skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> However if they want good developers, do they really think that the young myself with a fresh degree is better than me after 10 years of work or 20+ now? I bet I was better at solving quizzes when I was young. I'm sure I can understand and solve real world problems now.

Agree. That's what these quizzes miss.

After working in development for years, top performing developers aren't the ones who dwell on these trivial function-level optimizations.

Yet, that's exactly what these tests are testing for.

The 10x developers are the ones who can understand the big picture, synthesize information, and deliver solutions that are flexible given constantly changing requirements.

Function-level optimizations are important, but it's not something we sit around and memorize like we did when we were still in school.

As you said, if the company is looking for developers fresh out of college, then sure... These quizzes are a good way to determine raw computer science knowledge.

But if the company wants code that's more likely to work the first time, and to require less maintenance over the long-run, these tests are actually filtering out those more-seasoned developers.
The point about Leonardo da Vinci makes sense, but is definitely unfair. Of course, an art historian might assume Leonardo's mathematics was as great as his artistic ability.

In practice, no one has the time or the ability to be equally great in all fields of knowledge.

This paper : https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00004-007-005... talks about what mathematics he did

> . The equation a^n + b^n = c^n does not have a solution in integers for
n > 2 . But this theorem had yet to be demonstrated. It was not before 1753 that Leonhard
Euler demonstrated that the equation a^3 + b^3 = c^3 does not have a solution. And the final
demonstration of the so-called “Fermat’s third theorem”, which is that the general equation does not have a solution for n > 2 , was given by Andrew Weil in 1993.

So its fairly impressive that Leonardo was on a path that leads to Euler and then to Weil. Of course, Euler himself was a 'mathematical polymath' as it were, with a wide range of proofs across a number of fields.

To critise Leonardo da Vinci for not being good enough at mathematics is a little like complaining about Euler's drawing skills.
What symptoms, out of interest?
Amazon Prime Cancels Shelby Steele
Local seems like an early internet drawing board idea that didn't take off and got forgotten, it practically sounds like something you could gaslight quite a few people into developing fake memories with a few consistent looking artifacts from the BBS era. In fact much if it is a reinvention of BBS essentially as it had soft localness due to long distance charges for phone calls for modem connections. Mail readers were an option to minimize BBS connection time.

Neighbor trust wouldn't last long if it even existed in the first place as soon as easy targets getting hacked became a thing. Most people leave their routers secured by default and even ISPs who use them to distribute wifi "publically" are supposed to leave them secure indicating the preferred level of local network interaction is generally "none".

The locality is a worst of both worlds, arbitrarily limiting discovery if they want to see and be seen and not providing any security as anyone could bridge access within or likely spoof an identity. It seems like something which would rapidly wind up redudant for all terrestrial applications even if it existed earlier.

Distant ones I suspect would either tolerate the higher latency or maintain mirrors or caches - which would likely wind up a subset of the content which doesn't depend upon being current and would probaby become a format which doesn't mind the "necroposting" and delayed reactions as you get hours or days later space responses.
> Right wing populism is happening all over the world, in Europe, India, etc.

Social media is happening all over the world.

> A certain group of highly educated urban liberals is shocked by Trump.

3 million more people voted for Hillary than Trump. Biden is polling 10 points ahead of Trump.
For DNA, at least, it could have come from RNA (as per the link in my last post).

While I don't think the pre-biotic problem is solved at all, we have a lot more models of how it could have happened than you seem to credit - this is after all a huge research area.

For example, here is one [0], and here is a whole journal issue on the subject [1].

I found these by searching for 'evolution of DNA' and 'evolution of RNA'.

Now, these models all include some randomness, but in no way does anyone assume "unique random initial states are continually occurring... letting the law of large numbers eventually "find" winners"

The models show plausible environments where pre-biotic synthesis of RNA (or RNA pre-cursors) can occur, and stabilise.

This model you keep bringing up - randomly selecting a molecule from all possible combinations of atoms and saying 'enough time will get you one that works' - is not mentioned anywhere that I have seen. Perhaps some lay-people (of which I am definitely one!) believe it, but as you point out it is so obviously implausible it falls down on first inspection.

There are other models (lots of them!) and they don't rely on this pure randomness.

[0] https://phys.org/news/2018-01-chemical-evolution-dna-rna-ear...

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/journal/life/special_issues/evolution-R...
> the continue watching section dissappeared from the screen.

