skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think 5Ghz is the last concern given the primitive status of Linux phones which can barely make a phone call.
Thoughts on Conversations: How to Talk to People as a Newbie
I remember feeling like a Hacker using Firebug to catch rare shiny Pokemons on poorly designed online Pokemon games through simple edits in 200x
http://www.scotese.com/

https://vimeo.com/315907106 DeepTimeMaps_Animation_Mollweide_Sample
I should clarify: A100s are likely a bad price/performance trade off for inference. The T4 part is designed for that, but doesn’t have NVLINK.

Do you have models >16 GB that you’re trying to do real-time inference against?

Feel free to send me an email regardless! (In my profile)

Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23800049 was my writeup for a recent Ask HN about cost efficient inference.
The aggregate of choices is a consequence of what individuals choose, and to try to ignore that is to avoid the issues that determine the outcome.
It’s qualitatively different in that one assumes that your product deserves 100% of anyone’s attention and the other doesn’t.

In most situations most of the time, your code is between someone and something they want. Your main importance in their life is when you fuck it up, not when you get it right. You just aren’t that important. The user is.

Which is partly why we need books championing good design. Because good design gets out of the way, and would go mostly unnoticed if not for other designers and aficionados giving them kudos.
Similar to the initial experiments in cold fusion.
This says “developed after the Star“ but imho the Dandelion (marketed as the star) was too slow for this environment and you needed one of the bigger machines (Dolphin or Dorado).

Actually it’s kind of amazing to realize that two years later youncould get a small Mac for about a fifth the price that sat on your desk (not rolled next to it on casters) and was much more responsive. Did less, but what it did it did well, and was all that most people needed.

In addition to the Smalltalk and Mesa environments mentioned in the post, there was the Interlisp-D environment too, which got much more use outside thanks to being used outside PARC.
> I guess Krug pissed this person off

Why do you think that? The author seems to be lamenting that Krug's advice isn't followed more closely.
This is my point why we need a better social safety net... we wouldn't have to ban 1000% loans if we made sure people were never desperate enough where that was their best option.

If we instead simply ban 1000% interest, it doesn't mean those people suddenly have better options than they did before... if means they are forced to pick an even WORSE option.
Solar and wind. Your comment about batteries is bizarre. Batteries don't need higher capacity for stationary storage, they need to be cheap. That is not "pie in the sky" and is certainly a much easier engineering problem than fusion. And batteries are not what you'd use for long term storage; that would be hydrogen (which can be stored underground for less than the equivalent of $1/kWh of storage capacity.)

Given reasonable projections of where renewables, batteries, and electrolysers will be in 10 years, one will be able to synthesize artificial baseload sources at a lower cost than nuclear fission, anywhere in the world (in some places much less). And fusion will have a very hard time being competitive even with fission.
If the modifications go far enough (e.g. something like completely suppressing all human emotions) I'm pretty sure it's fair to say that we'll be gone. At least I don't see any reason why we should view these potential future 'humans' as any thing more related to us than say a potential 'species' of robots.
Horrible website, text was predictable for everyone who ever played something competitively
If the primary goals of your product's design are engagement and ad revenue, of course you're going to chafe at the fact that users don't want to sit comatose in front of screens all day making you money in whichever way you've found is the most efficient. And, of course, when you notice this sort of ~~disengagement~~ behavior, you're going to try and figure out how to trick the user into doing what you want.

These days it seems just as likely that some other EvilCorp™ with more money than you has done a better job hijacking your potential users' attentions as that your users really do have something better to do. But either way, I think the "focus on the user" kind of mantras painted on the walls of so many tech offices have been twisted into something horribly exploitative or beaten into irrelevance by rote repetition without thought. So many "products" being "sold" to users these days aren't really products at all, in the sense that if they do offer the user something of real value it's almost by accident. There is no value, absolutely none, placed on building a quality product for its own sake.

If you're all tangled up in this mess and "users are stupid and lazy" is what lets you sleep at night, I don't blame you.
Interesting, thanks. I use the app mainly, and it doesn't have those descriptors as far as I know.

