skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In theory, different parties could put forward different proposed exams before an election, and then citizens could vote on which exam would be used to filter the candidates. (There would probably have to be a "null exam" option on the ballot, to allow people to oppose the use of this filter, and perhaps all non-voters should be counted as having voted for that option).

Arguably, though, this process would just move the problem of voter apathy back a step, unless there is some reason to expect that voting for exams is more motivating (or more reasonable to make mandatory) than voting for candidates. Also, it's not clear that the exam would be testing anything other than candidates' memory, as presumably the correct answers would have to be published in advance for the citizens to check.
Mostly optics, I'd say, because it's more obviously fractional slavery than how nondischargeable debt is.
Disclosure: I am an outlier, and work for a company where salaries are public.[ß]

I have never read through the full list of what anyone makes. I honestly don't care. I have checked whether a particular engineer has got a raise I have advocated for or what I believe they are worth, but that's different.

The biggest benefit from this is that even relatively junior people are willing to recommend offers for candidates that actually match market rates based on their skills. To be able and confident to quote offers that are higher than what you make is an incredible leveler.

ß: our market maker unit deviates from this - they found out that hiring from banking or hedge fund backgrounds, new people were not comfortable knowing/disclosing the exact numbers but are okay with salary band granularity. Sure. Fine. Whatever works.
For the presidential election in California? Yeah, really only the primary matters, and only for the two major parties, and only one of them has a real field of candidates this year.

For other offices, many of these are highly contested, and the top two primary system makes primary voting more important than it used to be; especially since there are fewer voters, your vote has more weight.

For all of measures and propositions, many of those are highly contested, and you should vote on those. Especially in California, where anything enacted by voters cannot be changed except by voters, unless its found unconstitutional by the courts. (Washington state legislators are apparentlty sometimes able to modify or repeal voter passed measures; other states may vary)
Probably. One simple habit is just getting out of the bed and saying "Today is going to be a great day!"

I haven't read the book but I posted mainly because I found the behavior model useful.
You forgot to add "this HN comment sponsored by Bloomberg2020".
Interesting, I had to check their ToS and found this which seems a bit vague:

"[...]use the Services to store or transmit any inappropriate content, such as content that: (i) contains unlawful, defamatory, threatening, abusive, libelous or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature" [1]

(My emphasis)

[1] https://keybase.io/docs/acceptable-use-policy
1993 HAL-PC OS/2 NT Shootout (Uncut)
> I've also realized that a strictly functional mindset doesn't match well with CS curriculum. Case in point, there is a textbook called purely functional data structures, and I'm personally fully convinced that there is a whole class of functional algorithms that I have not explored, and these look nothing like the usual algorithms and data structures taught in a standard CS curriculum.

Schools are trying to strike a balance between theory and practice. A strictly functional mindset is, for one, a pretty limited way of viewing computing, but also disconnected from how CPUs actually work.
YouTube videos about infinity and arbitrary base-10 oddities.
Rust tooling certainly has plenty of time to improve and target more architectures. Vendors are extremely slow, but I do understand that in 10-20 years, it's very possible for Rust support to be on par or beyond C. Do remember that the comment I initially replied to was saying that there's no reason to start any new C codebases in 2020 when Rust exists, which is a pretty ridiculous claim considering that we're at least a decade from reasonably well supported vendor tooling being available for most commercial projects.

As for the ISA convergence argument, I don't think things will pan out that way. Different ISAs exist because of a combination of very compelling price points (remember that you have to license ARM), compelling features, nearly unstoppable historical momentum (PIC is a big one in this arena), golf-course deals, or a combination of all of the above. Time will tell on this one, but remember that everything that has happened up to this point happened for a reason, and history has a way of repeating itself.
Obligatory Carlin on the topic of voting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

Edit:

American Dream chaser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY
Because they want people who will grow that they can promote because it's really expensive to hire SDE III+
> The rest of it is mostly economic fallout from secondary effects like travel restrictions and large scale quarantines(like the chinese have done). Unless you're in the travel and hospitality industry..theres probably little impact at the moment?

Let's just talk about economic impacts.

Supply side:

- a substantial portion of goods sold at retail in the US have some part of their supply chain in China. This includes goods made in China as well as those made in the US with some inputs from China.