This happens to me sometimes on my laptop. I thought it might be a bug but looks like its intentional.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Letting Facebook censor WhatsApp is like censoring SMS. Should we let private companies censor SMS messages?
People here for some reason think that throwing around legal terms based on gut feelings is somehow the start of civil discussion. And I tend to correct those people. That's all. Extortion is a legal term and it's pretty well defined compared to other crimes. And this is not extortion. I can recommend all commenters who downvoted to go and denounce the offence of extortion and see for themselves what happens. I for one would love to see it to have a good laugh :D
Some of twitter's users see them as complicit in spreading disinformation. So it does cost them something of value to do nothing. It costs them their reputation with some segment of users. Twitter is making a judgement call. They think pissing off some conservatives by banning this link will net them more good will from other users.

On the morals of it; I think that if twitter thinks that banning all conservatives will make them more revenue they can and should be allowed to do it. My value statement would hold equally if you :s/conservatives/liberals/g.

Conservative lawmakers have become very found of the Obama quote, "Elections have consequences." Well, the culture war has consequences too. And conservatives have completely gotten their asses kicked in the culture war in the last 30 years. Due to anachronisms in our means of determining representation this has not translated into a loss of legislative power. But if they want to hold sway outside of Washington they will have to make an effort to win back the hearts and minds of the public and more importantly the American consumer.
I don't know why this got downvoted, I use 365 (in addition to other non-Google providers) and am quite happy with them for the accounts I use them for.
The future is looking exciting indeed!
All previous ones had that too. Additionally, it has a user-replacable screen, camera, and audio module, off the top of my head.

Of course, that's also the point of the product.
Ah but there are ways for people to learn. I recommend two things to my students. CODE by Charles Petzold and www.nandgame.com
> People were also stopped from sending the article in a private direct message

In this instance, the solution has already reached beyond the realm of "don't allow certain things to be amplified". You literally cannot share this information even in a private 1-on-1 chat.

> we go back to uncurated things

Yeah. The more I reflect on things the more I think social networks are just a thing that shouldn't exist. Although, of course, here we are on hacker news talking about it. So IDK. Maybe you just can't unring that bell and we're just screwed.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/germany-is-set-to-mak... And now Germany is looking at making WFH a legal right. Explains why www.netbeez.net is surging...
Yes, thanks for adding that important fact!
It's also time for us to raise our voices and be heard. If we pro-remote people don't say anything then companies could easily think that everyone wants to go back to the way things were.
Canada invests in small nuclear reactors to help it meet net-zero 2050 target
Drones Complicate the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict
I can definitely sort people into "growing" and "static" groups, and definitely the static folks tend to be not very smart. Part of being smart is realizing you don't know very much, and wanting to rectify that.
The story was about two friends sharing a funny moment, which just happened to include a prize. But, thanks, Comic Book Guy #2, for continuing #1's efforts to drain any and all joy out of it. Never let happiness win when there's a minor detail to be obsessed over!
Some people are agreeing with you, but I actually don't agree. I looked into this and it's actually quite difficult to definitively identify who is being referenced. There are a few seemingly conflicting bits of info in the letter, like the person is a novice VC investor ("I recognize ---- is your first experience in venture, or as a professional investor") with the fact that they are also the lead investor in one of their rounds ("I still can't believe that is true for the lead of our Series ---"). As far as I can tell, these seem to be mutually exclusive: the leads of all the rounds seem to be veteran (or at the least very seasoned)VC investors.

Theoretically this would be easy to figure out if you had a yearly listing of board members which I imagine should be public, but that doesn't appear available publicly. The only listing of the board I can find is this news article [0] from 2015, but again, none of the people listed there can be definitively identified as the one being referenced.

As further evidence of how murky this is, several people in the comments below have named different people as the person being referenced. One commenter has edited their comment to change the person being accused.

If the author of this email wanted to point a finger at a specific person, they did a bad job.

[0]https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/01/60650-lending-club-...
I’ll have to try my hand at making a mono space version of this fine some time. I like the idea of hyper legibility and I’d be curious to compare it against the font I normally use, which is Overpass Mono.
>>A divorce? I don't think that's going to work. Who gets custody of Wisconsin?

Some warlord from Michigan?
You can be within 100 miles of a main hub city and be paid within the same band. 100 miles from Seattle is quite a lot of options for instance that are not expensive.

And "full pay" is relative to the cost of employment for each area. For instance the adjusted amount you would receive in say Kansas still is quite a lot for the area.
Silicon Valley got started because a bunch of people with too much free time were in the same town with people they could poach.

I've been imagining a scenario where a bunch of WFH people collectively pick a random town near a decent CS college, move there, and once they have settled in, begin cooking up their own startups.
Yeah maybe first let others fix your apple products so you dont have to buy a new one every 3 years...THAT would be the first step.

