skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Since working 100% remotely for a while now, I no longer spend the majority of my time on work. It's easily shrunk to my #3 time allocation behind spending time with loved ones + taking care of myself & my home. It's really tied for #3 with hobbies/personal projects.

It's kind of shocking how many years I could've been forced to spend in the office away from what's important. Cats have short enough lives as it is! And I only get this one with my wife :)

Due to this, boundaries are pretty easy. I just use a planner & make sure I stay on task. I fit it in whenever and just hit requirements for the week. Get paid & spend the majority of life on things that directly benefit me. Highly recommended.
A Detailed Comparison of the Popular Deep Learning Frameworks
It's just structurally wrong for the domain.

For instance, understanding language requires some of the capabilities of a SAT solver. This was something everybody believed in 1972, but today is denied.

Fundamentally "understanding" problems require the ability to consider multiple alternative interpretations of a situation, often choose one or work with the incomplete knowledge you have.

Back in the 1970s we had intellectually honest people like Richard Dreyfus writing books like "Things Computers Can't Do" that describe many specific ways the architecture at the time fall short. People on GPT-3 are working in a way that is academically valid (able to make results that are meaningful to a community) but from engineering it is like building a bridge with one end or a tall tower that carries no load.

GPT-3 has a structural mismatch with the domain it works in. Unlike early medical diagnosis systems like MYCIN, it is never a doctor, it just plays one on TV and it does the "passing for neurotypical" terrifyingly well.

The secret of GPT-3 is that people want to believe in it. Somebody will have it generate 100 text snippets and they will show you the three best. Your mind makes up meaning to fill up for its mindlessness. When this was going on with ELIZA in 1965 people quickly understood that ELIZA was hijacking our instinct to make meaning.

For some reason people don't seem to have that insight today, and it bothers me why that is. Back in the 1980s they had a lot of fear about compressing medical images because it could lead to a wrong diagnosis. Today you see articles in the press that are completely unquestioning that a neural network that has been trained to hallucinate healthy and cancerous tissues will always hallucinate the right thing when you are looking at a patient.
Nobody is stopping you to start those free open source "car-OS" right now. Considering this is actually embedded it's actually easier then writing a general purpose OS like Linux or Windows.
I've seen this objection raised a lot, but I think it betrays a misunderstanding of what GPT-3 is capable of doing.

The best, in fact the only way to generate truly convincing text output on most subjects is to understand, on some level, what you're writing about. In other words, to create a higher level abstraction than simply "statistically speaking, this word seems to follow that one". Once you start to encode that words map to concepts, you can use the resulting conceptual model to create output which is conceptually consistent, then map it backwards to words. There is what humans do with sensory data, and there is good evidence that GPT-3 is doing this too, to some degree.

Take simple arithmetic, such as adding two and three digit numbers. GPT-2 could not do this very successfully. It did indeed look like it was treating it as a "find the textual pattern" problem.

But GPT-3 is much more successful, including at giving correct answers to arithmetic problems that weren't in its training set.

So what changed? We aren't sure, but the speculation is that in the process of training, GPT-3 found that the best strategy to correctly predicting the continuation of arithmetic expressions was to figure out the rules of basic arithmetic and encode them in some portion of its neural network, then apply them whenever the prompt suggested to do so.

If this is the case, and it remains speculation at this point, would you still argue that GPT-3 doesn't "understand" arithmetic, on some level? I would argue that this abstraction, this mapping of words onto higher-level concepts, which can then be manipulated to solve more complex problems, is exactly what intelligence is, once you strip away biologically-biased assumptions.

Certainly, at this point GPT-3's conceptual understanding remains somewhat primitive and unstable, but the fact that it exhibits it at all, and sometimes in spookily impressive ways, is what has people excited and worried. We have produced AIs that can perhaps think conceptually about relatively narrow topics like playing Go, but we have never before created one that can do so one such a wide range of topics. And there is no suggestion that GPT-3's level of ability represents a maximum. GPT-4 and beyond will be more powerful, meaning that it can mine more and more powerful conceptual understanding from their training data.
I have to say a lot of technology "change" is fads. The New Thing takes over before anybody seriously vets the new idea. Once something looks like "legacy-ware", everyone gets scared of being obsolete and abandons it for the new kidware on the block.

Experiments are nice, but making everyone in IT be a guinea pig is not productive. Rapid change for the sake of change alone will probably "benefit" younger workers on average. Fashion driven IT is probably not good for organizations in general, not for just older workers, because they are paying to throw out software and start over too often; but it seems nobody can stop this Sisyphusian dance.
I'm with you, but the pressure is there, do it or lose your job and maybe not get a good reference to help you get a new one. You cet get stuck somewhere very difficult if you have a conscience.
The other part is that if you've work in a large R&D org, you know that doubling the size of an organization definitely doesn't 4x the velocity or magnitude of work and discoveries. It doesn't even 2x it. It's more like 1.25x-1.5x. Competition might also be a better driver of innovation that cooperation.
One way you can do this without another light source is to bounce a laser beam off a window or other things that are reflective.