- a substantial number of people are employed in industries which sell retail goods that have a supply-chain dependency on China

- a substantial number of people are employed in the US logistics industries (shipping, trucking, warehousing, etc)

- China's economic output has been affected to the degree that their CO2 emissions are down 25% yoy [1]

- Maersk, the world's largest shipping company, has been cancelling sailings due to the shutdowns in China [2]

- firms will begin laying off employees in the above positions as the supply shock continues

Demand side:

- travel, hospitality, events, etc industries impacted

- a disease epidemic can cause a severe drop in consumer spending. China car purchases are down 92% [3]. Consider also the impact on restaurants, sports, entertainment, child care, etc. Some portion of this change in behavior will be "long term" from the perspective of the business cycle (ie: delaying major purchases into the following year, etc)

- firms will begin laying off employees in the above positions as the demand shock continues

Finally:

- consider that sustained, simultaneous supply and demand shocks may be hitting the world's economies in waves until this disease is mitigated

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-tempora...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/20/business/maersk-earnings-coro...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/21/china-car-s...
Legacy Preference Gets Fresh Look Following College-Admissions Scandal
Hm... I would say that the workload is the same, is it not? After all yandex is using it for logs and for metrics.
Free link: https://archive.is/0YCsB
How to: http://johnbokma.com/blog/2019/05/27/ssh-public-key-authenti...
What's craziest to me is that someone thought you could put together two groups of students in a high stakes situation without first socializing the interaction.

Half the point of school is to get students to first fail in a low-stakes way.

Groups need time to develop. Any change in a group will cause it to storm before re-norming.

The higher the stakes the more critical it is to navigate storming effectively. You "learn by doing", i.e., by getting students to storm 50 times before the the stakes are high.

Students should not have to pay the price for someone else's crash course in learning design.
It’s hard to manage mediocre performers. Low performers you get rid of, and probably no one is too upset because even if they were well liked everyone recognizes that you can’t keep around low performers. High performers are obviously not an issue. But for mediocre performers, you risk the boiling frog where they slowly edge towards low performance but it’s hard to point to anything specific. And by sticking around forever they make a lot of allies and become increasingly hard to get rid of.
You're not proposing the same system, but the system you're proposing has same problem.

Step 1: Make the test extremely difficult so essentially nobody passes.

Step 2: Allow a de facto exemption for some group based on an arbitrary qualification you can control (e.g. automatic pass to those deemed to have "good community standing.")

Step 3: One of your pre-chosen candidates wins the random selection since they make up the entire candidate pool.
I think one of the major takeaways here is, stop asking algorithm questions [1]. Everyone. Just stop it.

In my opinion, and modest experience (I've done several dozen interviews, so there are plenty more experienced then me, but I'm at least not new, plus nearly all interviews were for my team so I had to live with the results!) it isn't that hard to come up with small sample questions related to what the job actually is doing. From there, in addition to the mere fact of whether or not they were able to complete the task, you can learn about how they did it, look at their practices, stop them for a moment and discuss the implications of something they just did. You can add a wrinkle to the task ("what about unicode?" "what about cross-site scripting vulnerabilities?"). I also find being this kind of flexible, rather than being stuck on "did they solve this algorithm challenge in the proper manner" also gives me room to be human, to take a moment to try to calm the candidate down in what is inevitably a stressful situation for them (even if it's basically just Tuesday afternoon for me in my current position in the world). I think of an interview as "I want to find all the positive I can", rather than as a process of locating all flaws, and you can't do that if your candidate is frozen in the headlights the whole time.

Interviewees are pouring forth a wealth of information. The idea that the only way to find out how good they are is by asking this one narrow set of questions is absurd.

And the interviewers are pouring forth a wealth of information too. Consider what message you're sending with a rigid adherence to something we all know is broken.

[1]: Unless it really is relevant to the job! I expect that if I'm hiring a senior level machine learning researcher that you better be able to describe gradient descent to me, for instance. We may not implement it literally in the interview but I have a reasonably case for saying the researcher ought to convince me they could get there. But in a lot of cases, what's more relevant to me is that you know the characteristics of algorithms rather than exactly what they are. You can know the runtime and weaknesses of quicksort or RAFT consensus even if you can't spew the actual algorithms on to a board.

Actually, my parenthetical here almost makes me want to rewrite this whole post, although this thought is still fresh and I'm still chewing on it. Is that perhaps the error we are making? Are we conflating knowing the algorithms for knowing the characteristics of the algorithms? The latter is legitimately important and I see screwups based on failing to understand characteristics of algorithms all the time. Knowing the literal, actual algorithm to the point that you could simply open up a terminal and bash it out yourself is rarely important in this era.
That is also my experience. Also in bencmark it is almost as fast as GPU analytical DBs or KDB+.
Cloudflare merely asks for the IP and returns what it is given. Which in the case of archive.is is a fake result, but Cloudflare can't help that.
Hah, same! Love working from in ATX
I wanted to buy old buckets of Lego Technics pieces because for tiny electromechanics project they're perfect prototyping material.
The licensed engineer puts their stamp on that work? If anything happens the licensed engineer is on the hook.
Doubly-linked lists are hard with Rust's ownership system. I've argued for Rust having backpointers as a built-in type the borrow checker understands. You have to maintain the invariant that if A points to B, B points back to A. A is an owning pointer, and B is a non-owning pointer locked in a relationship with A. Easy to check if the language lets you say that's what you're doing. Rust lacks that.

