skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This was my immediate objection as well. School, as it stands, was actually -incredibly- useful to me. Because it taught me that the stated objectives of a person, organization, etc, are often lies, and that the trick is to learn the real objectives, and optimize accordingly. Between classes that actually taught me the material, classes that expected me to learn the material without teaching it to me (but still expected me to complete relevant projects that required understanding), and classes that required me to learn completely separate things (i.e., yes, physics class, where the taught material, homework material, and tested material, were all ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER, and so I had to learn to navigate that and reach out for help from TAs and past students and etc), I feel like I got a more complete education in how the world works.

That's not to say "hack the system", but it is to say look deeper. There's value in learning. There's value in the stated objectives; after all, there's a reason they're being called out. But there often are unstated, important systems and objectives to understand and address, too.

I'd love this dream world PG describes where everything aligns, the stated priorities are the only ones, and the systems and cultures and tests optimize only for them. But that's not the world we live in.
They did. The article linked above mentions that it took them a while to convince Sony to agree to it.

Also, if you run the math in the article you linked, it may suggest they paid more than list price.

> core made of 1,760 Sony PlayStation 3 (PS3) consoles

> the PS3s for the supercomputer's core cost about $2 million

that's $1,136 per unit.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? We're trying for a bit better than internet default here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is exactly why making more FCI-style questions is so hard. They shouldn't be sensitive to things like air resistance -- a question whose answer is completely changed by realistic air resistance isn't a very good one.
Do you have any thoughts on their mitigations? I would like to protect against attacks like this, but their mitigations seem to have big drawbacks:

> Bind Sessions to IP Addresses

As they admit, "IPs... change for legitimate reasons", so it seems like most sites wouldn't want to roll out this protection, because it would randomly logout their users. I haven't tested this, but it seems like this would be pretty common on mobile networks from some googling.

> Bind Sessions to Devices

They say they will "investigate binding the session to a specific device"; is there a known good way to do this? I could imagine attempts to do this breaking legitimate use cases like Apple's Handoff between iOS and Mac, or just not adding much security.

My instinct is that the admin functionality could be put run behind a VPN, and that would be a good defense against a HackerOne employee's credentials or sessions cookie being leaked.
You're neglecting one other major reason for disliking systemd:

3b. Not working as advertised.

I have consistently run into major issues on various machines with trivial configurations. I am left with no choice but to ban systemd from all my machines because it's not usable.
Things can't move faster than light, that isn't possible, but we can think about abstract concepts that aren't things. Fairness for example. Infinity. These are not things. Expanding space isn't a thing, it's just a concept. So that can go however fast you want.

Let's try something much smaller and easier to reason about. Take a small fairly directional lamp (in my country we'd say a "torch" but words vary) and hold up a coin in front of it so that it makes a big obvious shadow on a far away wall, you may need to turn down ambient lighting. Relatively small movements of the coin result in the shadow moving quickly. Huh. How fast can that shadow move?

While the coin is a _thing_ the shadow is not, it's just your imagination processing the absence of light.

If you have a big enough room and a strong enough light source, you can do this trick so that a flick of the wrist appears to move the shadow much faster than the speed of sound. If a _thing_ did that in a room filled with breathable air you'd hear a sonic boom. But the shadow isn't a thing, it exists only in your imagination and so you hear nothing.

Large enough objects can occlude a star to have this effect on a cosmic scale. The shadow of a planet can pass over the face of another planet at faster than the speed of light. But no actual _thing_ moved, so no rules are broken by this happening, "faster than the speed of light" was only in your head, all the actual things (including the photons) obeyed the rules and stayed at or below the speed limit.
How much have Google’s “innovations” led to profit?

People seem to forget that one of the first things Jobs did was get rid of Apple’s Advanced Technology Group and focused research on profitable products.

Google’s lack of focus explains why it has had five failed messaging apps.
It wasn’t a single ring. The title is misleading (if you can’t trust Business Insider for honesty and clarity who can you trust?). He was joking based on what he did in the past as a percent of net worth and that Gates should spend similarly.

> Buffett told Gates that he spent 6% of his net wealth on an engagement ring in 1951, and Gates should do the same.
Gates was worth around $6.2 billion.
And then another afternoon every week trying to figure out why Webpack is breaking this time. Many week I spend more time babysitting the environment tools than actually writing code.
You have to adapt and grow or else you’ll wither.

Agreed, but we now know that as people age it becomes increasingly difficult for them to learn new things. This is a basic function of biology and how the brain ages.

