skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would guess that it’s not a runtime-verified checksum, but rather a simple embedded “sum complement” value, used for ROM-mastering-time integrity verification.

A sum-complement value is a value computed from some data, such that, when the data is checksummed with the sum-complement value now embedded into it, the data will sum to zero. This approach to checksumming is useful, as any potential verifier just has to throw the image-as-a-whole through the checksumming algorithm, and ensure that the output is zero. It doesn’t need one iota of knowledge about what it’s verifying. It doesn’t even need an extra machine-register to hold the expected checksum.

These “blind” checksums allow ROM production hardware (programmers, copiers) to both pre-verify the integrity of the input image, and to post-verify that it has programmed the image onto a chip successfully. No special container format for the ROM image is required, nor is the ROM image required to be structured in any particular way (which is good, because ROMs are used for all sorts of things, not just code.) The ROM image can be any opaque blob, just as long as it sums to zero.

In fact, you don’t even need a ROM “image” at all. It’s possible to integrity-verify a programmed ROM “against itself”; and thus, a hand-programmed ROM (e.g. an EEPROM you programmed in your office) can be sent to the duplication facility to serve as the reference from which mask-ROM masks will be generated. The data on the EEPROM can be trusted, because it sums to zero. And the mask ROMs themselves can be checked for flaws by seeing whether they sum to zero.

For smaller-scale ROM distribution, ROM-to-PROM bulk copiers are used. These copiers can be made to both pre-verify the source, and to post-verify the programmed copies. Using this approach to checksumming, the copier can avoid having to verify the source “against” the destination, instead only needing to verify the source once, and then verify the destinations against themselves. This both speeds up verification; and allows for the use of simpler microcontrollers in these copiers, which reduces their design cost. (By quite a lot, back in the 1970s, when all this was most relevant.)

You can see this approach to checksumming in practice in early-generation game cartridge ROMs, which almost always have these embedded sum-complement values (and so presumably were integrity-verified during mastering/duplication.) These sum-complement value fields get referred to by emulators as “the checksum” of the ROM image—but technically, they’re not; if you’re following along, you’ll realize that “the checksum” of such ROM images is zero! :)
It's a bit of both. Well, it's definitely an advertising piece but parts of it are somewhat accurate about MLOps.
I think you over estimating what a SWE III/senior dev is.

Also, it's possible the what your asking for salary wise is more senior level. So to pay you correctly you need XYZ title.
Ha! And punish my poor spelling even more.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem is our own expectations. The way IT recruitment is just now, is not substainable and makes little sense.

* There are more developer jobs than developers

* We're constantly afraid of developers who can't code

* We decide to test every developer often with non-real-world scenarios and weird things they'll never do in their job and if they did do, you would be very concerned.

* Not only do we test them for things things they won't be doing, we also expect them to spend hours and sometimes days doing these tests.

* We reject people for weird random reasons. They don't understand one concept correctly, so clearly they can't do the job ever.

* We then hire recruiters, who realise how screwed out recruiting is and that it's often potluck. And realise this is a basic funnel, so they go and search out anyone who has a rough chance of doing being able job.

* We then blame the recruiters because people don't meet our weird standards.

For real, most companies need to realise they are not FAANG. They do not have an endless source of people wanting to work for them because of the reputation. Many of these companies that are acting like they can expect people to jump through hoop and hoop, have employee churn rates of 6-12 months and are competing with many other companies in their local area for the same talent. We continually act like like doing this job always requires the best. From what I see at most companies, you need one or two people who can archectect your system and explain the designs to people and after that you just need people who can follow the designs. We can say "But everyone should be able to do archectecture designs", if you want to spend your days discuss design plans and the benefits of this and that fair enough. But that's not what a company needs, a company needs people to write code they don't need 8 out of 10 to be designing code, they need 8 out of 10 to be "boilerplate" code so to speak. And if someone is able to take a code design and implement it without making it more complex then they're good enough for the job. Google is famous for making people jump through hoops and then have them do basic tasks, because doing basic tasks is what is important.

