skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have never felt as creative in my life as I do now in my early 40s.

I think the best way I can describe it is that it changed for me from my 20s, where I was driven by what I wanted to do — the end result — and along the way, would pick up the knowledge needed.

It’s similar now, but it’s more driven by what I can learn along the way and how I can connect it to everything else. Experience has shown me that more things are related than you think. And I feel like drawing these connections has made me think across disciplines and to try to connect things in multiple ways during the process, which has the side effect of creative solutions or accidental findings along the way.

I have dozens of pages of notes and snippets and am constantly adding — things I could make, topics I want to learn about. The amount can be overwhelming, but it’s also liberating to write them down so that I can move on, and I feel like even doing that sort of validates that I’m “being creative” and keeping juices flowing.

Don’t get me wrong — these are not world-changing ideas. But I’ve found that letting those flow has let little solutions or ideas here and there flow easily in the midst of bigger problems.

It also helps to have internalized the idea that the value is in the execution, not the idea. This is typified by a client who wants you to sign an NDA to hear about what their idea even is. That’s a red flag that they think the golden egg is the idea itself and not the months or years, as well as discipline in saying no to a million little things, that will bring a good version of that idea to life.
Funny Saudi Arabia + fossil footprints story:

Back in the 90s I was in saudi arabia when a national geographic story came out about some fossil footprints. Because of the size/spacing of the prints it was evident that two proto-humans, one smaller, were walking together while perhaps holding hands. So the cover art was two hairy proto-humans, one male and one female, naked, walking hand in hand away from the viewer. Needless to say this was an issue for the saudi censors, who at that time would ink over magazine covers by hand.

By censoring anything you suggest that these are people, not animals, and thereby acknowledge evolution. Do you censor the female? The male? Both? On store shelves I saw every interpretation. My favorite was the one that ignored the nakedness, censored only the hand holding.
> differences between races.

Race is a social construct, it's not a scientific category. There is only a continuous spectrum of skin tone. If someone is mixed parentage, what "race" are they?
All the FAANGs do, though it sometimes varies. A year is typical though (and I think at different times in their hiring cycle it varies, too).

For one FAANG, I had 3/5s my interview panel all clearly very positive about me, and 2/5s who clearly did not care from the very first minute of the interview, and the internal recruiter was like "Let's talk again in a year". Like, the implication clearly being he expected a pass, it was just luck of the draw on the panel. But even with that, year 'cooling off' period.
> But my overall point is that taxes targeting the rich and super-rich will fail, as they always have and always will...

Is that true though? Not long ago taxes on the wealthy were much higher and income inequality was lower.

Personally I have a kinder eye towards government; it’s A) not efficient by design, it’s meant to be comprehensive, and B) less wasteful then I think most people believe it to be.
It's a bit mindblowing to consider that the imprinted weight of a human through the form of a foot survives one hundred twenty thousand years. Thousands of generations of human life passed, and this remarkably small piece of evidence remained locked in time, waiting to be discovered by future scientists.

Alright I need to slow down on the coffee this morning.
Taser: History and Demonstration
I feel like I have to combust some random type of weed to that, indoors even! :-)
Write the code without considering performance. It should be both readable and easy to refactor.

Then profile your code and determine where to rewrite for performance.

In my experience, big performance optimizations are usually small changes and don't affect readability much.

(Systems-level C/C++ can be exceptions to the above, of course.)
This is the reason for “root cause analysis” being obsolete and against best practices for complex systems. The practice seems to be something that less sophisticated management wants for a political scapegoat rather than to actually solve problems.
I don't think teams and feelings are useful tools for addressing physical problems.
Mission to Zyxx, although a parody and not always great, has great sound effects and bits of score.
Citations for your claims? As I understand it most inefficiencies we see in government come from stripping resources out, not from wasteful allocation.
Paywalled article. Is there another source?
Love these, used to listen to them a lot. The Veldt is probably my favorite.
Both parties support this. Citizens don't really have a say in how most of the government works.
> In fact, in Tracy Kidders’ book “Soul of a New Machine”, Bill was one of if not the university guru that Data General went to for help when their microprocessor design stumbled.

Ditto.
Tape is a scam. PERIOD.

I see LTO-8 drives sell for $3500 or so. LTO-8 tapes seem to be selling for about $120 or so today (although I couldn't find them a year ago back when a patent war was keeping them off the market)

The LTO-8 tape has 12 TB capacity. I see 12TB hard drives selling for $270. You save $150 using a tape instead of a hard drive, so you have to replace 23 disks with tapes to make back the cost of the drive, or a total of 276 GB of storage.

My experience is that you can write a sector to a hard drive and read it back correctly with p = 1-1e^-6 or so. I've never had the experience of backing up files onto an external hard drive and not being able to restore them, except in the case where somebody hit the drive with a hammer to pulverize the platters.