Due to automation, change is happening increasingly quickly, more rapidly than many people can adapt to. People are being left behind, which has pretty serious social and political implications.
Withdrawing the money despite knowing it isn't yours is the part that's theft.
> Although elephants are very intelligent, we're the smarter than them and outnumber them and all other animals by a large margin.

We are out-numbered by many orders of magnitude by a number of different animals:

Which life form dominates Earth? http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150211-whats-the-most-domin...

This strange, glowing fish is more abundant than rats, chickens, and humans combined https://www.businessinsider.com/bristlemouth-fish-is-the-mos...

Along With Humans, Who Else Is In The 7 Billion Club? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/11/03/141946751...
For shot the problem is that each piece is very small, so air resistance slows it down meaningfully if the density isn't there (e.g. steel vs lead); so the exact same power at the muzzle will have very different power when hitting the bird if a less dense material is used.
A lot of the newer functionality in JS was obvious influenced by jQuery. Maybe the same thing will happen with lodash over time.
Cloud SQL has been down for me for 45 minutes now. The status page still doesn't say, but it says this in the Known Issues for technical support:

"We are experiencing an issue with Cloud SQL instances hosted in the us-east1 region, beginning at Saturday, 2019-12-07 10:00 US/Pacific. Symptoms: Some Cloud SQL instances hosted in this region are becoming unavailable, and are refusing connections. Self-diagnosis: Connections to the Cloud SQL instance are rejected. Workaround: None at this time Our engineering team continues to investigate the issue. We will provide an update by Saturday, 2019-12-07 12:04 US/Pacific with current details."
This is tautology. In that case, everyone can just put up their own html page with a search box, proxying the results from Google or Bing, and can claim that they have built a search engine ...
Heavier things do gain kinetic energy faster when falling, it's easy enough to confuse "being hard to stop" with "moving fast." Intuitively, the heavier object has "more" of something but in casual conversation "kinetic energy" isn't a common or familiar term. If you haven't studied enough physics to reach for that concept, I'm not surprised a lot of people just settle on "faster" when attempting to describe it.
"Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (knightcolumbia.org)" :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20841059
Funnily enough, the Tensor2tensor library he mentions that replaced the old deprecated layer is now also deprecated.

https://github.com/tensorflow/tensor2tensor

> It is now in maintenance mode — we keep it running and welcome bug-fixes, but encourage users to use the successor library Trax.
What do you use this similar search for? Is it for data on what previous users clicked on?
Most people have been saying that consoles are less subsidized now than they used to be.
This is the Secretary Problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
x means "the symbol whose name is x". Symbols are first-class data structures in Lisp; they are basically C structs with a predefined structure, one of whose fields is called "name" which contains a string. (The other fields are unimportant for this discussion.) Symbols are looked up by their name, so there can only be one symbol whose name is "x" (not completely true but true enough for this discussion).

(x) means "a list that contains the symbol whose name is x." Lists are also first-class objects in Lisp, and they are built using cons cells. A cons cell is itself a struct with precisely two fields: a CAR and a CDR. And you can put anything in either field, including a pointer to another cons cell. The x symbol in this example would be pointed to by the CAR of a cons cell, and the symbol NIL (a special global symbol) would be pointed to by its CDR to indicate "the end of the list."

So (x) means a struct whose CAR contains a pointer to the symbol named "x" and whose CDR contains a pointer to the symbol named NIL. Otherwise known as a list with one element.
That wire rack shelf (sans wheels) is still how some low budget colocation/dedicated server operators set up their hardware. Minitower or mid-tower microatx/ATX sized cases with low cost motherboards, CPU, power supplies. A cheap microatx sized tower case with one rear exhaust fan is $35.

Each system with one or two cat5e cables and a single power cable. In really low cost colocation facilities the limiting factor is often total kW of electricity and cooling available, not square footage of floor space.

It's been a common thing in the datacenter/dedicated server business for about 18-20 years.

The same general idea was adopted by Bitcoin miners using ASIC hardware, and later on with Ethereum mining again with systems using two or four GPUs connected to a low-cost ATX motherboard.
There is a fascinating Bayesian explanation for schizophrenia: the story goes that schizophrenic people have a much sharper prior/posterior than non-schizophrenic people, which makes it more difficult for them to correct their internal models when the environment diverges from predictions. Which causes them to drift off into their own realities.

For example, if you run the rubber hand experiment with non-schizophrenic people, even if you don't stroke their hand and the rubber hand at the exact same time (say the timing offset is gaussian with standard deviation sigma), with enough repeated exposures to the stimuli they will recognize the rubber hand as their own. In contrast, if you repeat the same experiment with schizophrenic people, it takes a smaller standard deviation or substantially more trials to have them recognize the rubber hand as their own.