I think it's interesting to have the middle/neautral rating described (3 star, middle of the range available) as "liked it" (a positive response).
COBOL developers commanding a high salary is directly related to it not being a thriving language.
Next gen Nvidia 30x0 series, can have direct access to SSD without hitting the CPU. In that case would they be any worse than cpus on any workloads? I guess you could still have larger ram amounts on the cpu, albeit slower ram usually
I will get downvoted for saying this, but I don't care: STOP defending Apple. The amount of egregious things Apple has done over the years is amazing. Not only do they charge developers for publishing apps EVERY year, but they also make up arbitrary rules in the name of "Privacy" or "Better user experience". Oh Please. You want to give people Privacy? Use open protocols for your shitty iCloud so that people KNOW just how much data you are are giving your Siri-shit voice assistant. Want better user Experience? Let me transfer music and ebooks to MY iPhone without having to use your joke of software called iTunes. And trust me, I used to be a big fan of theirs. But after they started glueing everything to their "computers", I had a wake-up call. The macbook used to be a great product, and then they started glueing everything to it and shoving the iCloud into it. Slowly, they killed their own product.

So please, stop defending them. They are doing really shitty things that will just become stains in computing history.
"The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts"

The problem with these valuations is that they truly are pure fantasy. Because there is no buyer willing to buy these companies at this price. And there's not amount of any criteria that can justify these valuations other than pure lies, hype and speculation.
UX is often thought of as solving an issue "for the user", which dismisses or redirects attention from the communication problem onto the individual. No one reframes it, nor should they, as solving engineer/developer "laziness or stupidness". Reading "The Design Of Everyday Things" made me more aware and empathetic, from both perspectives, when I can't find the right button to click or have to think about which way a door will open.
And on the third hand companies I've worked with had 25-year-old C code bases that seemed to compile and mostly work, but mostly only with -O1 or lower, because they've had UB since the beginning of time but only more recent compiler optimizations reveal the underlying issues.

And this old code is also written in a style (usually global variables and mixed concerns and years of sub-ideal bug fixes and patches) which makes it very hard to change or modernize (forget adding threads with all of this global mutable state).

The only point being that old code may superficially work, but in many cases (in my experience) and regardless of language, it all has technical debt and needs work to keep it relevant.
The Seven Pillars of Bitcoin
Well that's a very different definition than "private control of the means of production," however. People focus on different aspects of the myriad definitions of capitalism, and the term becomes meaningless unless some part of the conversation first defines what sort of definition or aspect of "capitalism" one is talking about. However, people often experience a tribally-motivated response to the word before the meanings can be focused on. I'd doesn't make the word "capitalism" useless but it does make it difficult to start a discussion with a general group of people when leading with the word rather than the specifics that one would like to address.
Some would probably find that superior to firebug
Funny really to say this when the USA is backed by corporations, which flows directly into its core government.

China is a huge country with a non-democratic ideology. And it works immensly well - just look at all the US corporations which has invested heavily in chineese labor.

Oh, and btw. China own what... 20% of US?
That removes the nudge. People should update their materials.
“ More and more text-based content is shared over the Internet, but not everything is thoroughly read. In fact, by the time this article reaches the next screen, a significant share of you will have already stopped reading.”

All of this is crammed into a tiny column on the right side of the iPad I’m reading this on. When I start scrolling to read more it starts flickering and jittering because... this article is full of huge amounts of JavaScript doing shit whenever I scroll, and making it move super slow.

It also breaks Safari’s “reader view”. Which honestly is about where I usually say “okay does the first paragraph of this illegible piece of the modern web feel worth the next level of hoops I’m gonna have to jump through to read it”.

This is an article that does not want to be read.
Again, no argument from me, but also no argument from you that direct democracy would work as a form of corporate governance.

Can you find even one example of where it has? The closest I am aware of is Mondragon, but Mondragon has almost no direct democracy - voting is for people rather than decisions.
I have to agree that these interview questions function more as a cheatsheet review than actually anything practical that would be seen in an interview. Data science interviews don't function as a biology test where you're just rattling off memorizations to how neural networks or linear models work.

Ultimately these types of questions like "What is feature selection" are more likely to be encapsulated into case studies where the answer to the question itself will be, using feature selection.

For example: "Let's say you have thousands of categorical features for an anonymized dataset involving human traits, how would you figure out which predictors are the most important?"

Source: https://www.interviewquery.com/
Apple has this solved for iOS 14

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10113/
Same here. I remember showing Firebug to coworkers and them thinking that I was showing them some kind of wizardry.
Sort of like I remember the rollover from 9.. to 1000000000 in 2001 like it wasn't all that long ago as I was well into my career. It must have been a notable moment as I remember that I was doing some consulting work hooking up remote datasources for some telecom apps.
They are pointing out that removing a job that does not pay living wage is absolutely not equivalent to providing a job that does.

At any point Vietnam or Cambodia could mandate that all jobs must pay US or Europe level wages. But doing so would not be an instant shortcut to people actually making those wages and being a developed country. If it really was that simple at least one country in the world would have used that trick.

