skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People who say "oh, I just want to see how you approach the super-hard problem" are often the first to comment on threads like this, but the experiences of OP and others seem to indicate that most interviewers expect you to actually finish or GTFO.
The asteroid trajectory must be refined - as per MIT.
Based on this data, the structural integrity must be assessed. I expect asteroids to vary from rigid iron rich and tough bodies that are amenable to a 'point thrust'. By that I mean send a rocket with one or more rocket motors and fuel with separate fuel supplies that are anchored to a point, and fired to transfer momentum to the asteroid as calculated. If it rotates - what rate? Assess, and fire only when properly placed. Any rotation would be known and the thrust point optimized for the task. This installation would be re-supplied with fuel and oxidizer on a recurring basis. The whole thing may be manned or robotic if capable.
If the asteroid is a gravitational aggregate of gravel, sand, and smaller asteroids - this will not be amenable to a point thrust - it would scatter apart as the inherent gravity would not keep them all together. In that case, a central detonation chosen to direct the path away would be detonated. This would scatter the debris in all directions.
The scatter would be observed and the larger bits capable of entrym to the surface tracked. The gravel can be ignored. Larger bits assessed on a case by case basis and tracked, and detonated if possible.
One hopes the recent project to assess all near earth objects that might intersect will give 5-10 years of advance warning so that measures can be implemented.

Some people have suggested a 'gravitational tug' - mass placed near the body to attract it. This is a dumbass foolish suggestion, since gravity is the weakest force, and and object capable of the task would be in the same orbit as the asteroid and of similar weight (in order to atttract with a meaningful force) - this means it would be a similar threat.
Time is what we need. With 10 years warning we can assuredly move a 10 KM asteroid onto a safe path for the initial impact and then progressively move it towards entry into the sun - the safe end point.

The decision as to nuclear detonation, chemical detonation and persistent thrust application would be decided on the merits.
Persistent thrust is by far the most efficient method.
Mistakes I Made Creating a Cryptocurrency Blog
I think TeX is terrible, so keep it up please, but the examples all look really bad. If you want to sell someone on "this system will help you make beautiful documents", the examples need to wow.
Yes, at that point the political consensus adopts the results of rigorous scientific testing as it's new bling
You can certainly have that many shares in a normal brokerage.
No. I went directly to the client and sold them on the idea of iterative process from first principles

The difference is that the emphasis is on knowledge creation and relationship building

Believe me that there is a way to do the right thing by everyone but most people set themselves up for failure at the outset

It's both way simpler and much more complex than most people can truly appreciate
I thought that was bizarre too.
>The difference is that the bot is pretending to be a person. People are herd animals, they are easily manipulated to follow views that the herd sees as "correct".

If this is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), the entire premise of Democracy is incompatible with modern technology. We could keep trying to bandage it with "fake news filters", but at some point we will need to admit defeat on that front and start fiddling with suffrage rather than fiddling with free speech.
I couldn't disagree more as a parent of a 5 and 3 year old.

I remember LEGOs being a big bucket of like 4 colors when I was a kid (80s) and never got too into them. Now there not just the designed sets but a whole community around the creative process, like Lego Ideas (fan made designs that get turned into sets for sale based on fan votes) and "3 in 1" sets where you can make 3 different things from the same set. My 3 year old loved the Queen Waterva "Build Whatever" set where there are instructions for about 20 different designs and he builds them with his brother over and over.

There is something to be set for giving kids an entry point for creativity. First they figure out how blocks go together, then they build things from instructions, then they play with them and break them and rebuild them and learn to be more careful. Then they notice how the sets always design walls or ships or legs and start to modify designs for their own needs.

A gentle introduction is best. If I dump 1000 legos in front of my kid he won't do anything, but if he has only 20 pieces I am amazed by the things he comes up with. I know some school actually use legos in the classroom for into robotics. It seems to me LEGO is doing very well engaging on multiple fronts and hitting different age ranges.
You can somewhat emulate this with Weak pointers:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/rc/struct.Weak.html

They don't count against ownership, but do bring some extra headaches of their own (referencing counting overhead, etc).
Open sourcing projects is the new merit badge for engineers. But at least there’s more good than bad from it. Hudi is at least one Uber project I can point to off the top of my head that is a great idea.
Why are you telling your students that they shouldn’t discuss problems with the school outside of channels monitored by Lambda?

https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1213711252175740928

You say that no “professional environment” would encourage this, but it’s actually a legally protected right in every workplace:

https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EO_Posters/Employee...
Browser slurping takes backseat with Chrome removal of malicious extensions
Seems like a bit of an ideosyncratic use of the word. In tcmalloc these per thread zones are just called the thread cache (hence the name "thread caching malloc").
You give them tasks with frames of reference. Not all refactored are monsters. It does require some guidance though that’s kind of the point.