If you have safe backpointers, most tree-type data structures with backpointers can be constructed. A nice feature to have.
This is a very well researched article. Personally I liked when there were less type of parts and you could combine them with your fantasy. These days there is an overflow of types. Almost multiple special bricks for every set.
"Build it and they will come" is a line from a movie about ghosts playing baseball (or the main character hallucinating), not advice applicable to building products.
I don't personally see why it matters if an account has a penchant for supporting one company. Optimally ideas would stand alone and be evaluated without consideration of the author. Thus it would be irrelevant if an account is a "shill."
Assume a pandemic. In other words, assume you are going to get it and maximize chance of surviving.

From what we know so far, many have very mild cases, some have severe to very severe. Some die from disease directly (e.g. loss of ling function due to a viral pneumonia), others from follow on complications (e.g. septic shock, secondary bacterial infection).

Based on published data it appears to kill about 1 in 500 of those under 50, assume 80% of cases are mild and that becomes in in 2,000; assume 95% of cases are mild (e.g. another cold or flu) for those under 50 and that's 1 in 10,000. So you risk if you are under 50 is likely somewhere between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 10,000.

Above 50 those odds get worse up rapidly, more so if you are a smoker or live in an area with bad air pollution.
The needs of a senior engineer vary by org and culture. It's only a "no true Scotsman" thing if we insist that there must be a single objective definition, but such a thing is a total myth. I've hired devs with the senior title that barely kept up with college interns. Similarly I've seen folks with 5+ years fail to meet expectations for baseline engineer with clear coaching and PIP over 6+ months, leave the company and land their first "senior engineer" a month after being fired. I've seen senior google engineers who failed to thrive in an open-source stack since they were used to being hand-held by Google's internal tooling and wealth of expertise they could turn to for any issue that was outside their immediate wheelhouse.

Within a company it's possible to have some standard, and a lot of companies work very hard to make their levels as objective as possible, but even then it's incredibly difficult to reduce a large set of diverse individuals working on diverse projects with diverse skillsets down to a single number.

All that said though, it doesn't matter how good your technical skills are, if you can't unblock yourself with cross-functional efforts, or figure out a way to optimize a bad situation, you will not be considered for the fast-track in most large engineering orgs. If the situation you find yourself in is truly intractable as you suggest, then the senior mentality would be to cut your losses and find a new situation.
This is a fine opinion, but I don't think it should prevent you from returning a ballot. If more people with your opinion return ballots with no selections made (or maybe some downballot selections made, but none for the top offices), the difference between turnout and votes for the top office will become noticable, and your dissatisfaction will be noticed.

Otherwise, it looks the same as 'everyone else is doing a fine job voting, my input isn't needed'
Huh? The last commit to the H3 github repo was 3 days ago. In what sense is it abandoned? Genuinely interested as we are considering using it as a core library.
Let's try to have a healthy criticism here, both sides, starting with the article in hand. There is no denying that India is at the frontier, but at least we can maintain a basic level of sanity when it comes to quantifying by how much "India is at the forefront".
World’s first: Surgeons treat brain aneurysms via robotics
AMD XConnect Technology
Our family hobby is lego. We all collect sets and spend time as a family lego building. I did have some lego sets as a kid. But the sets now are amazing, and yes pricey, but the quality and enjoyment is worth it. Lots of great MOCs (My own creations) out there too that you can download the instructions for and order the parts on bricklink. It's an amazing community of Lego fans, young and old. We have a great lego city display and are getting in to lighting up sets.
What you propose would require a constitutional congress and a rewriting of the constitution. That's why we're not trying out things like this. In the current political atmosphere, calling a constitutional congress would be suicide for our nation. I cannot see anything positive coming out of it or any type of government that isn't authoritarian and dictatorial. The reality is that we don't have a choice and fantasizing about alternative power structures instead of voting does no one any good. Of course, if you feel strongly about this, we're only a couple of states away from calling a constitutional congress and the national suicide and likely civil war that would usher in. But you have the right to work towards that and legally bring about the demise of the US. I will certainly not stick around for that shitshow.
We're definitely still working on H3. We just got a nice, new domain: h3geo.org

We're also basically done with a new Python wrapper written in Cython. https://github.com/uber/h3-py/tree/cython

We could probably use some help with the last step of packaging, if anyone is interested!
> there's probably a specific part of the brain that does deal with visual mapping.