Certainly some economic arguments can be disingenuous (some of the promises around tax cuts come to mind). But some arguments around which policies are effective are reasonable and I think the minimum wage issue is one of them.

I think the idea behind high minimum wages actually is to create more good jobs, by squeezing business that employ minimum wage workers and hoping that they can cut profits and/or raise prices (and if they raise prices, that it doesn't reduce their customers too much and cause them to lay people off or go under).

An alternative is wage supports like the earned income tax credit, where instead of squeezing businesses that employ minimum wage workers specifically you just tax everybody, and use that to artificially boost up the income of low wage workers. This has less risk of forcing low-income people into unemployment than raising the minimum wage and can provide them the same income, at the expense of high-income people having to pay more taxes.

Another alternative is trying to drive down unemployment super low, so businesses have trouble finding people and actually need to start bidding up wages to get anyone. This will cause businesses that can't afford higher wages to close, but that doesn't cause unemployment because those employees have moved on already. A labor shortage also makes it easy to find a job and employers can't be too picky (helping people fresh out of college, etc). This seems like the most ideal scenario but also the least straightforward to get via policy.

IMO living wage is an important goal but there are reasonable criticisms about strategy (1) compared to the others (especially wage supports which provides the same immediate benefit without risking forcing people out of a job).
I agree with this if you add "properly incentivized" to that list of conditions. As of now, in the U.S., it seems like the power exists, but not the motivation, and that's at least as big a problem as the other way around.
I call this simplifying madness, Fisher Pricing.
But then your agricultural run off could end up in the ocean. You don't want to kill the whales, do you?
How do you see your general observations applying to AresDB?
A lot of the designers or developers who talk like this tend to fancy themselves as very clever. I have a different opinion of them
Also, and importantly, you can port file by file (if you use six and test on both versions). That's much more incremental and safer than a port by rewriting.
This is fair point. Adding a little bit to it

1. There exist jobs that are not worth paying someone X/hour, but are worth it at some number less than X. For the purposes of this discussion, X is "a livable wage".

2. There exist people who work, but do not need to X to survive; retirees who just want to be out of the house, mentally handicapped individuals for whom being out doing work and meeting people is helpful, etc.

Those two points are facts.

Requiring that every job pay a livable wage means that the combination of the above two will no longer be available. Those jobs just will not exist if they need to pay that much. As a result, some subset of group 2 will no longer be able to work (this part is opinion, but seems a reasonable conclusion).

So, the tradeoff is being made to make live worse for some of those people in group 2... in order to make life better for people in a different group. That may or may not be a good tradeoffs. But just the fact that it exists as a tradeoff means that "no job may pay less than a living wage" is not a black and white topic; there's a grey area.
Wow, there's a real Experts Exchange vibe to this site.

Edit: I'm talking about the url here which at first glance is incredibly inappropriate.
This is interesting, they pay you extra to not live in SF?
Most of our C code actually doesn't compile and work, unmodified, under the latest GCC. There are many new warnings, and like any professional C shop, we build with -Werror (or at least don't ignore the warnings). Since I help with maintaining the build infrastructure at work but I don't own any of the C code, I've proposed setting the new warnings to -Wno-error, but I've gotten pushback from the code owners, saying that they expect the new warnings to catch actual bugs and they want to deal with the fixes.

Sure, there is some amount of C code from 25 years ago that works unchanged, but there's also a good bit of Python code from 25 years ago that works unchanged. (I just tried a few of the examples in the Python 1.3 tarball, released in 1995, and it seems like most of them will work with very minor changes.)
Governments could simply introduce interference on the frequencies used, which would cost essentially nothing.
Sometimes these kinds of crap pages work perfectly fine if JavaScript is disabled. This particular one just displays a completely blank page, however.

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion.
No, the Push API is a Web Standard https://www.w3.org/TR/push-api/
Dialects in Code: Part 1
This is largely due to conditioning of over 30+ years of bad error messages.

The program exited with error code -2
Error MS1337 occurred
Something went wrong. Contact your Administrator

Ideally; error codes should provide information about how to fix the problem (which python in this case does). That falls on the developer side of things (and may not be possible in many cases).

Learning that error messages are useful and can solve your problem, and de-training the reflexive "This message won't help me", lies on the end user side of things (assuming the devs did their part).
Sounds like you're re-making the arguments in the article without realizing it.