In fact, the same principle can be achieved with radio. The Russians once planted a device in a wooden seal they gave to a US ambassador as a gift which, when a focused radio beam was aimed at it, would reflect and oscillate that beam due to vibrations in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%28listening_device%...
I believe I developed that impression from reading about peace corps projects involving solar panels, that, once the volunteers left, no one has the expertise to maintain, so they just went unused. I am glad to learn otherwise! I’m looking at some property in upstate NY and would love to install some panels.
> I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that Apple has let the messaging get really confused.

Right—part of Apple's job is to create an environment where the "correct path" is clear and developers want to follow it. Either Apple used to do a better job, or else developers did.

And, consider:

• Apple encourages developers to distribute via the Mac App Store as much as possible.

• Preference Panes cannot be sold in the Mac App Store.

• In Catalina, all Safari extensions must be installed from the App Store as individual apps.

• New Notification Center widgets are always installed as applications. Old Dashboard widgets never were.

I would say that taken together, the clear implication from Apple is that apps are the way to go. And it all comes back to the Mac App Store, which Apple wants to push that at all costs. Evidently, they either actively don't want to sell non-apps in the store, or they don't care enough to build that functionality.

There are probably times when Apple's patterns are just wrong and the community coalesces on something better—I can't think of any, but it has probably happened, or will some day. But I do not think this is one of those times, because if you step back, using an app does not make objective sense.

(P.S. It's interesting to note that Apple's own iOS apps tend to have far fewer in-app preferences, in favor of sticking stuff in the Settings app.)
Ya there is an asymmetry for sure.

If you already know about projects deep down the rabbit hole, you can go to their website/github/chain explorer/chat and do your own research.

But if you don’t know anything except that bitcoin is darknet money, the first mention of e.g. “smart contracts” may lead you down the rabbit hole...

I think that everyone who gets into distributed systems by reading news stories about blockchain goes through a “holy s* this is revolutionary!” phase, and for too many people that means buying tokens without performing due diligence.
See my other comment, but I'd love to hear actionable steps to take to make these decisions with 'outside courage'!
Whilst the suggestion is clearly not serious, having pre-recorded or even repeated random noise is akin to re-using a one time pad.
Continued ‘listening’ - even long after the relevant conversation - could first be used to extract the fake noise and then from this the signal.
Congrats to the team for the 1.0 release.
I replied to the parent as well, but not only is the solution the parent showed significantly more complex than the CL version, I'm not even sure it actually does what I asked.

More explicitly, the expression there seems to rely on knowing the arity of the function and the number of lists at compile time. Basically, I was asking for a function cl_map such that:

cl_map foo [xs:[ys:[zs:...]]] = foo <$> xs <*> ys <*> zs <*> ...

Edit: found a paper explaining that this is not possible in Haskell, and showing how the problem is solved in Typed Scheme: https://www2.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/esop09-sthf.pdf
where is it used in production?
It looks like a battery pack replacement with a new battery pack would run around $6K including labor. Assuming the body is fine, that's not too bad of a deal to add onto a cheap Leaf.
Yes, 8-way SMT is available in scale-up POWER 9. But it just merges pairs of 4-way SMT cores instead of adding more threads to each core. The overall number of threads is not affected.
People want to hear it can work.
In agriculture-heavy eras, it was, in the sense that children would contribute labor value as they got older (and with relative quickness; you can trust an 8-year-old with tasks like feeding the chickens).
This article is long on accusations and short on evidence.

The only thing it confirms is that these two oil companies make donations to their community non-profits.

Having worked in a big company, we made donations _constantly_ to all manner of non-profits. We would match any employee donation to any non-profit. Im sure every large corporation is the same.

Making it sound like their charity donations are something nefarious without any evidence is just dishonest journalism.
Garmin issues statement on recent outage
> That in your personal bubble, beyond which you don't care to look, everything is fine, so it's fine and you vote accordingly, whatever that means?

I didn't say any of that, why do you make things up on my behalf?
Sialic acids are super interesting, and the biosynthesis of sugars with them on is controlled by a small group of enzymes (20-ish). These enzymes have different tissues and cell type expression profiles, and can catalyse linkage of sialic acids in one of three conformations (linkages on carbons 3,6 and 8).

They’re in every cell, and the biosynthesis pathway limits how many different combinations of linkages you can make. So how exactly is it that these pathogens have often such amazing specificity for particular cellular receptors, if we know they bind sialic acids?