Sure! In fact, you could say that the eyes are the part of the brain that has a close isomorphism to (a tiny subset of the EM manifestation of) the real world. Once you get about 2-3 cm from the retinas, though, I think that information has been encoded in ways that make it unrecognizable from the outside. I'm saying I doubt we'll ever be able to decode a model (let alone a map) of London from studying a cab driver's hippocampus.
Only if you don't care about long-term.
Those things are not "platitudes", those are lessons learned from the experience keeping large systems maintainable.

(that said, there are plenty of systems where long-term term does not really matter, as well as cases when good rules are taken to absurd levels)
Honestly, I think until FAANG start doing something else, the vast majority of tech/semi-tech companies will just copy them. A few smaller companies might branch out and try some other stuff, but most people hiring at mid and large size companies are just trying to minimize risk more than go grab that great diamond in the rough. If the big guys are doing X, the medium guys are gonna keep doing X also.
Software devs are totally not like military personnel. Marketing people are not like military personnel. Of course I assume there is bunch of a-holes in mil and people who try to game the system. I never been to military but I assume there are much more clear rules, ofc your superior might like you more and you get promoted, but there is no ranks or requirements written down in business so amounts of gray areas is much larger there.
Of course if you just arbitrarily add rules, the idea will collapse. I don’t see how that is relevant. The basic concept I am proposing is that representatives are not selected via voting (which is deeply flawed and ineffective) but via a more fair and effective system. Ideally this would be both random and meritocratic.

You’d simply design the system in a way in which the test is chosen by the population and/or by an entity separate from the representatives. At worst, you’d get the current three-part division of power system which most democratic countries are based on.
This story probably represents the single greatest failure of Lambda School ever. There are times when the whole story isn’t being told, but this isn’t one of them, Nicole is right. I’ve spent a lot of time talking with Nicole and her cohort, have cancelled her ISA, and we are working on a full retrospective for her cohort (UX6).

It started with misaligned expectations. We worked with a lot of hiring partners to create a UX curriculum that would be easiest to jump into a first UX career from, and it was clear in doing that research that a research-first perspective with less emphasis on design is what would get students hired faster in a field that can be notoriously difficult to break into (relative to software engineering). We hired experts in that aspect of UX design, which can be terribly broad.

Partway through the data started to show that half of the class was pretty happy and about half was not. Usually it’s not split like that - there’s always an outlier student or two but not half totally happy and half frustrated, so we started to dig in.

Two things happened:

1. We realized half of the students were expecting a design-heavy experience, and we hadn’t communicated well enough what to expect. There were pieces on design, but you wouldn’t come out of this curriculum as a UI designer, and students were expecting that.

2. We decided to try and help those students who wanted the UI emphasis, hired more folks, and started creating curriculum in a pretty rushed manner to help them reach their goals. In retrospect that was a huge mistake; there simply wasn’t enough time to build a full design-heavy curriculum in flight, and the students who wanted design-heavy curriculum were very disappointed.

That cohort was (rightly) frustrated because we tried to do too much too late. I recognized that was a risk going into those curriculum changes, but took on the risk because the most important thing is making students successful and happy. In retrospect it was the wrong call.

I wish like hell that I could go back and make everything perfect for that cohort of students; there are about 20 of them and I’ve spent time one on one with every one. We brought in more people to work with them one on one and that curriculum is much better now, but understandably 5 or 6 students in that cohort had lost their faith in our ability to deliver and opted to leave the program. Of course, we cancelled their ISAs; we lost a ton of money training these students and they don’t owe us anything, but that’s the right thing to do. We promise an awesome experience and in this instance didn’t deliver. We tried to do too much in too short a timeframe and missed the mark.
At least now we have some voices who dont originate from tech or media in the mix, as opposed to almost none
If it is as you say, an immense cost, can it really be an under appreciated topic?
(2013)

It’s a fascinating analysis all the same, and it would be just as interesting to see if the patterns have held in the years since.
I just treat high compensation as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for employment. It works.
Well it's using promises, so you can just await those.

But agreed, the documentation looks like it was written in 2014/2015.
How to Be an Expatriate in 2020
Earlier post, with discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22391092
I found this a thoughtful and sure therapeutic writing. Also moving to help and to encourage!

At the same time, a great deal in this is the level of expectations about the "greats", finding the right job place at once. I believe adjusting these criteria might open up a lot more chances to get to doing the craft, be on the team, well, interview the others too.

Good luck!