skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most lib voters do not work in mining and voted libs because the newspaper told them that labor would spend all of your tax money to ban weekends.
Another thing I'd like to ask from my fellow colleagues: please at least to some extent detail in your papers the things that you've tried that didn't work. I see this in my field (computer vision / deep learning) from time to time, but very rarely.

There are typically ablation studies which aim to determine how much each of the _successful_ improvements contributes to the result, but there's almost never any mention of things that looked promising on paper but didn't pan out in practice, nor is there any discussion of the reasons why, even though the authors often have a good idea post-facto.
The D language is planning changes that break almost all existing code
I, for one, am rooting for Intel to give up their own fabs and copy AMD who chooses the best fabs worldwide.

Plus we need lots and lots of cores and AMD shows how. With lots of cores, app developers can bypass the Linux scheduler and pin threads to cores and keep the caches hot by spin locks because there are cores to spare for those apps that need low latency.
I would say, keep your head down, save and invest, retire by 35.
3 Crashes, 3 deaths raise questions about Tesla's Autopilot
Thanks for the summary.

Thought experiment for readers, supposed humans magically appear on planet earth when no humans existed before, how would they go about utilizing the land in a manner that is peaceful, sustainable and fair?

A simpler version of this thought experiment would be: Given some land (say 100 acres) how would 2 people go about utilizing the land in a manner that is peaceful, sustainable, least impactful to the environment, fair, protects individual ownership, simple etc. Assume that no government or laws exists. If one can chip away at this problem, I think one will have the solution to most problems created by (but not limited to):

1)Absurdities of law.

2)Property taxes

3)Property ownership

4)Inheritance ( let say later these 2 people have 3 kids)

5)Socialism/capitalism ( these definitions vary depending on who you ask)

6)Zoning issues.

7)Common property.( roads, rivers)

8)Food production and distribution.

9) Etc...( covers innumerable other things, so Tolstoy was right in my opinion - land ownership is the root of most of the economic evil )
Further down the author acknowledges that subcultures are not in fact really dead, but that they’ve lost the cultural importance they had between 1975-2000 (to use his time interval). Which I think it’s a fair point to make.
Slacking is also a matter of motivation or the lack of it essentially, whether the "slacking" is a conscious act or not.

A "universal" 10x developer would be fairly rare to mythic even if restricted to a single complete subdomain like say Backend or Embedded development.

Well unless you had a massive skill discrepancy like say a team of a class of middle schoolers and a 10 year veteran software engineer but that would be a pedantic edge case like comparing the foot speed of a centarian and Usain Bolt. Technically a valid measurement of range but not generally useful.
>'Hugh Saddler, the author of the monthly audit and an associate professor at the Australian National University, said wind and solar power supplied more than 50% of the electricity generated in South Australia for most months over the past two years. “That’s made electricity in SA the cheapest in the national electricity market and dramatically increased reliability.”'

[...] the combination of significant network investment over the past decade, recent increases to gas prices, more concentrated wholesale markets, and the transition from large scale synchronous generation to variable and intermittent renewable energy resources has had a more pronounced effect on retail prices and number of offers in South Australia than any other state in the National Electricity Market.

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-austral...
> The muggles who invade and ruin subcultures come in two distinct flavors, mops and sociopaths, playing very different roles.

Alternative theory-- subcultures already include at least one sociopath and get ruined when sunlight exposes the ways in which they abused others in the subculture. (And probably also the ways in which apologists helped them to cover up the abuse.)
I wish people would stop using the word “simple” to describe problems like massively realigning all the incentives in a huge decentralised system against the wishes of the existing power-holders in that system. That’s not simple, it’s probably the most complex problem that exists.
I've subjectively noticed improvement using Lions Mane Mushroom supplements as well as self-administered ultrasound treatments and TENS
> How do you know it's her property?

She was estranged from her father. After his death, her mother encouraged her to take the hard drives and USBs. Assuming that his wife was the legal owner after his death and it was in fact gifted her then it sounds legit.
It's Not Your Grandfather's Programming Language
One of the things about Forth, is that the techniques have not proven to be amenable to generalization. Chuck Moore himself says[0]:

> I wish I knew what to tell you that would lead you to write good Forth. I can demonstrate. I have demonstrated in the past, ad nauseam, applications where I can reduce the amount of code by 90% percent and in some cases 99%. It can be done, but in a case by case basis. The general principle still eludes me.

---

I would have to start by asking, what is the essence of what has to happen to parse the string? How I would approach the problem depends a great deal on the specifics of the actual problem. So, your "concrete" example problem would have to be a lot more concrete before a Forth programmer could even start tackling it. That's the nature of a bottom-up method.