The answer lies in higher order assemblies called clustered saccharide patches, proposed by Varki a few decades ago. This is when the proteins (or lipids) that the sugars are found on have a particular shape, which enhances the binding by the pathogen (or Siglec). They were theoretical for a long time, but right now we have the tools to be able to dissect this, and our lab has had some success finding evidence for this, and we’re using our capabilities to dissect Siglec specificites too.
Is there really an issue though? Almost everyone I know only checks their mail about once a week anyway. USPS/mail is still important but not as critical as it was 20+ years ago, especially when it comes to delivery frquency.

Maybe it's time to start delivering mail twice a week instead of every day.
You can't really evaluate a public service's accountability based on its balance sheet alone. It's a public service and is there to... provide a service.

In the past USPS has been evaluated as "thing that should make money" which is silly - if it was profitable to run a reliable service in that space the commercial sector would have forced out the government.
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, moral status is a concept applied to living things, not abstract concepts[1]. And I have no idea what "ethical status" is.

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/
> By contrast a well-educated renaissance man might have read a book every month or so from age 15 to 30? That doesn't seem to be anywhere near what GPT could swallow in a few seconds.

You're ignoring the insane amount of sensory information a human gets in 30 years. I think that absolutely dwarfs the amount of information that GPT-3 eats in a training run.
While this was probably a necessary move due to ongoing covid19 impact on families as well as pressure from other companies (e.g. FB and Twitter having announced broader WFH policies), it's fascinating to see Google do this and how it'll impact their workforce in the longer term.

Google arguably pioneered the model of "office will have everything you need" to incentive current employees to come to the office as well as lure new recruits. It's been a win-win for the company and the employees: Google gets focus/dedication and the synergies of colocation, whereas employees can enjoy the many onsite perks.

One major irony is that for a company that sells products that facilitate and enable WFH, such as the GSuite, it's actually not very open to allowing its employees to WFH. Covid19 has seemingly forced the company to change, or at least adapt in the short term.

But what happens in 2-3 years? As tech employees everywhere are used to WFH, Google probably needs to de-emphasize the onsite requirement aspect and consequently change their culture/workplace model.
Just to be clear, Arrow is not an "in memory analytics" solution but rather an "in memory columnar data store" that might be useful when doing analytics.
That's great to know, might have to revisit it now that I'm back experimenting with Rust.
This is the same problem GitLab suffer from. I don’t know if it’s necessarily a bad thing: perhaps their success is because of the focus on breadth of features rather than the quality of each individual feature.

I don’t have an answer to that but it’s worth considering if the cost of using the value created by CloudFlare _is_ the lack of polish when features are launched.

GitLab is a good example of this phenomenon because it can be compared to GitHub: GitHub is high quality slowly whereas GitLab is lower quality faster... maybe CloudFlare is the GitLab to Akamai’s GitHub, both with their valuable place in the market.
I am more on the hardware side where the economics are different. When I was younger I was largely motivated by trying to commercialize my projects (not just releasing the full design files under permissive license, but trying to use noncommercial license and selling kits or whatever) but as I got older the meger income I might make selling hobby kits on ebay is no longer an attraction and I am solidly in the camp of 'give it away for free, and if someone wants to commercialize it all the power to them'.
At least that’s just a one time setup process.
The only evidence for federal officers being injured in Portland comes from a high level DHS press conference. If this were a violent confrontation, wouldn't some of the literally thousands of cameras turned on it be turning up something... violent? I don't doubt that a few cops have turned ankles or suffered equipment mishaps in an environtment like this, but I'll want to see actual evidence and not a talking head before I believe that a "violent rioter" did it with a weapon or whatever. I mean, if you just want to count physical injuries, there's a kid still in the hospital who took an impact munition to the face.

I'll say it again: there are effectively no "violent rioters" in Portland. There are a bunch of people like you citing other stuff as indirect evidence that the violent rioters must be there. There are no shots of riots. You don't find that strange?
It's potentially fraud
Where are you located?

Everyone I know checks daily, sometimes a couple times a day.
I wrote about this here:

https://drewdevault.com/2020/05/05/We-are-complicit-in-our-e...

In short: in general, software engineers enjoy a very good job market and lots of maneuverability, much more so than our peers in other fields.
would it be safe to wear this while exercising heavily?
I think it's an interesting line, and depends on the propaganda. I imagine at some point lawyers would need to get involved to argue the minutiae.

I can't say for sure and would really need decent examples.
Out of curiosity, are there legal concerns?

E.g. training off Schwarzenegger and offering an Arnold transform
Did you actually read what the person was asking them to do? It could be illegal in the worst case.
> I've rarely seen #1 and #2 mix. They're very different crowds, and in very different types of companies.