No amount of work will make the inherently complex less complex, but doesn't have to be more complicated than it has to be. That's what "as simple as possible" means. If you have to peel down a strange interpretation of a problem or a misguided attempt to "dumb it down" before you get to the complexity, it's definitely more complicated. Over-simplification is pretending the complex doesn't exist, or chipping away at some parts until it looks simple, or straight-up disbelieving that there are complex needs and forgoing them.

I haven't read "Don't make me think", but I have read other books by the same author and his general message is that everything should be clear and approachable such that you can tell what things are and spend your energy actually solving the problem or accomplishing what you want to accomplish.

> The author of this piece (and perhaps the author of "Don't make me think", which I haven't read) respects only the simple desires of the majority of users. S/he does not respect the complex desires and needs of minorities of users, nor the potential for the majority-user to refine and develop their needs and desires.

This reading pairs poorly with this quote from the article: "And I’ve found that good products, ones that respect their users, give them more control." If the author really was out to knee-cap software, that's an odd sentiment to hold. I think you're in agreement with the author, but somehow take offense at the word "simple", maybe taking it as meaning "stripped down in function". There are certainly a lot of products, services, companies and people who take it to mean that.
Unless things change now that there’s a “steering council” in charge rather than a BDFL, probably never.

Instead, I expect the language to continue along the path of FOMO-driven accumulation of features (and complexity), while still not addressing its major issues (e.g. performance and parallelism).
One trick to problems like this is to solve it differently for celebrities, head queries, etc., than for less commonly accessed data. Essentially have two different systems and combine the data because designing a single system that meets both scale requirements is harder.
The political economy of the Europe makes it fundamentally ill-suited to technological innovation.

Its best years are already behind it.
> massive cost when you take them all together over years

I believe this is the very definition of penny wise, pound foolish. If the cost of providing an office is seriously noticeable against the (comfortable) labor of your people your company has much bigger problems than "business expenses".
Maintaining python2 and python3 forever in perpetuity wouldn't be free either. Why should they provide free labor in perpetuity so that you need no provide any?

In theory if there was sufficient need the entire community of python2 users could collectively fund said support but I don't see how they can demand it for free.
You don't want science. Science settled this question and 3.0 micron n95 masks don't do aything to stop .085 - .125 micron viruses. I hope you enjoy the civil war you started.
Yes, a lot of companies try to use paid early, and not only do these leads not convert as well to revenue, they also requires continuous investment. The hard thing, but much better thing, is to invest in content and organic, but a lot of founders don't think that way.

I also wonder if early-stage marketers can get a lot of credibility / leverage in their organizations by focusing on product marketing.

Other random observation – a lot of marketers seem to not be able to figure out what works, and then the solution they offer is spending more money. (This isn't always a marketing problem, could be a product issue that the marketing team can't influence.)
> Provide an example of this happening.

There's a pretty good case that they were trying to do this to Tesla. We heard all these claims about how nobody was really buying their cars and so on, which turned out to be bullocks, but were being made at a time when they were in a precarious financing situation.

But the general problem with asking for examples is that nobody has the inside information necessary to verify them. I can point to any company that went bankrupt following negative media coverage at the behest of short sellers, but how is anybody supposed to prove whether or not they would have survived in the alternative?

> Judging by many of these comments, I'm not sure some people here understand the mechanics of how selling shares short actually works. It does not, defacto, destroy any value in the company.

Are you sure you know how short selling works? Short sellers borrow shares in the company and then sell them, which temporarily increases the supply of shares on the market and suppresses the price. If the company at that point issues new shares or wants to borrow money against the value of their stock, it costs them money, i.e. reduces access to capital or requires them to pay higher interest rates, which negatively impacts the business.

And that's just the result of the actual short selling, not including the reputational harm caused by false allegations (or over-hyped technically true allegations), which can reduce demand from not only investors but the business's customers.
> I don't see the problem with that. Imagine how much money a victim could earn from suing every person who participated in the wrongdoing.

Unless your hypothetical victim is independently wealthy, how are they going to afford the costs of litigation with dozens or hundreds of defendants? Seems like they'd need some sort of group, organized by a legal structure to fund such a venture...

> They are an unjust and unnatural construct IMO. It doesn't make sense to give an immortal fictitious entity the same rights as real mortal people.

Is this an ideological statement? In the US we have freedom of association, so I don't understand how they are "unjust". They are a natural result of the human desire for collaboration and growth, so I'm not sure I get that argument either. I don't think corporate entities should be allowed to participate in the political process, but it's a bit silly to say they shouldn't have the right to participate in the legal process.
I suppose the OP should comment, but I read that although local push was tried there was a wider view about using walled services. the Push API does solve that.