skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Stand-ups are pretty dumb. Yes, the idea is that they exist to surface and resolve impediments, but there are problems with that:

(1) impediments shouldn't fester for a significant fraction of a day, and usually don't require synchronous team-wide communication.

(2) stand-ups inevitably, even if timeboxed effectively, become either rambling or ritualized status meetings, because people very quickly learn how to resolve, or at least surface and start working to resolve, impediments without waiting for them.
>there's probably a well known bridge between these profiles.

That's my plan -- that there is no bridge between the profiles. I'll admit, the likelihood that I'm doing this perfectly is definitely not 100%. But I'll bet it covers most cases.
What is cold brew coffee and how to make cold brew coffee? 2020
It makes me furious that this kind of dynamic is introduced to a digital learning space at all.

Why delineate between the haves and the have nots? Between the kids with access to disposable parental income and the kids that don't? Why make that part of online life of children at all?
If someone is working on something for a long time, they can explain what part of it they worked on, whether they need help, whether they're blocked, whether they need to adjust expectations, and so on. Long running tasks are a necessary evil, not the default state of the world, as they make planning work difficult.

Giving people time to express that they are being blocked or that they need help with something increases the chances that they will feel empowered to ask for help or to be unblocked. It also aids in accountability and ensuring that people are getting their work done on time and as agreed with stakeholders, as well as giving other team members an opportunity to mitigate any such issue.

On the other end, formalizing that it is short prevents it from turning into an unexpected retro or venting session or long-winded technical discussion better left for some other forum. Everyone should be able to give a quick update before any member of the team loses interest.

There are reasons behind all of these things, and as aware as I am that not everyone agrees with every tenet of every leadership strategy, the "standup" as commonly formalized is actually really solid and I would expect a good reason not to employ it in the way that it typically is.
I'm not claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed. I'm claiming it's possible to get beef that was raised almost exclusively on grass that was grown on land that is unsuitable for crop production. (Hint: I have 10s of kilos of it in my freezer)

> In terms of the environmental impact, "caring where your food comes from" is truly, qualitatively nothing compared to stopping eating meat. Why are you trying to push this message?

Caring about where your food comes from is the driver behind avoiding meat for a lot of people. If people don't care about the impacts of the food they eat you will never convince them to stop eating meat. Not sure why you have a problem with this message.
> Why wouldn't they have higher intelligence?

Because almost no other animal appears to think ahead of time , master fire, build tools that did not exist before? You can come up with numerous explanations as to why it's that, but what one's species' brain can come up with will be a serious constraint as well.
I highly recommend Either/Or. At the very least sample a bit of each section (the Either and Or respectively).

It’s a witty and oftentimes paradoxical ride, and, because of Kierkegaard’s use of pseudonyms, you’ll be hard pressed to really put your finger on what he believes. But that’s all part of the fun!

“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.“ — Kierkegaard, “Either/Or.”

Forewarning: in my opinion, Kierkegaard falls into that class of writers whose readers are too frequently obsessed with their pessimism, so much so that they miss the greater point. Much like Nietzsche or even Edward Gibbon, Kierkegaard’s central theses are much grander than trite pessimism and nihilism. I hope you see that and enjoy his works.
Oil Companies Are Profiting from Illegal Spills. and California Lets Them
It doesn't seem that this was mentioned yet. World-renowned mycologist Paul Stamets had his stutter cured from magic mushrooms. Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAR4yH6TbtA
Control camera pan, tilt, and zoom
Ah damn, only available in the US. I was hoping that there'd be a streaming service available in Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne so I could actually have a chance of trying it with decent latency.
> As a standalone blockchain, Handshake has room to grow all on its own and govern itself without interfering with other projects or having to compete with different priorities with other use cases (like gaming or DeFi) trying to run in parallel on the same network.

So, as soon as someone with enough resources decides to take it over, it's no longer decentralized. Cool, cool.

Also, there's that whole CO2 thing that we really shouldn't be exacerbating by relying on proof-of-work.
Correcting the misinformation about Breonna Taylor
Supermax prisons are for prisoners that are violent or are capable of organizing violence: mass murderers, terrorists, high-sec prisoners (like cartel leaders), or those with a long streak of violent crimes against security guards or other inmates.

Generally, most Supermax prisoners are housed in solitary confinement because it is not safe for other prisoners to be near them because of their propensity to engage in acts of violence against their fellow inmates. (Note: in many state prisons, solitary is used for punishment; this is not allowed at the federal level.)
Not if it's bounded on memory. A memory-bounded pushdown automaton will also fail but a general computer can match it.