That's just my rant of the week on IT recruitment.
Isn’t this why science deliberately chose Latin for naming? Being a dead language it won’t change meanings over time
How's the environment inside the liquid? I'm curious, for example, if you could have a fish living in levitating water?
“Iran” i also “they will go” or something similar in spanish.
Flying V long-distance plane makes its first flight as a scale model
Thanks for all the nice resources and good question.
I think a good place to look is also at Elinor Ostrom 8 design principles to deal with the tragedy of the common and David Sloan Wilson's multilevel selection theory [1]. They call is polycentric governance but it has a lot of related ideas.
[1]: https://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-commons-elinor-ostrom

[1]: https://evonomics.com/tragedy-of-the-commons-elinor-ostrom/?...
Relatively few people have thought through the moral implications of a few hundred million years of nature red in tooth and claw, so that's not exactly surprising. After all, relatively few people have even thought through the moral implications of the fact that they can purchase abundant cheap meat from any supermarket. The thought of starting a simulation that has even a slight chance of creating entities capable of suffering should give anyone a major pause.
Were they not?
Thanks for the feedback, will fix.
We will deliver within the zipcode that we provide service in. We are first launching in LA & NYC.
The suppliers are local restaurants and personal chefs.
> how many blog posts can the average person write about their feelings on the Iraq War?

A books worth: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/deepdish/ebooks/i-was-wrong/
Complex things cannot be explained easily. As such, from this perspective, it doesn't matter if a complex topic is named by a person or by some abstract, ridiculously compressed word describing an aspect of it.

But on the other hand, names are simply irrelevant. Anything is better than a name of a person, even if that person was brilliant. The person may be remembered as an aspect of some discovery (say, Einstein), but the concept as such should have some distinct name, not tainted by history, or mere human lifetimes. It should transcend existence as experienced by a human.
Did anyone in this thread try to see the situation from a child POV?

School closed, extra scholar activities canceled, not allowed to meet friends, working parents.

And then some childfree employees complain that the company allow parents to take care of their own children because no one else will?

Pretty selfish take...
> Right, I'm that way too. But the rest of the world basically chose to download another app instead.

> So that's what I wonder about -- why did the US not bother, but the rest of the world did? What was different about the US?

Not sure about the rest of the world, but India specifically, has more whatsapp users because we have more Android users. iPhone is considered more of a luxury here, even now and with millions using android devices, ios users do end up downloading a common app that everyone has. Also helped by the fact that there's no standardisation of message apps in android, though Google messages is trying RCS, more than half the phones don't ship with Google messages, even the close to stock ones like OnePlus have their own implementation, so a third party became standard for even android to android communication.
I fell into this cycle where I posted my projects on GitHub. I was constantly chasing the green tick every single day. All my projects were representation of bad code. At the end, I learnt that successful developers usually pay mere attention to Github and more attention to problem solving and consistent learning. These days, I use Github as a reference to concepts I learn. When a day come where I can consider myself a master on a language, I’ll take on an open source project to solve a real world problem with the knowledge gained.
Longtime pythonista and co-organizer of PyATL here. I appreciate the goals of the library and understand the points being made in the code. There are certain things that python has acquired over time that are not as nice as they could be. Or maybe we can say that momentum to improve them reduces over time.

One of these things is the __init__ method. It is not named in a clear manner and can be verbose. The alternative proposed with store_attr is close, but still falls to be descriptive. Ideally, I'd just adopt the keyword "constructor" or "initialize" and have it be synthathic sugar for __init__. I do like the fact that it provides a shorter way to initialize things. That could be adopted with no drawbacks as long as we keep named parameters.

I congratulate and welcome such ideas. Ill invite the library author(s) to join the python core team and discuss the ideas with them. It can take time to get new things into a project like python, but we cant grow a language by doing the same thing over and over. Languages need to evolve (to a certain extent) over time.
The missing piece is the 65+% of communication that is nonverbal. Chat is no replacement for a team of highly focused, highly integrated people doing innovative work.

It's too easy to give casual criticism or casual kudos on chat.

Could something like the iPhone have been created without engineers and designers physically in the same space, debating and discussing ideas? I highly doubt it.

If your job is not all that innovative in the first place, and no groundbreaking, chat might be ok for iterative innovation.
I keep thinking that I would like a search engine that specifically favors minimalist, 90s style personal websites.
The fact that you went to Currying and Ada shows how rare it is in the programming world.
The Git UI will probably never be "improved" because it makes sense to people who understand how Git works rather than pasting command lines they found online, and the few real warts like status output telling you to use "git pull", which is a mistake in the workflows most people use, are too old and entrenched.