[0] http://www.ultratechnology.com/moore4th.htm
I think clean and attractive is key. At least for me. If you have a product I want and your landing page is well designed and clearly explains the product, then I am much more likely to try your product.

I assume, right or wrong, that if you out that much work into your landing page, you must have put the same into your product.

Now if your product stinks after trying it, I'll leave just as fast. But at least I have it a try. I'm sure I'm not unique in that regard.

Now, if you are resource constrained, focus on the product first, of course.
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12778824

a bit more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13270271
Are you? If so, why?
I share what you feel as I (as a user) love native apps too but the situation is easy to explain: I wouldn't want to invest time in developing a non-cross-platform app either.
Not sure anyone has put k8s on their tinder bio though
There’s no nuance about it, the rising prices are the result of reduced supply capacity and a well established triopoly gaming the market bidding and pricing rules.

The 100MW capacity Hornsdale Power Reserve effectively capped the market to a trifling $14/kW, saving the state tens of millions of dollars a year in contingency and ancillary services costs.

In addition the AEMO is taking advice from the coal burners about how to regulate renewables, with the unsurprising outcome that we end up with oscillations in frequency due to poorly tuned controllers.

Then the AEMO wants to throw good money after bad by installing more synchronous condensers rather than seeking advice from the battery suppliers about how to best tune the batteries to prevent over-compensation for frequency drift.
Total funding of €100M, the largest funding in Italy. Here's how Giorgio did it
Separating Monte Carlo methods from math theory is an odd distinction to make. There's a lot of sophisticated theory underlying Monte Carlo methods as well. MC also is more of a loose term referring to a class of techniques, rather than any specific algorithm. In that sense, there aren't really any [specific] tools or software you would use.

A textbook on MC applications to your area of interest is probably the best place to start, there are a ton in practically every field. If theory-heavy presentations aren't your flavor then you can likely find a text or blog series to match.
That is just explaining the mechanism, but not delving into the reasons.

An experiment would be to compare 2 pairs of people, one with similar tastes, and the other with opposite tastes in music, and measure their performance in cooperative tasks not involving music.
Chandro Tomar – The oldest sharpshooter in the world
Nice analogy, I think.

I'll just point out two things odd with your sentence example though:

- はvs.が is a difficult topic, but I think 上司が would be more appropriate

- you're supposed to use keigo when talking about a superior, not only when talking to them. So it should be 仰った(おっしゃった) rather than 言った.
For the engineers who want to have an impact on stuff, if you’re skilled and your ideas are good and you can convince others about that, you can be given as much impact as you can eat. There’s a huge spectrum of how much impact people opt to go for. Apple is a good place to come if you want to change something about how a billion people use some technology. And generally Apple is cool with people shipping those ideas in as quick a product cycle as they can figure out how to get it done. I’ve seen multiple colleagues take something from idea to keynote (or shipping, keynote is just the most visible way in which that happens) in 12 months or less, within the first year or two of arriving. Some of my colleagues do this yearly. You probably don’t get to do that coasting, so it’s up to you.

If you want to coast, you generally don’t work on teams that ship new product. Apple’s a big place. There’s totally teams that are good fits for people who want to have less direct product impact and be off the critical path, but I wouldn’t say that’s the common case.

The best analogy I’ve heard is that working at Apple is a pie eating contest.

And the reward is—more pie.

Each person has different feelings about how much pie they want to eat.
Related from earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21962075
Yeah this is crazy to me too. I don't work in software, I teach engineering at a local tech institute and I make like 55k Canadian. I'm fairly autonomous in that as long as I fulfill my class hours and workload I'm free to work from home and all that. I have a great work life balance and I love it but the pay is abysmally if I want to start a family in the future and save for retirement.

I've started getting into software development in my free time and planning for a career change but I feel as if I'd be trading my free time for more money. And if there's a kid on the way, what's more valuable to get from your dad? A dad that makes lots of money but isn't around much or a fad that is around a bunch but can't support you as well? Maybe real life isn't so cut and dry and I can find a happy medium between the two in software. Any advice?
> News

> r/news - Includes both USA and International.

> r/worldnews - International news. Typically excludes news specific to the USA.

> Most country/state/provine subreddit's act as local news hubs as well.

Yikes. Yikes yikes yikes. Try to look for news sources a little more diverse than Reddit, please.
Have you ever heard of the cliche of the high school football star whose career peaked his senior year and has been going down hill since? It happens. People who were the top of their social circles, but are not now, at times begin to resent anyone who can be a scapegoat. It doesn't help that those who left for a state school both have wider experience and an overly inflated sense of how wide their experience is.

And, be honest, having a degree does open doors that are closed otherwise. A welder may make more money than a junior suit just out of college, but may forget that fact when he's working on a pipe outside in 40°F weather.
Prompting purely from the HN headline "Scientific Models Too Often Prove Whatever the Grant Provider Wants Proven" (to quote in case it changes), I wanted to provide two small anecdotes. Preface: science rarely claim to prove anything.