I wish I had the references lying around, but I dug into the literature for this a few years back and found this hypothesis to be surprisingly well supported.
Likely unpopular opinion here, but it seems a little unfair to fault YC founders for believing "that the way to win was to hack the test", when the YC application itself would seemingly select for founders that exhibit this behavior with questions like "When have you most successfully hacked a non-computer system to your advantage?"

I'd posit the YC application in and of itself shares some of the facets that the article is critiquing in a "test". The fact there are paid services popping up to review YC applications reminds me of SAT Prep services.
Yes, they share the room with the Facebook executives who worry about the HN users who will quit the social network.
I don't have a source handy but yes, that's my understanding.

An example I saw in one article was a hedge fund that bought satellite imagery, and counted cars in parking lots to estimate how well a business was doing. That's fine, because it wasn't information that came from an insider.
it's a really simple problem honestly. Make a standardized test, but don't put an hour time limit on it. If you gave the exact same algorithm test with a 24-hour time limit vs. a 1-hour time limit then had a 1-hour interview explaining the solution to the problem you would be testing for something closer to programming acumen than memorization. I have no idea why tech companies find this so challenging.
Fair but there’s no meaningful strategy now, either.
This problem of run-away excitation in wetware reminds me of exploding gradients in artificial neural nets. We try to handle this with data normalization, batch normalization, and gradient clipping of different sorts (although unless the clipping is incorporated into the loss as in PPO (Schulman), it's very brittle and dependent on the data and network architecture.). So I wonder if we can glean something from these inhibitory neurons for artificial nets. The opposite problem of vanishing gradients results from too much inhibition, which happens in recurrent neural nets - so it's definitely a balance. Currently PPO does the best job IMO, but is specific to reinforcement learning.
Right - It is not clear how we can see something more than 13.8B ly away since it would take more than 13.8B years for signals of its existence to reach us. From our frame of reference, that would mean the emission started before the big bang.
Just about with roughly five hundred total. Though up from a handful three decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_condor
Yes it really cannot emphasized enough that the legacy filesystem system interface with it's too-simple 1970s origin and then far, far, far too complex decades of duck tape is a disasterous albatros.

C.f. What linus is saying in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21673372 except turn it around. When an interface has devolved into two sides hating and Postel's-law-enabling each other ad infinitum, and a statement like his is actually justifiable, it's time to close up shop and move on. Nothing good will ever come from POSIX-like storage ever again, and any storage system built around it is doomed to be a mess of too many layers and also too many layer violations. Utter hopelessness.
They are using criticality in the same sense it used in physics (in the context of phase transitions). You may find the wiki article useful in this regard [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_phenomena
Different browsers will update at different times (or not at all). There are websites like caniuse and mdn that will show you what browsers are currently supporting. If you are working on an intranet site, you might know that everyone will be using X browser that is on version Y. Otherwise...

If people are sticking to an older browser, they will never have the functionality (this can somewhat be mitigated through transpiling using Babel, but this isn't foolproof).

It often takes years for a feature to be widely deployed enough that no tranpiling is required. There are still features from ES2015 that I think still require transpiling.
Both of your examples have invalid sort comparator functions.

A JavaScript sort comparator is required to not only return a positive or negative value, it must handle all three cases: greater than, less than, or equal. When the arguments compare equal, the comparator must return 0.

Returning only a positive or negative value is a very common error. (I don't mean to pick on you for this! I have seen the error so often that I hope this may be helpful for anyone writing a sort comparator.)

The invalid comparator will force the normally stable sort to be unstable, because sort() now has no way to know that two items should be considered equal and their existing order preserved.

Let's demonstrate with the "doggos" example that the article links to:

https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/sort-stability

The code starts with this array:

const doggos = [
{ name: 'Choco', rating: 12 },
{ name: 'Devlin', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Eagle', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Jenny', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Kona', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Leila', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Milly', rating: 14 },
{ name: 'Molly', rating: 12 },
{ name: 'Nova', rating: 12 },
{ name: 'Oliver', rating: 13 },
{ name: 'Patches', rating: 14 },
];

It uses this valid comparator:

doggos.sort( ( a, b ) => b.rating - a.rating );

(Note that this implements a reverse sort as can be seen in the output on the test page.)

Subtraction provides the proper return values when two numbers are compared: any negative number, any positive number, or zero when the ratings are equal.