For the post I was referring to the physical computers we work with daily. I should clarify :)
What's the point of being one of the useful ten million if you don't have a bigger superfluous population to lord over.
It's a zero sum game, though. One profit is another's loss.
Not true. You can learn from experience, either your own or others (the latter is better).
The worst thing about standups is that they tend to be scheduled in the morning. Half of the team I manage are night owls. They suffer when they have to wake up in the morning just to attend a short meeting. That’s why I do everything I can to cancel standups. People become more productive because they gain more flexibility. Now they can work on something till the evening if they are in the zone, without worrying that they have to wake up early the next day. Works even better now that everybody is working from home.
WARNING: Consuming this product can expose you to chemicals known to the state of California to cause death.
Pigs are substantially more intelligent than dogs. Pigs are almost as intelligent as primates. This subject ultimately comes down to utility. Until recently horses were far more valuable than dogs and horses are incredibly stupid.
The actual exercise sounds more like short term memory than the sort of introspection the article hints at with 'know what they know'; there's an obvious evolutionary benefit to being able to link two events 2500ms apart and anticipate/respond accordingly. How non-mammalian neurons handle it might well be interesting, but it sounds like the sort of thing that maybe hasn't been observed in non-mammals mostly because it hasn't been looked for...
Hah! Rule the world? Have you read the news lately? If human intelligence is judged by results, we'd score quite poorly. We are well on our way to causing a 6th mass extinction, which may very well include our own demise.
The abstraction was at the wrong level - text/images/executables/etc is the right level, so essentially simple file formats upon the underlying wire/binary.

Ontologies and so forth are an example of classic modernism (a clockwork universe that we can understand completely). Turns out real life is much more interesting!
> Romantic pairing is a common enough human thing that it
> makes sense to have legal constructs to protect both parties.

Why does either party need protection in a romantic pairing? I've been in dozens of romantic pairings but I did the religious ceremony only with the pairing that was expected to produce children.
How many Tims do you think Britain had back then?
I own Scottish Highlanders and with our regenerative grazing plans (we are grad fed AND finished), we are a net carbon sink.
For me, this kind of thing is still very surreal. I'm old enough that I grew up in a "not connected" world. We used pay phones and land lines. It was considered rude to do anything significant over the phone.

I'm still having trouble with people being laid off over a video call. A capital trial with the death sentence being a possibility happening on a video chat just seems like I've jumped into some dystopian sci-fi.
New York Times Front Page with Abstract Art, September 24, 2020 Philip Guston
Years ago, we had a dead crow in our yard. We think our dog did it, but we didn't see. My wife and I dealt with it, but had a lot of crow onlookers. They were pissed.

For the next year or so, every time either my wife or I would walk out the door, if crows were in the vicinity they would sound an alarm until they were happy we weren't going to attack them. They never seemed to do that for the dog, though.
I want to share a core tenant of scrum that isn't in the scrum guide and most people don't cotton on to.

Here goes: 'Meetings' are a time to do a specific thing.

This seems very simple, but my own experience as a scrum master and in multiple a businesses trying to implement scrum, along with the gripes people have in this thread, show that most people just don't get it.

So the answer to "why are we having this meeting?" is often very simple and I'll list all of the meetings and what their purpose is for your benefit. This way, when you find yourself doing something else during one of these meetings, you can safely assume that it's not scrum at fault, it's you and your crappy implementation of the process.

> Planning, this is a meeting for planning.

> Backlog, this is a meeting for grooming the backlog in preparation for planning.

> Retrospective, this is a meeting for retrospectively looking at the sprint to improve the process for the next sprint.

> Standup, this is a quick daily checkup for each team member's progress, planned actions and blockers.

Notice how Standup doesn't include "this is a meeting for small amounts of planning." That's because it's not there, you're not meant to do planning in standup, there's a meeting for that. So, if you need to do post-planning on a task it's not ready for pickup.

Easy so far right? Now the bit that people struggle with.

If you've achived the meeting goal, there's no need for a post standup checkup about where someone's at. So people can do their job knowing that the "hey where did you get to with X" question isn't going to disrupt them from 09:15 onwards.