My experience with tapes is that "real world" failures happen at an 0.5-0.9 rate unless you're in a workflow where you restore from tape EVERY DAY. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you try it. Frequently I've seen people write a tape with my own eyes then tried to read the tape and found nothing but zeroes. One time I tried to restore a 4kb configuration file and was told by the IBM tape robot I'd have to wait 18 hours!
> I prefer the latter - we should be adding efficiency to the state, while giving people more choice on how to help each other. I don't want to delve into the details in this comment.

I may or may not agree with your details, but I love the goal.
I have a cheap matte screen protector from Amazon on my iPad Pro, and it works fantastically. Completely changes the writing experience
> Agreed. The state has become much too inefficient.

This is frequently stated as fact, but no evidence is provided.

> We could use software to measure government like we measure every other business process.

Perhaps we could get SoftBank to measure government efficiency. They seem to be trusted with vast sums of money so they must be particularly good at evaluating business efficiency.
Maybe you missed my edit, I addressed that. It's a very different claim, and so wasn't a thing I was responding to. There are different reasons to not prefer that approach.

This kind of regular condescension from the fanbase is a great reason not to, for example.
C was almost 20 years old by the time it got a standard. It's clearly not that critical.
Anyone interested in formal language specification should check out k-framework! This space is pretty mind blowing.

http://www.kframework.org/index.php/Main_Page
You’re right, the Fed is supposed to help stabilize the market. But their current position of “never let it crash” is unprecedented and dangerous.

It’s not about a “feeling” and it’s not a “contractionary approach”. My concern is the Fed has taken the position that the stock market must always go up, no matter what. It’s like saying we must never allow wildfires... well eventually something will happen outside of your control and now the entire west coast is burning and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. If you just let the smaller fires burn when they wanted/needed to, we wouldn’t be in that situation.

You seem to be drawing a hard black and white line, that either the Fed does nothing or they do everything imaginable. As always, there is a middle ground... let the market make its corrections and if something big happens then step in and help ease the pain. The problem with the “do anything and everything to make sure the market NEVER goes down” approach is at some point it will. At some point something will happen that scares investors and the market will drop faster than the Fed can print money. And the more out of touch the markets are, the harder it will drop and the more painful it will be.

But even if the eventual crash never comes, if the Fed is willing to print trillions of dollars every year to keep the stock market up, is it really even a stock market? At that point it’s just a high-interest savings account for the ultra-rich, paid for by inflation (which hurts everyone who doesn’t own stocks). And the way that ends is the rich get richer until we end up with an oligarchy.

It’s dangerous and unprecedented for the Fed to say they will keep printing unlimited amounts of money [2] in order to make sure the markets never go down. Their job is to prevent a depression, not prevent Wall Street from losing even a single dollar.

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-announces-unlimited-qe...
My curiosity was piqued, so I checked it out and found this really helpful [archived] wiki on the LeanPub page (and a nice video by David):
http://web.archive.org/web/20190407035722/https://wiki.info-...

And David, good call on the price. I wouldn't respect anyone who would begrudge you the price of your most hard-won knowledge, esp when it sounds like you do consulting.
My point is that it’s not as clear cut as “any way you slice the data”.

Sweden’s immigrant population is not remotely like the US one. They are NOT over represented in healthcare work, AFAIK they are underrepresented (to a fault, of having almost no representation). They do live in lower quality housing, on average, but have access to nominally equivalent medical services (Sweden has socialized everything; once you are “in the system” you are entitled to everything, though rich people can buy some extras)

Also, It’s a little disingenuous to say “Belgium is cherry picked” without extending a similar courtesy to Sweden.

All in all, it’s too early to call winners and losers, and there are many ways to slice the data that don’t make Sweden look bad at all.
Matklad follows Norvell's excellent exposition in these two articles pretty closely:

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/exp_parsing.htm

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/pratt_parsing.htm

Matklad's stuff is really great. I wish he had cited Norvell, though.
I appreciate your sense of humour and generally agree with the thrust of what you are saying. Please bear in mind that we have just had a couple of large discussions about the "arrogance" of the Haskell community and that tone can easily be misconstrued in internet discussions such as these.
A lot of naming is misleading, in this case “extinct” should probably have been called “believed to be extinct”.

Of course proving something is extinct is quite difficult, perhaps infeasible for the small organisms. So maybe also a “provisionally extinct” category?
I mean, what could be racist about it? That he calls Americans with higher skin pigmentation black and not African-American?

Reminds me of the story when a naturalized white South African in the US got a scholarship for African-Americans and people got mad.
Adding compute is usually cheaper than adding engineers. Probably not for Google, though, at least not on some projects.
> Low interest rates increases demand for asset types like property and equities.