These are just some things I’ve been apart of. I’ve gladly been apart of this before.

You can as I said also have them write tests or as others noted have them write smaller features or other things in isolation.

Also how green are we talking is another question entirely. Some tasks are better fit for people with maybe practical experience in another tech stack but need to get up to speed in a new language etc.

My overall point which may not have been clear is that there is always a way to get an engineer up to speed without killing velocity. It’s a management failure to say you can’t hire junior engineers.

It’s one thing to need someone that’s a domain expert, but often I see “senior engineer” === “No ramp time” and I think that’s just a lie management tells themselves to justify not coming up with a good on-ramp plan for new engineers
Isn't the key part that these older systems have documented bugs?

Or, to put it another way, if there's a wasp in the room (and there always is), I'd want to know where it is.
Ask HN: Do you find it unethical to monetize open source like this?
A few years ago I started a relatively successful open source project (https://autospotting.org) designed to save its users a lot of money on AWS bills while being lightweight, easy to use and adopt.

I had a full-time job and I worked on it countless nights and weekends, developing it entirely in the open and not asking for anything in return. Hundreds of users started to use it and a few even contributed significant amount of code and it matured to eventually become production-grade.

A couple of years later my child was born and I had a hard time justifying spending time on it instead of spending it with my wife and son. I thought about it a lot and eventually decided to monetise it on Patreon and treat it as a mini-job. I'd be spending on it roughly as much time as I get from it on a monthly basis, considering my usual hourly rate, hoping to one day ramp it up enough to actually become a full-time job (currently at $450/month, so still quite far from this goal).

In order to give some additional value to to my patrons, I decided to start testing selected builds that I only announce as stable releases in private to my patrons.

So I keep developing it in the open, I just don't create public releases of the open source code.

I've recently seen someone say this about my project:

"For somebody who works in OSS software, incl. commercial OSS, it is painful to see such an blatant, unethical approach to monetisation https://autospotting.org

'Our code is really shit, but if you give us money, we'll give you a less shit version'

This is not the spirit of OSS"

https://twitter.com/matthewfellows/status/1197013237222391808

So what do you folks think about this?
After writing a glossary for my day job using confluence, I thought there had to be a better way. I couldn't find one, so I built Jargonaut. It helps you build a nice, crosslinked list of terms/definitions, and provides simple slack integrations to allow you to pull in a definition into slack.

I have lots of ideas to add more value, but I want to get a feeling from others on whether something like this adds enough value to your bog standard wiki page, enough that you'd consider parting with money for it.
Not entirely sure why the SEC even has jurisdiction here ... isn't Telegram based outside of the US?

And even if they decide they do have jurisdiction, how are they going to enforce anything?
I don't know, hiring seems inherently broken.

Not just the algorithmic part, even the part leading up to it.

You have to impress a recruiter or an HR drone by listing all the buzzwords that are currently trendy.

Then, even after the algorithmic questions and interviews where you prove you can DO the job, you get rejected.

Every company I've worked for had trouble hiring.

I'm working for a company that also has trouble hiring right now.
Last week, the person interviewing our latest candidate told me that despite the candidate doing perfectly fine, he couldn't come up with something that he felt excited about doing in his current job, which was a red flag for him.

I tried explaining that perhaps that's something you shouldn't expect from someone who's at that point switching jobs.
We're still discussing how hard it is to find good people.

Most of the companies I've interviewed for also have trouble hiring, yet I've been rejected for the most asinine reasons.
These companies have the same positions open years later and not due to growth.

All this rant is to say, we're mostly doing this to ourselves.

I don't have a better way of doing things, but I can't just blame a handful of big corps for this, as if their technical interviews weren't designed by technical folks themselves.
Yeah, that's part of why Lambda's ISAs came into the spotlight recently: they were turning around and selling them immediately, which broke that incentive alignment that students may have been counting on.
The issue here is not the company but the fact that the owners of the original library did not figure out how to “disown” the library.

Open sourcing something is naturally more expensive than not. It’s seldom the case that impact to the community triggers contributions that outweigh that cost.

The fallacy we hold is that companies will prop up software that is open source for everyone to use despite the lacking community contribution.

We as engineers should push ourselves to contribute when we find issues - rather than simply create tickets that represent work were want to have done for free. This is how open source software dies.

There is a minority that does this.
> Right, if you pay significantly less than top companies you probably don't want to filter using their metrics since then you will just get their leftovers.

Not sure where you read "less pay" into my comment but fine, let's go with that and just ignore that quite a few companies immitate FAANG style hiring these days.