Hey! That sounds great... but 15 minutes is 15 minutes I hear you say. The "time to do a specific thing" is the most efficient way of achieving that specific thing. That's the point of these meetings and why a successful implementation of scrum is more efficient that your other crappy process.
So... I'm no AI expert, but I play some StarCraft 2, and I'm curious about how exactly Alpha Zero learns and why it's not applicable to some problems.

Contrary to go or chess, StarCraft includes asymmetric matchups (three very, very distinct races, so in 1v1 - six possible matchups). Every matchup is played very differently; one trivial example: if you'd try to play a Protoss vs Zerg match like you'd play a Protoss vs Protoss, you're going to lose really, really badly within minutes: the standard PvP opener (wall-off at the main base) is going to leave your natural expansion completely defenceless against a trivial early attack (mass zerglings), which snowballs into a very, very bad economical disadvantage.

So basically when AlphaStar learns, it absolutely must be really good at handling these kinds of asymmetric scenarios (both players/actors having a vastly different arsenal at their disposal, starting from t=0), otherwise it would lose every single non-mirror matchup (while it's actually beating many grandmasters).

Another peculiarity of StarCraft is e.g. with Zerg, as the race that normally opts in to play the very early game a bit blindly (late scout with a slow Overlord vs an earlier worker scout), but must still make some strategic choices, the most common (and optimal) being greed, which occasionally means losing to aggression or missing a chance to punish a greedy opponent. Humans here kind of rely on intuition, metagame, etc.

My question is, can the capabilities to handle the asymmetry, and to play blindly, be exploited by re-modeling a class of problems, such that they become "StarCraft-like" enough? E.g. (naively) if the Game of Life board is not "correct enough" by iteration N, the opponent will flood your base with zerglings ;)
"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing"

Ask someone who peddles digital gold about causation and at a hint of correlation he's going to reach for his golden hammer.
When I was a kid I found a very sketchy game on the teletext where you had to repeatedly call some phone line. My parents ended up with a 600 bucks phone bill.

I also repeatedly fell for weird "order this set of dinosaur cards for free (but then it's an ongoing subscription)" kinds of scams.

All of that stuff was annoying. And my parents ended up taking appropriate measures (blocking paid phone numbers, or just talking to me, for example). Nobody died because of it.

Kids have always been good targets for scams. Nothing new under the sun.
I doubt the people who take time out of their workdays for political activism are, by and large, the "10x engineers".
Dolphins are mammals like us. They're holding their breath when they're underwater like us :P
> think ahead of time

The angry, injured tiger that killed its hunter by stalking his house and planning an ambush comes to mind

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129551...

> master fire,

Nothing comes to mind but I would not rule out some kind of animal using fire for some purpose

> build tools that did not exist before

A number of species have been shown to construct tools to make their labor easier. "That didn't exist before" is a little difficult to pin down as animal communities are hyperlocal.
hey we might be there in a couple hundred years
> The earliest proponents I know of - the ones writing XP books back in the '90s - had a very flexible definition of "unit" and assumed that you would vary the scale according to your needs. So some units might be low level components like data structures, but others might be large modules that included a lot of moving parts, up to and including actual databases.

It's actually a fairly strict definition, it's just not from the angle that people like to go with (as shown even by your description here): It's a semantic/conceptual unit, not a syntactic unit.

One of my co-workers eventually got it when I told him to completely forget about all the code he's written, then pretend there was a library he could include that did exactly what he wanted. He came up with a single function with a simple set of arguments, that would be used twice, and I stopped him there with something along the lines of: "Okay, that's your API. When you write the code that actually does this, put this function in one separate file and only import this one function in the code and the tests. Now it doesn't matter how you break out the internals into other functions or classes - it's a conceptual unit, not necessarily a single function."
Are you being serious? I don't have and can't stand live tv anymore, but as little as 10 years back TV was rife with lying political ads.
I certainly agree that giving very young children unsupervised access to an internet connected device is probably a bad idea. However I question your classification of it being "addictive" and of that being the worst part.

Imo playing around on a tablet is only addictive in the same way that reading a good book or playing a good video game is "addictive" - i.e. you're having fun, and you want to keep doing it because it's fun.

Of course there's specific apps you can download that are fine tuned to actually be "addictive" through randomization and monetization strategies. But claiming that the whole device is bad because some bad things exist on it seems wrong to me. There's thousands of hours of beneficial, educational, non exploitative fun to be had with a tablet/laptop/phone.