If you look at the discussions on the mailing list, you'll see people care a lot and make thoughtful decisions about the user experience, it just isn't aimed at the people for whom no possible user interface change would be helpful, because they don't know what's going on and don't read documentation.
wow, thank you!
Followers on GitHub is nothing but a popularity contest. I know, because until recently I had like a dozen followers, mostly people I knew, some prolific followers, and a handful of people who actually probably did so because they enjoyed my work. Then I wrote a couple of blog posts about Homebrew and companies choosing their tech stacks and suddenly I had a hundred new people following me-not because they thought my code was any good, but presumably because they enjoyed my writing, which had essentially nothing to do with the kinds of things I put on GitHub. (I hope they’re not disappointed, to be honest.) If you look at highly-followed accounts, they are always people who write giant “awesome” lists, or maybe have a substantial Twitter presence, or are the primary maintainer of one popular project. There’s a huge number of highly-skilled people who have essentially no followers at all.
I mean that's not what came out in court at all.
YouTube deleted a video on the origin of the word “cuck”
> offer you to be compensated for your investment in fossil fuels in exchange to stop polluting

Do you even think about the obvious problems with this approach? Stick works. Carrot doesn't work, it just encourages more of the same. It's in the interest of everyone to stop shitting in the streets, right? But if I get paid every time I take a shit in the street, then ...
If you have to write complete inner product space a hundred times in an article that's pretty annoying tbh
So this is some kind of fancy many worlds theory? Except instead of branching on outcomes, we simply fill up possibility space with everything conceivable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaris_longus_muscle

"It is absent in about 14 percent of the population"
I'm confused by the reverse buoyancy. Is it from surface tension, air pressure, or something deeper?
"Data Fixes" might also correct for bias. Data often contains errors and inconsistencies, especially if it's the output of some other automation.

"Select the right data" just means don't try to do something silly like predict 2021 housing prices in Ann Arbor using historical data for Pittsburgh from 1980-2007.
Love their trackpads. But their mice... not so much. I have a tiny travel mouse that has 4 buttons, scroll mouse and much better acceleration and surface detection and was bought for likely half the price. That travel mouse is deadly in games. The apple mice? Not as accurate.

But they look good and that is what Apple were aiming at.
Not knowing much about radio spectrum, but its a finite resource right? There's no way to expand the spectrum, or do something similar like what they did in the early days of wireless technology where they transitioned from TDMA (time division multiple access) to CDMA (code division multiple access) in order to expand the number of user you can put on a data stream.

Am I right to look at radio spectrum as a finite resource?
> Why do we have to make everything so forcefully career driven?

Because a lot of us have to code for a living, and employers often ask to see GitHub projects.

None of us are choosing this. It's just one of the many shitty trends in the world of software HR.
Ghost: A self-driving system for your car
I would say things are starting to look good even for India. Check out Raji the game ,which imo is high quality and looks interesting. The gaming movement in India got a big boost after PUBG, COD, etc. but ofcourse it’s still in a very nascent stage.
People remember how you made them feel.

If you're always whining and complaining and everything and everyone is a problem then that's how people remember you.
I just had the second one.
Why not WhatsApp like much of the world?
I'm definitely more productive working from home. But I'm not as happy. Yes commuting sucks. Yes waking up early sucks. But my coworkers were also my friends. I looked forward to having lunch with my team every day. I miss happy hours and book club meetings. I miss having a back and forth casual discussion on some open ended problem we're dealing with. I miss feeling like a part of something larger than myself, rather than just being some guy who wakes up, types code into a laptop, eats dinner, and goes to bed. Maybe this is different for people with families. But I, for one, am dreaming of the day life can go back to normal.
The problem with flatpack is that many apps don't really run in a sandbox. Or at least not in something with isolation features which you might expect from a sandbox.
Traffic Prediction with Advanced Graph Neural Networks
It surely is Apples fault they can’t say ‘no’ to their children! Everyone knows kids can’t survive without an iPhone, Nike shoes and designer clothes so these should be subsidized.
> Calling this narcissism does everyone a significant disservice.

It’s not even really narcissism.

Here’s the original paper describing what is now called Dijkstra’s Algorithm: http://www-m3.ma.tum.de/foswiki/pub/MN0506/WebHome/dijkstra.... Note that the algorithm isn’t called that anywhere in the paper. In fact, it’s not even named.

When other people want to discuss that work, they need to call it something, and some natural solutions are “an algorithm proposed by Dijkstra” and, subsequently, “Dijkstra’s Algorithm”, as you can see in this contemporary paper. https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/1970-27-04/S0033-569X-1970-...)

As that second paper shows, you can’t really call it “the Shortest Path Algorithm” because others were developing other approaches for similar problems. “Shortest Path, Assuming All Edge Weights are Non-Negative and You Can Afford to Search Blindly Without a Heuristic, Algorithm” doesn’t really roll off the tongue either.
At least be smart enough not to login to any account from the hacking VPN’d computer.
Here is a demo:

http://talk.vasanthv.com
The UK has a lot of iPhones but WhatsApp is still the default messaging app.
There's a philosophical literature on this, which is also known as the "dancing with pixies" argument.

See: https://www.consciousentities.com/2009/07/dancing-pixies/

And: http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas02mb/Selected%20Papers/2009%20...
Uniqueness of names is definitely important — the question is can we do better?