1) It is often the case that researchers "suspect" the result before they have formally been given a grant to investigate. This ranges from forming a hypothesis based on other experience to having stumbled upon something interesting, and then afterward making a proposal for funding to thoroughly investigate. Both of these cases might look like the scientist is proving what the grant provider wants.

2) As @age_bronze hints at, models are often built to explain or reproduce observations. Think: "all models are wrong, some models are useful". Modern science tends towards "X is understood if X can be explained". Having a model that reproduces X is the correct direction to understand X, so the observation that "Scientists tasked with understanding X tend to produce models demonstrating X" is... _shocking_?
Historically, the sciences were limited to people that had the wealth to independently research and verify their work. These days, people perform scientific research for a living wage (which in itself, I am not saying is a bad thing --scientific progress is a good thing-- no doubt), but people have to optimize for income producing potential, which means pumping out papers, even if they are of dubious quality, which may or may not intentionally be done. Not all scientists are optimizing for number of publications, but a good number are.
Is this what is called reparations?
With the production of some additional capital, it should be entirely possible to go get all of the rest of the land and other natural resources in the solar system/galaxy/universe
This is why I want to industry after MIT, science is really real when it manifests as a useful technology that someone will pay for. Also, I didn’t want to spend so much time writing grants...
Exactly this.

Corporate leaders set stretch goals all the time -- that's part of their job. Not meeting them just means certain VP's might not get their full million-dollar bonuses -- not that a billions-dollar business will shutter and lay off 1000's of people.
ES-Everything: An ECMA Explainer
> I see my mission at work in carefully educating the overly enthusiastic co-workers by dropping a few seemingly random hints or observations that make them think and challenge their beliefs.

Your mission is to make enthusiastic co-workers less enthusiastic? Why?
A special report on Chinese technology
There's quite a long term. POSIX and Unix knowledge? Decades. Win32 API? Also decades at this point. SQL databases and relational modelling. Expressing things in procedural programming, in functional programming, in logic programming. Concurrent programming. Most of that stuff applies in whatever syntax the language of the day has overlaid. At this point when I had to pick up Ruby I basically went "so it's a single dispatch, class based imperative language and the surface syntax for the things I need is blah. Right, we're good." And C and variants of Pascal have been around for decades, too.

It's very easy to pick up details that aren't longterm skills, but with a little care you can make much of your skillset last a long time.
This is why we have religion ;)

Thou shall work hard, get equivalent reward in this life or next one.

I tried to become religious before but I am too stubborn to do it. We all want some purpose in life, distractions can work temporary or forever if you want them to with cracks appearing often needing to be filled.

Personal advice for myself:

- Live and compare relatively with lookout for opportunities.

- Focus on self than any 'societal' or 'familial' duty crap. You want to become the best you, it doesn't matter what happens to others. Make a list of people that you care about and forget the rest (includes HN posters).

- If I fail, then x is to blame. Diversion of blame but not autopsy. Live blameless or regretless.

- Don't think you owe anyone anything but everyone owes you.

- Focus on present with vague long term plans. No need to get upset over something you can't predict. Give yourself reward for completing any short term goals.

- Build a consistent favorable moral system. Once you are done, you don't need to question it. Follow it till the day you die or something breaks.

- Remember you have a choice to live or quit. (Sometimes it helps you gain control back to pull through things)

I am currently building a framework that incorporates above for me, I am going to make it favorable for me and then forget about how I got there.
I will believe that it is rational as oppose to religion therefore enabling me to put trust into it and follow it blindly.
BTW, the NHK web site has some interesting Japanese language resources. https://www.nhk.or.jp/bunken/research/kotoba/index.html
> laundry mat

Not to be that guy, but it's laundromat.
I wonder how much of this is due to measurement error of temperature. Core frequency and voltage control are governed by some suspiciously round numbers like Tj(max) == 90C. But when the controller thinks Tj == 90C, what's the measurement error?
Hmm, in that case, it's not really Google's fault. They are following the law (maybe not in every single case, but if the protections in the US are more loose, then they can/will do things here they wouldn't do somewhere with stronger employee protection).
Sounds like you're the target market for Panic's upcoming macOS-exclusive Nova Editor.

https://panic.com/nova/
I think page/word count would have been an interesting covariate to investigate.
Well, yes, they do speculate in the abstract, note potentially there. It looks like authors do believe the variation is caused by manufacturing variation. But nothing in the paper actually shows it. There's no attempt to determine the cause of observed performance variation in the paper. An empirical survey.