Another valid comparator (again using a reverse sort) would be:

doggos.sort( ( a, b ) =>
a.rating < b.rating ? 1 :
a.rating > b.rating ? -1 :
0
);

Either way you get the expected output in the current version of Chrome, which has a stable sort. Each group of doggos with the same rating appear in their original order:

[
{ name: "Milly", rating: 14 },
{ name: "Patches", rating: 14 },
{ name: "Devlin", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Eagle", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Jenny", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Kona", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Leila", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Oliver", rating: 13 },
{ name: "Choco", rating: 12 },
{ name: "Molly", rating: 12 },
{ name: "Nova", rating: 12 }
]

So let's go back to the original doggos array and use a sort function that only returns 1 or -1 (once again using a reverse sort):

doggos.sort( ( a, b ) =>
a.rating < b.rating ? 1 : -1
);

With this function, the result is:

[
{ "name": "Patches", "rating": 14 },
{ "name": "Milly", "rating": 14 },
{ "name": "Oliver", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Leila", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Kona", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Jenny", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Eagle", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Devlin", "rating": 13 },
{ "name": "Nova", "rating": 12 },
{ "name": "Molly", "rating": 12 },
{ "name": "Choco", "rating": 12 }
]

Now the sort has become unstable. Doggos with the same rating are no longer in their original order.

Bottom line, be sure to handle all three cases in your sort comparator if you want a stable sort.
I like that. Thanks for sharing.
Sure, equal weight split between SPY, EFA, EEM, VNQ.

7.7% real return with 17.7% vol vs 7.1% real return with 17.1% vol.

Sharpe for equal weight: 0.435; Sharpe for SPY: 0.415
The hardware on a PS4 Pro or an Xbox One X is pretty anemic CPU-compute wise compared to what you could build for near the same cost.

Something like a $190 Ryzen 3600 on a $100 motherboard. Add RAM and a small low cost SSD, or just do network boot/PXE. Total cost might be somewhat more than buying a PS4 Pro but it would run circles around it in any cpu intensive application.
M&A is being increasingly automated too. There are simply too many companies out there to run off of relationships alone. Pre-merger due diligence is mostly automated already.
Except not really at all. Musk and co have a mandate to be profitable and don't have a vast advertising fortune to fund fundamental research with.
Fair enough. It's pretty common to use them for billing purposes as well but if, for example, you mostly drive to client sites and want to use mileage as a proxy for billable travel time it would be perfectly reasonable to add an uplift to mileage rates over the IRS rate.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people
From a business perspective - regardless of the content of consulting/freelancing:

People respond to incentives and everything that matters to you and to the client is up for discussion.

I do a mix of project work, training, and team/design coaching. I have a graduated rate schedule. If we're doing a long-term project, I'll typically price work out at the week level and bill at what comes out to be a lower effective hourly rate. This is fine, because these things are planned in advance and I can schedule around them. For customers that want to be able to get an hour or two of time nearly on-demand, I bill a much higher effective hourly rate and bill at 15 minute intervals.

I value my time, and I value being able to plan for things. I incentivize clients to do this by charging them more for things that are relatively inconvenient.

I like being paid on net30 terms - this is how I plan my cash flow. If a client has a blanket rule for net60 or something else, I'll discuss with them my preference, and will typically offer early payment discounts, something like a 2.5/30 net60. Again, incentivizing my preference. I'd rather have a predictable cash flow.

Regarding the second item - it's always worth discussing something. I've never had a customer issue with schedule or scope when we've talked through what's happening. Your work matters to your customer. Keep them apprised of what's happening.

I will typically have active work with 3-5 clients at a time. I have a mix of remote clients and those that prefer on-site presence. For much of the last month and a half, I worked out of one client's office, but had daily standing commitment from 12-5 for another remote client. The on-site client was fine with this, because we discussed the schedule. They prioritized the on-site presence and immediate availability.

I typically won't work full time for a single client. I consider full-time to be 40hr/wk for more than two consecutive weeks. This doesn't mean I have no long term clients, just that we work out schedules that work for both of us. This is because I value my schedule flexibility and don't want to be beholden to a single client. My clients get this.
I believe you re .NET Core, but I think that Microsoft shifting their focus to a backward-incompatible development platform (not Windows, on which they have a very good compatibility record) every five years or so is more than just opinion. I think that their record on that front speaks for itself. If you were a developer who always uses the current flagship MS development platform to develop a piece of software that you first wrote in 1999, by now you'd be on your fourth significant rewrite. TBF, Java also made one such misstep, with JavaFX Script in 2009, but that was corrected and reverted.
Am doctor. Routinely prescribe 1000 mg of Acetaminophen.
Information may be freer than ever but capital is more concentrated than ever. You can't do much without capital.
Discord seems to be preventing new connections.
I can't believe you work on the OpenJDK and are trying to intentionally confuse the JVM and Java.

tsk tsk.