I'd be much more concerned about my kids talking to dodgy people in chat apps, or using my credit card without realizing (or with realizing), or accessing porn or something.
Not only that, but crows can remember human faces and train other crows to treat that face as friend or foe.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.201...
> Remote Desktop in Windows, for example, feels laggy even on LAN

I'm not convinced by this, because RDP feels laggy even remoting to a vm on the same machine
I have had non technical managers that delegated and trusted their team, and I have had "technical" managers that hadn't learned new skills since the 90s.

Between those two: I'll take the non skilled every time.
The same thing it takes to work at any small company that’s trying to survive and grow: hard work, smart work, team work, being a self-starter, overtime, sacrifice, sub-optimal pay and benefits, heart, communications, the ability to speak up, the ability to bite your tongue, and more. What have I missed?
Why are standups even a thing?

Like, what is wrong with my reasoning here? Meetings are maximally efficient when the exact set of people who all need to talk to each other are present, and no more. In a team of 7, only 1 or 2 other people might be affected by what I’m working on. The other people are just wasting time pretending to care about what I’m saying.

My experience working at tech companies in SF has suggested to me that most meetings, not just standups, suffer from this problem. The time cost of a meeting grows as O(N^2), and yet we routinely have all-hands, weekly syncs, etc. Yes, some level of communication is needed but when the time cost of these things is so tremendous, it seems irresponsible not to at least ask if what we’re getting out of it is worth the cost.

Meetings are apparently the one thing that no one tries to optimize, in our industry ostensibly hyperconcerned with optimizing things.

Disclaimer: I hate most meetings.
I think the implication was dolphins have language but not tool use.
If the system can't figure out your judge is actually a puppet by the time the appeals process (which is being sought) starts or is denied then I don't think the problem is really "deepfakes".
https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring18/mcs.pdf

There are also lectures by one of the authors (Tom Leighton) covering those topics.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB7540DEDD482705B
fwiw the Adobe Photography plan requires a 1-year commitment (paid monthly) and has an early termination fee if you do try to cancel, so it's not as straightforward.
This is from the book: The Year 1000 by Valerie Hansen
Larry David?
I have yet to work at a company where DBAs weren't vehemently opposed to using tooling such as Liquibase. Old habits die hard.
I find the “experts“ closed minded and dogmatic. The text book history of the world is seriously wrong...
> There's a difference between a subsidy and kicking who's already down.

Dude what? If it's economically viable then it's not kicking anyone, up or down. Besides, these are complete opposites (penalty vs reward)?

I literally cannot understand what in the heck you are trying to argue because your logic is self-refuting.
Thank you for retelling your 1st-person experiences. I had mistakenly assumed parent was at Mozilla since they spoke with authority, without using reported speech.

It's unfortunate that Brendan didn't get as robust a defense from his board as Ms. Rice got from Dropbox's at roughly the same time (and I'm no fan of Condoleeza Rice, the Bush IIs administration in general, or the "War on Terror". I believed then as I do now, that it was a wrong precedent to set)
Palantir Expected to Be Valued at Nearly $22B in Trading Debut
The Planck Dive by Greg Egan
Probably neither. The evidence for any of this is about as strong as the evidence for Bigfoot. A bunch of tall tails from people who swear they're sincere.
Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds
That sounds like the start to a horror story! I’d be terrified if that happened to me.
Pigs will bite off your finger. Dogs will fight a burglar to the death.

Also dog meat doesn't taste good. We eat both in many parts of the world.

Also pigs are kept as pets.
> Pretty much no one cares about UA's font-size.

'cept for you, right? (Or why are we here otherwise? Reminder: someone started complaining about how large the text looks on Wikiwand site.)

> The problem Wikiwand is trying to solve is better solved by browser zoom on large screens

What problem do you think it's trying to solve, and how does zooming solve it?

> If a non-power user wants a site larger they'll just zoom in.

By the same token, you can always use Ctrl+- then for sites that use a "large font", right?
> (Currently it’s not looking that good.)

I dunno. There is a real, if dwindling and not that large, possibility that mankind breaks free of earth and establishes itself elsewhere.

You can't say that for any other species except perhaps some microscopic extremophiles.

It's only so easy to be cynical about this because of how close we are to something greater, because of how much we are poised to lose.
Our dairy cows have activity tracking (heat detection/poor health detection) collars, and they work fine with lockups. The cows do turn their head a bit differently to make sure the collar clears, but they learn quickly and we've had no deaths yet (200ish cows, 5ish years of using the collars)