> Instead you should try to find the good candidates they miss. However there is really no reason for top companies to change their interviews.

Yeah, I feel like we're arguing two completely different things here, there's plenty of reasons for companies to change processes even if they work on some metric. When a large number of experienced participants in the fields you are hiring for are offering critique on your process it should be at least reason enough to talk about it, which is the whole point of discussions like these.
Check your privilege dude, I can't go to "any bar in Europe" and ask. Ha, as if I can afford that!
Buridan's Ass
Show HN: Prince lightweigh block cipher in HW
Before giving others lessons you should get your facts straight. PipeWire is meant to be a complete replacement for not only JACK, but also PulseAudio. One of it's goals is to merge the functionality of both of these and only provide a compatible API for apps as a convenience. It will be possible to write apps that don't use these. Internally it's different from JACK and PulseAudio. Other goals include better latency and better handling of dynamically plugged audio interfaces which is currently a mess with JACK. It's also an attempt at simplifying the linux audio stack.
Apathy, or they find more value in spending their attention and time doing something else, a feeling like their vote won't change a thing, or straight up laziness.

I don't actually think it's important why someone doesn't vote, so long as their right to vote isn't impeded. I have a theory that society, like many other systems, tends to take on more stable forms over time. Part of the reason democracy has been so stable is that it allows people, who would otherwise be unhappy and want to change things, a chance to have a say. Non-voters are already a "stable" part of society, since they apparently don't have strong enough feelings to go vote for something different. I don't see a problem with that.
> I also rejected a candidate on the basis of failing the simple whiteboard problems

OK, but this topic is not about "simple" whiteboard problems. (People can of course disagree wrt. what's 'simple', but a rule of thumb is that anything where the average dev would need to train and memorize whiteboard trivia for an extended period in order to perform satisfactorily is far from simple.)
Atomic Habits is interesting.

Tiny Habits is great. It is deep while being approachable. BJ Fogg is not only a serious researcher, but also a superb teacher.

Tiny Habits is a book to buy, to read, and to apply to your life (both personal and professional).

If you are serious about improvement, it is essential.
Polls say that Sanders is the most popular second choice for Biden supporters. Is that a sufficient number?
Well, if you designed some custom electronics to transfer all of that energy at once, directly into your skull... Well that could be dangerous right?
People in China Afford Their Outrageously Expensive Homes (2016)
Well, primarily:

> Scroll may, from time to time, change these Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy. Such revisions shall be effective immediately and we will notify you if these changes are significant.

There is also the usual arbitration agreement.
Well they sure are great at proving me right ‾\_(ツ)_/‾
Kids change your life.

Whether they use up your energy or they force you to reevaluate and drop unimportant things to focus on what matters, depends on your individual experience.

For myself, having a child made me extremely career focused.
Total catch 22. I’ve told recruiters something I’m excited about with my current role before and they’ve said “seems like you really like your team are you even serious about switching jobs”.....
> FAANG-style coding puzzles

These are not "puzzles". That makes it seem like there is some trick or clever concept the candidate needs to grasp that show "lateral thinking".

There isn't.

These are (or supposed to be) fundamental problems of computer science that require good understanding of algorithms, data structures, code performance, and can be solved in <30 mins on a whiteboard.

Yes, these exist, and there are plenty of them. A pretty common and well known one is "HEAD to TAIL" - where you have a dictionary of 4 letter words, and given an input of 2 words find a connecting path between them changing one letter at a time. This isn't a puzzle. It's a problem to solve and approach from different angles and allowing for a large number of solutions of different performance characteristics

> Not a single person out of several thousand emails and messages came out in defense of the current state of interviewing processes - I’ll let this one stand on its own.

Means absolutely nothing. Most of us are not interested in ruining the day of someone who is unhappy with the hiring process by revealing the truth that most likely it just means the person was not good enough. That seems cruel. I'm kind of going further here though because this is the second time this OP is coming up on the front page of hackernews
Somewhat OT, but: I've always felt there's some sort of connection between Metropolis and the alias method [1]

Can someone more knowledgeable perhaps shed some light on this idea?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alias_method
I think you missed the point of this interview style. This style of interview is scalable, predictable, efficient and effective. It is useful in that way.
They could work for a law firm or some other subcontractor of Google without Google actually knowing about it.
You're being lenient. All of these websites either have crazy amount of trackers, actively engage in accusing others of what they're doing, or just write clickbait articles with little substance.

You may not get ads but everything you do in the sites is sold. Why would I pay for this?
We discount logistics a lot when we have conversations like this.

One speaker years back (possibly before Scrum darkened our doors) disagreed with the Tech Debt analogy and asserted that we're talking about wear and tear.