This has been my experience, too. Generally, the closer to doing technology as the main offering -- e.g. network engineers at an ISP, or developers at a code shop -- the better and more technical they are.

Once you get into the Enterprise, where they're handling specific apps and frameworks, they tend to get stuck in patterns and whither.

That's not to say you can't be an old grognard doing COBOL at a niche code shop, but when the tech itself is the offering you find much more technically competent seniors.
A passenger can land a passenger aircraft (Mentour Pilot) (2019)
> that’s 100% bad feedback from your reports. If the report doesn’t do well, that’s 100% of your reports that aren’t succeeding.

It kind of goes to show, if it's a bad measurement for N=1, just because it's a better measurement for N=7 it may still be meaningless. Your employees are not a science experiment.

Another way of looking at it is, if 100% of Mark Zuckerberg's employees, in say 2006-2007, were saying he was a bad manager, if 100% were "not succeeding," would it matter?

Another way of looking at it is, while 90% of businesses benefit from an objective look at manager performance, don't you want to work for the 10% where it doesn't matter instead of the 10% where it matters and they actually score well?
Non-US, non-Google regular enterprise IT here. There is absolutely zero reason my team needs to be in office. Management has stated multiple time that our productivity has increased. And yet, our official WFH policy keeps getting extended on the last day the government regulates an extension.

Overall it has left a very sour taste in my mouth, it almost feels as if we will be called in office the moment gov removes restrictions. It also tells me my company doesn't want us making any medium term plans. In another words, we are expendable.
Check out Modulate.ai! We make real-time, emotive voice skins aimed at gaming voice chat. Audio watermarking is also built-in to prevent fraud. Currently in a closed alpha stage but if you're part of a game studio and have interest please reach out!
Experts Insight on Premier League Club Almost Loses £1m to Hackers
I've always wondered -- if I used this on the board room window to listen into public company earnings meetings, is that inside information? Technically, the information is "public" in that anyone could do what I'm doing...
It'd be a process: participant in a community in a subfield, listen to ideas that have been tried and outcomes, come up with an idea using those lessons learned and success metrics, build consensus around a new idea, test in a single-instance (like one conference, grant review panel, tenure committee at one university), share lessons to the field, do this for a couple of years to show clear success, expand to multiple events in the field, become an exemplar field for that idea and "infect" other fields

Sounds slow but there's thousands of such experiments happening simultaneously right now. This is how a long of major field-sized changes have happened, like the transition to conferences from journals (which had many initial problems like during tenure review or a lack of quality in reviews), etc. Ideas will lose traction at various stages (for example, there was a movement some time ago to use alpha=0.001 instead of alpha=0.05 for null hypothesis testing, which has been limited to that field or subfield).
Also, I find it is massively unsatisfying that SARS-CoV 1/2 don’t use Sialic acids to recognise our cells, when it’s more likely than not to find a virus that binds sialic acids.
Sorry, which cop in Portland got maimed, and who got blinded? Who were the Portland kids who got killed? Those claims are genuinely new to me.
Such a system will always suffer from false positives and false negatives.

On a more positive note, when deepfakes become a problem, we will see the emergence of a culture where unsigned authoritative content is not paid any attention.
Be on time – the important of network time synchronization
Even if it's strictly less productive than in-person..you can get the job done. Why in the world would an engineer advocate for optimizing productivity at all costs instead of benefit for themselves?

I'd rather get a job at 80% productivity and have control of my time instead of maximize productivity & spend more time solely focused on work than sleeping.
> If you're enjoying your experience so much, why the hell are you trying so hard to create content for social media? Just sit back and relax.

One example that I found interesting in India is that people want to travel to religious places out of a sense of duty for their peers. I think to some extent social media works the same. You feel the need to share your life with your peer group because they do for you.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Pandemic
What's the path around this?

I've tried to keep one main language and work with something different each time. It creates diversivity in my resume but allows me to use my core anchor language to find a role.

How do you pivot to something brand new?
You can be cancelled for any reason. Loius CK wanked in front of some girls, but it could just as easily have been due to a joke. It creates an unforgiving environment where it is not unreasonable to believe that a single unpopular joke would be enough to end your entire career. I don't really blame snowflake-millennials for this though. It's the corporations ultimately who are the ones creating this problem by caving to public pressure. They could just ignore the angry masses of morons. If comedians feel pressured not to make edgy jokes then that is a real effect. And they do feel that pressure.
It depends on the percentage of users do so.
In fairness the CME/conference circuit is basically a way for physicians to legally embezzle a free vacation. Many of those conferences are held at places like Jackson Hole, the Bahamas, etc, with relatively short amount of hours per day spent in talks and the rest skiing/relaxing/drinking etc on the hospital dime.