Interest rates have been low for over ten years.

Interest rates were at de facto 0% in 2015 (and still close to it for 2016) while Apple had a sub 10 PE and Microsoft was around a 15-16 PE. Now they have multiples in the mid 30s despite slow growth. The S&P 500 PE is about 40-50% higher than in 2014-2015, with a worse economic situation.

The Eurozone and Japan have had negative real rates across many years in the past without the type of stock market valuations the US is seeing now. One doesn't guarantee the other.

It's obvious this all comes apart at some point. Interest rates at 0% won't prevent that. There's nothing that stops the market from going back to 2014-2015 style valuations. Companies like Snowflake aren't going to be worth $70 billion (~140 times sales) on the backside of this insanity.

Quick, someone dig up the remains of DrKoop.com and do an IPO. Maybe they can be reincarnated as a telemedicine EV maker that sells hydrogen powered big data machine learning HTML5 supercomputer cloudlets that drift downhill via gravity, producing perpetual energy. Or maybe they can just analyze logs and lose a lot of money for a cool $10 billion valuation.

What we have going on now is primarily mania, not low interest rates. The economy in 2015 was healthier than the economy is today, multiples were nowhere near this, and rates were on the floor for many years at that point. So how about we just reset valuations back to when interest rates were close to 0% in 2015, what will that do to the market? It'll crash it big time, that's what.

It's certainly possible that valuations will remain elevated due to forever low rates. That doesn't mean the mania part of it will sustain, that is likely to be temporary. The public market mania is now so far beyond what was previously going on in the private market, companies have collectively switched modes and are rushing for the exits (Snowflake's recent public valuation was six times the private valuation they were fetching in February). WeWork in hindsight should have waited a year to try to IPO, this market would bid them up.
Of course. I should have written that programming mastery, which includes a good understanding of how to use programming languages, is necessary but not sufficient to achieving "senior" status, or building a long-term career in the field. A programmer who focuses exclusively on mastering languages is like an architect who focuses exclusively on mastering drafting. I would have thought this would go without saying, but more and more I see programmers define themselves in terms of languages and related tools, and even demand that their work revolves around their preferences. That's a limiting choice, not a way to build a successful career.
My list of recent jobs I failed to get is about 200 unglamorous mid-level roles in small unknown companies that I applied through the last 2 months. 90% of them I was rejected on the resume filter. About 5 rejections after an intro interview. About more 5 or more rejections after a technical interview/coding challenge. Only 2 places on a final interview with chances of offers as of now (luckily in companies that I believe I would enjoy working).

If I were to publish such a blog post it would be more depressing and probably make me look like a bad developer (at least a bad candidate), not like someone who is “open about failure”.
> I write so cramped, perhaps I am holding the pen too hard. And my writing deteriorated over the years.

This was me until I discovered fountain pens and good paper. I used to write on cheap ballpoints and my hands would be throbbing after about 6 pages of notes (I was taking a class with lots of readings).

Fountain pens are a rabbit hole of their own, but if you have good paper and a pen with smooth flowing ink (doesn't have to be fountain, gel pens work great too) and a nib size that matches the size of your handwriting (mine is small so I prefer Fine nibs), writing becomes pleasurable.

Also I'm big on scribbling marginalia, but cheap hotel ballpoints, small margins and my own bad handwriting have always made it hard to make annotations (I often write things like "This is STUPID" but with cheap ballpoints I run out of room and have to squeeze words to the point of illegibility which leads to me giving up). I recently discovered Pilot Hi-Tec-C 0.3mm pens from Japan, and they've been a dream for scribbling more substantial thoughts in book margins.

P.s. arguing with the authors of nonfiction books in the margins is fun. I recommend it.
You should be able to see it in incognito browsing mode.
Why do you say the 2016 voter turnout was low? It was very typical for US presidential elections in the last century[0]. Even if you only look at the swing states, voter participation was very normal.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_...
I never wrote that employers don't care about technical skills. You either didn't read what I wrote or you reduced it to a binary choice so it doesn't make sense.
Sounds like urban legend.
> If you look closely you can see the Adidas logo imprinted from the sandal

this just put a smile on my face..thank you :-)
Posted first here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24527846
> This is true, but I don't think many people think of laser as anything other than "dangerous light."

"Many people" have taken first year physics, or at least read a wikipedia article, and understand that the defining feature of a laser is its coherence.

But, sure. It's 2020. We live in a post-factual society, words have no meaning and it's impossible to know anything. Why resist?
Second anything by Ben Eater.
How to Quench a Galaxy
The words on paper are only a lens which you view what was originally intended. I'm not doing anything abnormal, and judges always consider legislative intent. We are not ruled by the particulars of language.