At the end of the day, making a change that doesn't cause any strong feelings is much cheaper than one that does. A lot of these supposedly aesthetic, nitpicking conversations are about not feeling a sense of dread when you have to look at a piece of code. I want to say that 'dread is the precursor to procrastination," but I think there are some psychologists who want to claim that procrastination is dread.

If you've ever seen anyone argue vehemently about how they can't do two 4 hour tasks in a day, it's probably because they know that one of those tasks is going to wipe them out and they'll spend the rest of the day recuperating, doing menial work or even goofing off.

If I get to control the narrative for a project, which isn't often, then eventually I will remember the roads that have always worked for my teams. That projects go better when we feel like we're incrementally getting more productive all the time, instead of slowly calcifying. That our tools require progressively less vigilance, our code becomes less scary and we become less afraid of it. We talk about what we can productively accomplish instead of what's theoretically possible to pull off. We leverage that to throw in cheap features people didn't even know they wanted, or solve problems they did not know they have (twenty minutes watching a user is more informative than days of interviews and a mountain of surveys).

That last bit may be more important than even I realize. How proud can you be of something you were ordered to do by someone you don't even interact with every day? I've never really thought of it that way before but I sure am now...
In USA they were only available starting when I was few years old although mostly I remember their product placement in Zool
> quite a few companies immitate FAANG style hiring these days.

My point was that they shouldn't unless their offer can compete with FAANG offers.

> When a large number of experienced participants in the fields you are hiring for are offering critique on your process it should be at least reason enough to talk about it

FAANG are spending billions a year to keep this process running, there are huge amounts of work put into trying to change or improve it. And some things do change, but the signals from doing algorithms is just too salient to throw away.
The problem in the title is not the word "deceivingly" but the word "are". It should say "appear" or "seem". The reason is the common understanding of the word "robust" to mean the strong end of the spectrum from weak to strong and not the entire spectrum itself. The only way for the title to work is if you use the other (wrong) meaning of "robust".
I admit I'm prejudiced by the author beginning the README by boasting about how "beautiful" their own creation is, but I'm dismayed at the thought of trying to do preservation and archival work on documents whose rendering changes every time Harfbuzz has a mandatory security update.

I was hoping to be able to soften this criticism by saying "at least it looks better than the output of the last layout engine I wrote", which would not be a hard bar to clear (http://canonical.org/~kragen/dercuano.20191230.pdf is full of egregious typographical sins), but https://github.com/sile-typesetter/sile/commit/e72aafd58f855... (Liddell & Scott, I would have thought? Although it has no title page, table of contents, or even headwords, and https://archive.org/details/greekenglishlex00lidduoft/page/x... contains about 20× as much text) seems to be missing most of the definitions and doesn't even look that good. The first entry, αδην, defined by Liddell & Scott as "to one's fill" with 12 lines of elaboration, reads simply, "αδην adv. .". (Except with the proper diacritics, of course.)

That's probably just a bug or something, but I am therefore unfortunately unable to soften my criticism with such a compliment.
How would this work with third party cookie blocking that Chrome is planning to start (https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-...)?
They say it’s ad-free. Is it tracking-free too?
Thoughts of a Fresh Software Engineer
Another proof. The forests in Gran Canary island started burning today by multiple fires. Same as in 2019

It seems that the same people that burned most forests the last year will return to finish the job this year, or in 2021 if some trees still remain. Until killing the last tree and the last blue finch.

Is just too easy for criminals.
Recently I read this article about Software Disenchantement
(https://tonsky.me/blog/disenchantment/) and I could not agree more.

I am "junior developer" accordingly to my employer because I don't
have more than 3 years in industry, nevertheless I have found people
with more than 10 years in industry who don't care about code
performance and think all the programming languages are the same.

I live and work in [redacted]. Most people think where are becoming
like India because a lot of young people are joining the software
industry as a granting ticket to get out of poverty.

I decided to pursuit a career in software when I was in high school
because I was fascinated of the history of Internet, the pionners,
solo programmers who created systems that became the standard of
Internet. Now a programmer is seen as a factory worker.

Full text on the pastebin...
Voting is the easy part. If I'm to vote conscientiously, obviously I want to be informed on the issues, the candidates, the likelihood of the candidates to even pursue the fulfillment of their campaign promises and so on. This takes time and careful consideration. Under conditions of near certainty that my vote won't change anything, it's almost ridiculous for me to vote.
> I'm actually rather unconvinced that these interviews are positively good at minimizing risk (false positives).

I was talking about minimizing risk for the people hiring at sub-FAANG companies. If they make crap hires, they can just say "well we're doing it exactly like FAANG". But yes, I also agree there might be better ways to optimize for minimizing bad hires.