hopefully I'll stand corrected.

Third, and that's the most important, primarily allocate your money to proven treatment. Clinical trials are not designed to help participants. Be weary of what people try to sell you. But if you've been dealing with the healthcare system for long enough, you probably know all about it already.

I realize that's not very original, but godspeed nevertheless!
Reading My Grandfather’s Accounts of World War II, 75 Years Later
A Life Far Less Ordinary
> Also, the 5 number in the headline is just misleading, since he clearly points out that the real number is 15.

The 5 number isn't misleading at all, the author shows that it's the 80/20 point. The first 5 users in your usability test give you 85% of the value of testing with 15. The takeaway is to not do the same exact test with 15 users, do an iteration with 5, and rinse and repeat.

"Let us say that you do have the funding to recruit 15 representative customers and have them test your design. Great. Spend this budget on 3 studies with 5 users each!"
I built an app exactly like this a long, long time ago, when JS server push became available and websockets didn’t exist yet, in PHP. 2010 maybe?

It made for incredibly entertaining chatter, but relied on pirated streams of live TV, and never went past an experiment :(
"People" might do that, but science certainly doesn't. Theoretical plausibility guides research, which is reasonable (there's no point in amassing prior knowledge if you don't use it). But empirical evidence is the determiner. And empirical studies of acupuncture have been a mixed bag - mostly it seems not to work, and where it does, sham treatments do just as well.

Homeopathy is worse, but acupuncture is up there as a 'treatment' with a very poor empirical base.

[an aside: I worked for a while in an fmri lab alongside a guy who did acupuncture reasearch. He was the most ideological researcher I've every come across in any field - flatly refusing to accept the validity of any data (even when collected by himself) that didn't support acupuncture's use. As someone now living in Australia's hippy zone, I find this a very recognisable & alarming trait of the 'alternative' health field.]
No, I am not a part of any Slack (or IRC, or Matrix) channels for type theory.
Yes, for one example, a system used to recommend sentencing based on how likely a criminal was to re-offend was found to have been heavily biased based on race, despite not being given explicit information about race[1].

Edit: It’s unclear if this system is based on ML, but I think the point stands - if a system can be manually tuned to do this, the risk exists of this happening to a trained model as well. Given other cases of ML models learning an incorrect behavior (such as the system intended to detect skin cancer that ended up being a fancy ruler detector [2]).

[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...
[2]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-doctors-arent-afraid-of-be...
I'm similarly baffled about the the i, f, x thing. I can think of justifications but they're all pretty dumb. I'm pretty sure that whole bullet point was based on exactly nothing this guy's ever seen in real life.
The fellow should be canonized. Walking is truly God's gift.
VGA is an analog signal, so there is no theoretical limit, and the degradation is graceful --- edges of individual pixels will start looking blurry as you get closer to the physical limitations, but a recognisable image continues to appear.
In my experience GCP, GCP, not Google, customer support had been pretty great. We don't pay too much, in fact I'm not sure we would rate any support from AWS given our spend - or at least it's not something visible to me.

EDIT: Found AWS page about support. Was definitely harder to find than GCP's...

In practice from my work, I've seen mostly cases of AWS being chosen because of "AWS=Cloud" mentality, and Azure because "we're MS shop". TBQH, the latter is bolstered by MS doing a really great push for developer tools, integrations, etc, even if actually using Azure is at times like eating broken glass.
I think the leadership component is very relevant here. A project manager / leader needs to be able to a) identify developers who could be 10x developers, b) develop their characters (some developers may be lazy or undisciplined or have anxieties that hold them back, so this needs to be solved first), c) recognize good technical skills and realistic self-evaluation (a developer that always wants a rewrite because he's certain that he will do it better than everyone before him vs. someone who tries to find a more reasonable way that may involve a rewrite).

Overall, this is a very difficult task. If you let developers that have undeveloped characters manage themselves, they'll create a huge mess. And personal development is generally a very difficult task and not something that a leader can control for most parts.
Surprising stats. I’ve been aware of mech Turk a long time, but did not realize average pay per task is quite that low
I agree with all of this except the final sentence. All of these options seem sustainable, although some more desirable than others. But which did you mean to suggest was the sustainable one?
Two observations:

1) A site that isn't ready for a screen reader probably isn't ready for a voice browser or other non-visual user agent. Say, an AI/digital assistant. Or perhaps even a search engine indexing bot (though for the last 10-15 years the incentives behind this often mean people will invest heavily, even non-cooperatively, in this specifically).