I generally aim to comply with the law as much as possible as well, but the people in this post (including yourself) seem to have no idea of the true cost of complying with the interpretation of the FCC rules you are putting forth.

Yes, if you ask the FCC whether it requires certification they would probably say yes, mainly because they do not want to undermine their authority. This is something I've dealt with quite a bit with pretty much any regulatory body; they pick the most restrictive and burdensome interpretation regardless of what common sense or existing or future court cases eventually say.
Thanks! Updated :D
Ignorance and having time are 2 orthogonal things. Your argument is not even close to valid.
And I haven't even mentioned the ad hominem, which is an automatic disqualifier for any argument.
Mine[0] scored 96%, so I'm pretty stoked, but I do have a background in visual design so maybe their AI looks at some of those standard conventions.

[0]http://mimix.io
Until our governmental system is overhauled to allow for more democracy and less powerful individuals then the citizens really don't bare much responsibility for the actions of our masters. I live in a gerrymandered district with no real way to vote for my preferences and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon.
Don't plants take oxygen and release CO2 at night?
Well, of course I'd like to see a double-blind placebo-controlled gold-standard trial on a million subjects from diverse backgrounds!

In fact, I don't need more evidence to wear masks. I have no problem with wearing a mask. I have no problem with advocating the wearing of masks in an honest fashion. It's plausible that masks do help to some degree. It's however also plausible that they hurt in some ways, that they serve as a reservoir for viruses and bacteria.

If anything, I have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty surrounding the advocacy of masks.
We in fact have multiple ideas how to improve the situation. The problem is not a lack of ideas, or deployable technology, the problem is a lack of political will to implement the necessary measures.
He seems to have a definition of "in private" which essentially renders his statement tautological. Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected. But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private." Being a Jew in Nazi Germany was also legal as long as it was "in private". Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden. IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression. But if it works for you that's fine I guess.
I'm not doing that at all. I'm merely saying it isn't worth the time.
Okay. Looks like 'blowing up' isn't an accurate description.
I did not bother consulting with a doctor before I started, mostly because my GP is an ultra conservative guy and categorically recommends against everything. But I do get regular Blood tests, and am Consistently at the high end of the “good” Bracket. (55 ng/ml? Don’t remember the exact number and don’t have it accessible this second)
Yep, people completely get confused about "cohort" vs "age".

"Cohort" is the year you are born. This might make you a Baby Boomer, X, Y, Z, ... You keep your cohort throughout your life.

The cohort who got physics PhD's prior to 1968 got jobs in the field easily (e.g. most were good at physics, it didn't matter how good you were at musical chairs); after 1968 the job situation changed (you certainly were good at music chairs.) This is a function of when you were born.
Burning it back into CO2 is certainly more environmentally friendly than dumping it to decompose into methane.
> it will return a Total Volatile Organic Compound (TVOC) reading and an equivalent carbon dioxide reading (eCO2) over I2C.

It's an estimated reading of CO2, so it's not a direct reading, the sensor has to do some math to estimate the CO2

It's not very precise and/or dependent on temperature, etc
The FPGAs could still be backdoored, and the WiFi chipset should receive a fair bit of suspicion. But I guess it is a good first step.
Yes, i know. Neither was 1895. That was kind of my point. Let me try to frame this a hopefully better way.

People keep trying to argue that McConnell isn't being a hypocrite, he's just following precedent. But for that to be true, we need to (a) find a time before 2016 when the Senate prevented a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a vote on the Senate floor in an election year, and (b) the Senate needs to specifically cite the upcoming election as a reason. So far, no one seems to be able to point to that supposedly precedent-setting case. And that's before we throw in McConnell's new claim as of yesterday that such a precedent only applies when the Senate majority and the President are from two different parties, a condition which, it's worth noting, was never mentioned by him or any of his supporters in 2016.

In strictly legal terms, McConnell gets to do what he wants. But the claim that he was following some previously established norm by denying Garland a vote in 2016 but not denying a new nominee a vote in 2020 is simply a lie.

And that was my point.
I mean, when a corporation is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, it goes out of business. When a government program is unable to collect enough money to continue operating, we increase its budget.

SoftBank is a good example; as long as they continue to lose money, they lose the confidence of shareholders. If their track record continues, they risk going the way of other big banks (Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers).

Ask yourself how many companies from the 20th century are now defunct vs government programs. Efficiency is a byproduct of change & evolution. Inefficiency is a byproduct of institutional sclerosis.
Same, I've found this uBlock origin filter very handy to avoid the feed

www.linkedin.com###voyager-feed
Local SEO Using Google My Business Page [Case Study]
Vanly – Share Driveway Space
Network effects says no.