Interestingly, that recommendation could be interpreted "empirical studies based on averaged node performance" give a very distorted view on "the true impact of manufacturing variation on processors".
Anderson's 'Security Engineering' is a great read. It's a giant tome, but if you have a little bit of darkness in your soul, you will spend most of it giggling gleefully.
Sort of - the experiment was more limited than that. Basically they show some congruence between electrical potential propagation in actual fungi vs a simulation model, then demonstrate that it's possible to build gates in the model.

Actually building gates out of fungi is left for future work :

> ideas developed in the automaton model of a fungal computer should be verified in laboratory experiments with fungi.

Still fascinating that spiking electrical potentials travel through mycelium (where the "spikes" average 4 min in duration, and are separated by hours). Fungal computers seems more suited to some kind of Church of the Long Now project than anything you'd want to interact with.

For low-power multi-acre fungal computers in fiction, I can recommend "Surface Detail" by Iain M Banks. (not the focus of the story, but they do end up being a key plot element).
Based on my reading of Progress & Poverty, it’s not so much the finite nature of land that matters (though it does make the concern much more pressing). The reason land ought to be taxed differently is because the people who monopolize its productive power did not create the land nor its productive power.

The central thesis of Henry George is that a person is entitled to all value s/he creates. No one creates the value of natural resources like land (but also ocean, radio spectrum, etc.), but landlords get to monopolize its value. Since they have no claim to what they did not create, it would be economically just to tax that value and distribute it.
> How do you determine what the most productive use is and whether a natural resource is being put to it?

You can't. No one person can. That's why centralized economic planning doesn't work. (I'm not trying to suggest that Georgism is centralized planning, or that Georgism doesn't appreciate the value and necessity of price signaling.) And private ownership doesn't necessarily lead to the most efficient allocation. But the point is that private ownership is a stable regime. There are an infinite number of regimes that would offer better allocation, but we haven't yet seemed to find one that is stable, or that we can make stable. (A big part of the problem, I suspect, is cultural, so I don't mean to suggest that Georgist systems are inherently unworkable, just evidently unworkable in recent American history. I think our social and political cultures play a big part in what make land value taxation seem unfair.)

That said, if the public believes land isn't being put to good use it can purchase the land at market price.[1] That still leaves accidental and speculation profits in private hands, but theoretically it puts a ceiling on inefficient allocation. Unfortunately, in some ways (particularly politically) eminent domain powers are at their nader in the U.S. Which is a big part of the reason why we can't accomplish things like California Highspeed Rail. I think that drives home the point that Georgist taxation is less workable today than it ever has been in recent history.

[1] That's required by law in some countries, like the U.S. In some other countries it's not technically required by law but it's often the case that the government does pay market price, simply because to do otherwise would seem unfair and lead to political backlash.
> especially as connectivity deteriorates or becomes less predictable

That's exactly the situation I have for about half of my computing: if I'm not at my home office, I'm either at a coffee shop, on-site with a client, or at one of my rural properties. In all three cases, who knows what I'm going to have as far as reliable Internet goes? With Windows/OSX/Linux, the majority of things will work with spotty Internet (although that too is sadly becoming less true over time)
- terraform with Kubernetes

- boilerplate Golang stack for productivity

- computer vision fundamentals (for school)
>It seems like Google is the kind of environment where (at least if you're an SWE) you can get away with doing the minimum for a very long time.

Is this by design? i.e. taking talent out of the marketplace and placating them comfortably while working at <100% to ensure they don't go to competition, or prospective competition, and churn 100%+?
Vs:

(filter (and| :admin? :mod?)
people)

and:

(filter (or| :admin? :mod?)
people)
> Perhaps I'm just jaded and cynical but it works well, unfortunately.

It works well for me too.

I've learned to extend the "how are they getting money from this?" question into a generalized, first-principles thinking - look at the incentive structures and think about what they imply, about what's the expected behavior of a system running under those incentives. Because while not everything is about the money, systems will evolve over time along the lines of the incentives contained in them.
What I gave was a best case estimate if someone was really diligent, saving very aggressively, investing wisely, and contributing the maximum amount to retirement accounts.

As someone who has been working for over 20 years and the last 10 at Google, I am not close to retiring and I don't believe the compensation at Google is that much greater than other software jobs, as my previous compensation was comparable.

So what am I saying, yes, you might be able to retire early if you work at Google a long time and are very diligent, but you probably could do the same at most other software jobs in the region.

If you really want to make life changing money at a FAANG company you have to get promoted to a certain level, which isn't easy, IMO.
Otherwise, your life isn't that different than any other software engineers.
Kubernetes - both the platform itself and the programming & extension model - is a great area to get involved in. Some interesting things to look at include development workflow tools such as skaffold.dev, serverless computing using knative.dev and service mesh.