If all we want is uniqueness, we could just number theorems and concepts using GUIDs.

Might as well abdicate and embrace the fact math is going to be automated, and all mathematical objects are just abstract constructs devoid of meaning that can be referred to by arbitrary labels.

But it seems like there's more to it.

The names of mathematicians are interesting for the genealogy of theorems... but they're also completely opaque about their semantics.

Is it not possible to think a system could make math more intuitive by relying on a more structured nomenclature?
it is hosted here:

http://talk.vasanthv.com
Early-career funding for individuals interested in improving long-term future
If I remember 16 bit C compilers let you choose a couple of different memory models. I remember 3, data and code fits in 16bits. data is 16 bits and code is segment and offset. And both pointers are segment and offset. I think there were more, especially for systems with 'high memory'

Most processors a pointer just gets stuffed into a register and then that's used by a assembly instruction to read/write a memory location. But it's certainly possible to have systems where it's not so simple.
I tried reading "the road to reality" and came to the conclusion that math is physics minus all the boring parts.

(Mostly joking. Mostly!)
Even with people's names, you get bizarre confusions and mutations.

https://www.tek.com/blog/window-functions-spectrum-analyzers

>Hamming and Hanning

>These two similarly-named Hamming and Hanning (more properly referred to as Hann) window functions both have a sinusoidal shape. The difference between them is that the Hanning window touches zero at both ends, removing any discontinuity. The Hamming window stops just shy of zero, meaning that the signal will still have a slight discontinuity.

The Hamming Window is named after Richard Hamming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamming

But the Hanning Window is named after Julius von Hann, and lots of people just throw in an extra "ing" to make them sound alike, but its excruciatingly correct name is Hann Window.

But it seems fitting that they're almost but not quite alike, and so is their spelling. Maybe for symmetry there should be a Halling Window that stops just below zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_von_Hann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#Hamming_window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hann_function

https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.hanni...

https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.hammi...
Yeah, and now, if anything, tech marginalizes its own older work force. Ageism really came home to roost in the dotcom era. The start of VC and startup culture really began to permeate hiring practices
Page rank. I thought git was named by Linus, and to the extent that it is named after him, it was self awareness of his reputation?

I remember when Duff's Device was a neat trick; does anyone still use it these days?

Edit: a neat trick, not a bear trick.
>We're better off with policy that limits how wealth can be leveraged into political power

>>Has there ever been a case in history where a society has successfully limited the political impact with those of disproportionately immense wealth?

there's more ways w/ tech to covertly do such than ever.
> Whenever I see a function that has the argument kwargs, I cringe a little

I cringe a little when someone says a straight forward thing should be replaced by magic middleware.
Funny how arbitrary peaks are, for me it was 6.06 — LiveCD, Gnome 2, awesome orange-brown theme and no PulseAudio.
> It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram.

What is the problem with that exactly?
I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging.

> If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever.

Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off.

> Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly.

What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either.

> Telegram is great for most messaging

What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal.

> , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices.

So it is worse.
No one is getting locked out of their files created by an old version. There will be a migration path. The old code will be in git. Worst case, the spec is open, I can implement the spec myself in python, using pycryptodome and pyca/cryptography, it wouldn't be hard.

I trust his judgement much more than I trust the group that maintains gpg. Of course, actually, there is a community, Filippo is not working in a vacuum. Worst case, if Filippo stops maintaining it or makes bad decisions, someone else (or a group of people) will maintain it.
There is no research anywhere, in any field, that has nothing to do with math.
This is the best and worst thing that could happen for remote work. Some discovered something good for them.

But many will forever associate work from home with this pandemic house arrest and will get back among people as soon as it's safe plus swear off the whole idea.
Economists are turning to culture to explain wealth and poverty
Those examples are ways to use the spectrum more efficiently. But the amount we have does not change.

It is finite indeed. But it’s also not something that’s consumable. Imagine it as a fixed sized room. If you move stuff out of a corner you can reuse it infinitely, but there can only be so much stuff in there on a particular moment.
His short stories are far better than his novels. Not saying that the novels are bad but rather that the short stories are unreal good.
Using that thing must be quite a hair-raising experience.

(The "Z0" probe idea is great, though, I shall have to remember that one)
Starfish, guinea pigs, capybaras.
There's no system. Abelian groups are a concept that is simple, intuitive, and easy to describe concisely.
This is just very reflective of hip start-ups. A large amount of tech companies (i.e., more established ones) have standard 15-21 day PTO accrual policies.

I've gotten paid out twice for my PTO and one of them actually happened to be a "hip start-up" who didn't believe in "unlimited PTO".