2) Projects for which the engineering takes into account the possibility of serving content to non-JS or weird screens UAs from the get-go are often better technically. Not a statistically investigated theory, but my theory is that it's because if you're really doing the REST/resource-oriented thinking necessary to make a non-trivial app display responses as minimal markup, you're also doing the thinking necessary to make a good API to be consumed by a dynamic or even SPA front-end. And vice versa: if you've got a good API for a dynamic-heavy or SPA front-end, it's not difficult to represent the given resource with the media type HTML instead of JSON. Which means if it is difficult to represent a resource as HTML instead of JSON, something's probably not right with how your app is put together.

I wouldn't go so far as to say every app needs to be plain-HTML + accessibility focused, but I think there's benefits that go beyond the margins of users with direct accessibility issues.
People are reacting badly to the idea of 10* engineers because it goes against the idea that we are all equals and can all make it.

I see it as a political stance, For some reason a lot of developers seem to believe in the idea of "equality of outcome" which means that we should all have similar outputs and if for some reason some of us are more productive it must be because of some systemic prejudice.

I personally believe that there are excellent developers out there. Some of them are brilliant jerks but some of them are also brilliant developers without being jerks. Those later ones are the real 10* engineers.
This scares me far more than the MCAS issue generally to be honest. The fact that all this modern technology is being thrown out for economics and we’re basically building 50 year old planes en masse. It makes me very sad.
Yes, you are right that they are legal, I misremembered. Good catch.

The spirit of my comment shouldn't change though, if I instead refer to the establishment of a U.S. dollar.

That being said, the fact that you have to pay rent with legal tender in states like CA goes a long way in regulating private currencies.
> nonsensical

What would you consider nonsensical jargon? Jargon is jargon because it makes sense to those in that particular profession (medicine in this instance) but not to those outside it. Jargon that doesn't make sense to those who are using it is just fiddle-faddle.
I miss pre-Trump America, too. On topic, though, a good interview is engaging to the listeners, and not every interviewee is interesting on their own. It is her job to set the stage, to guide the conversation to find the most unique and intriguing things about a person or a story.
I'll answer both of your questions, spoken and unspoken:

The first: an excellent question. It's hard to actually pay a doc for their time. We're all up to our eyeballs in the current system, including contracts with insurers that say things like "if this person is covered, you're bound to take what we are willing to pay, this person can't pay you extra to buy extraordinary services." It's not trivial at all to buy a doc's time. That said, the best method is to call their office and ask to speak to their practice manager. That's the person who is usually tasked with keeping an eye on finances, and has enough time and attention left over to hear things like "I need a non-clinical medical opinion, I am willing to pay for the doctor's time for an interview." That is assuming you are paying them like a consultant, and not paying them to provide an actual medical opinion for your wife. The latter gets gutted by insurance contracts (unless your insurer has absolutely no relationship with this doc, in which case, yes, you can pay them for their services. Some docs misread some state statutes as not allowing cash services for patients that aren't insured with them, which is both wrong and ridiculous.)

The second: how to find a clinical trial for your wife. Honestly, our job is to keep up with clinical trials once they're published. Clinical trials in recruitment aren't on anyone's radar - there's no convenient way of finding them (inconveniently: clinicaltrials.gov) and no value to clinicians to read such a list even if it existed. The only ones we are aware of are the ones that, as you said, are recruiting patients at our location. The people that benefit from publishing trial availability most are the pharmaceutical companies that will ultimately reap a financial reward, so they try to reach out to patients directly via advocacy groups and things like centerwatch. So,if I really needed to find one, I'd:

(0) Check www.centerwatch.com

(a) Call major centers specializing in my issue, since they're the ones that most trials will pull into recruitment and/or they're the ones originating the trials. For cancer, that means contacting the relevant physicians at Dedicated Cancer Centers such as Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (full list: http://www.adcc.org/).

(b) Most cancers have patient advocacy groups, and they're often aware of major trials underway for their relevant cancer. For instance, for Sarcoma, you'd check out something like curesarcoma.org (who have a dedicated clinical trials resource page (https://www.curesarcoma.org/patient-resources/sarcoma-clinic...).
What do you need to do to be this clueless yet make lots of money and be put in a position of responsibility?
Fred Wilson – Whales Not Unicorns