BTW: stop trust a company...thats what religion is for...and if you live in a really good place the goverment...but NEVER a Company
> They might believe the claim in the sense they'd pass a lie detector test, but I doubt it's because they find the argument genuinely convincing.

Of course it's possible that they are trolling or something more or less equivalent. I find it hard to believe that anyone is that good at trolling, but I admit I find it less hard to believe after spending years on the Internet. :-)
ShangHai Taste Xiao Long Bao, Chinatown Vegas
Twitter users having issues tweeting
I suppose so. I was thinking more along the lines of his name not appearing in this discussion's title means people searching his name might not find this discussion.
Pretty ironic that just 24 hours after the article this happened: https://electrek.co/2020/10/15/tesla-water-shut-off-giga-ber...
Your 90ies must have been very different from mine. IRC operators, forum moderators and what not happily banned people back then. It’s not like you could even take your bullshit to your own channels or sub forums if it was bad enough, because you’d get network banned.

Things have changed though. In the 90ies you would have been laughed off the internet if you seriously suggested the earth was flat. Conspiracy theories back then weren’t making people shoot up pizza places or plan to kidnap governors. Today we’re seriously seeing diseases we defeated come back and kill thousands of people because of anti-vaccine Facebook groups.

So yeah, people around you have likely changed, because free speech doesn’t work when it has no consequences. And I’m not talking about putting people in prison, I’m talking about laughing them back to their caves so their infectious collective stupid doesn’t ruin democracy. If it’s not already too late.

I used to be right with you on that free speech hill, but like so many other people I just got sick of all the anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers and whatever scumbags who cause harm, abusing it. And it’s not like they don’t have freedom of speech just because they get banned from popular platforms. Just like the 90ies, they are free to set up their own.
> I'd consider opting in to an identity that follows me between platforms so I could build a reputation.

same.

consider scuttlebutt.
Any links to this stuff?
The block is only needed because of the amplification. If tweets and posts showed up chronologically vs from ML-driven engines to identifying the most grabbing content, we wouldn't be systemically hyper-charging emotionally hooking misinformation.

You don't need to unplug the bullhorn if there is no bullhorn.
We always used to disagree on topics, and argued passionately over these. But we (mostly) agreed on facts and what is true and what is not - and then argued conclusions or actions.

What is different these days is that we simply deny the facts, provide "alternate facts", or simply lie about facts. As a result we no longer agree on a basic basis of truth, truth has become a belief or a choice.

That is toxic, since it is used to simply avoid meaningful discussion. It is a fundamental change in how we conduct our discourse. And so new measures are needed.

Rather than censoring speech, I'd prefer fact checking, which may or may not amount to the same.
And I think it’s important to highlight as you have. People will say “well they don’t really _mean_ that”, etc. but they should be taken at their word. They do.
Yes that's true. However, I view the author's conclusions about why certain damages occurred as being fairly weak.

Most strikingly none of the primary sources in the article actually describe the action of breaking a nose. More generally, none of the quotes actually describe any of the exact purposes that the article infers, e.g. the breaking a nose so that the spirit cannot breathe or breaking the arms so that the spirit cannot receive an offering.

All of this is instead inferred from passages supporting or warning against general defacement as well as post-hoc examination of damage on various statues.

You would hope that if this was a widespread and officially sanctioned practice and given generations of defacement and destruction, somewhere someone recorded "yes I cut off this statue's nose to make sure that the spirit could not breathe" or the equivalent with some other body part and spiritual function and yet this article at least has no such quote.

Of course history is full of gaps and thus it is not entirely unsurprising that there might not be literature describing this even if it were fairly widespread. Nonetheless, its lack makes me quite suspicious of the confidence in which the author describes his very specific conclusions on why certain body parts were damaged the way they were. (The most well-supported one I see so far is the thing with arms and offerings, although that depends heavily on how prevalent it is, e.g. whether this pattern holds for almost all one-armed statues, which the author suggests is true, but I'm curious about the overall stats on that)

EDIT: My suspicions have only increased after my searches on the Internet on this subject all seem to trace back to this Pulitzer Foundation exhibition. Anybody have any other sources to support the specific relationships between destroyed body part and destroyed spiritual function (e.g. no nose so can't breathe) as described in this article?
Some humans may have a hard time deciphering touch tone by ear, but anyone who can eavesdrop a phone conversation can use a program to do the translation.
Could you clarify what you mean by "it worked great" here?
I think there could be an opportunity here for a company like Dropbox to provide an API that will allow local-first apps more easily do collaboration.

You can easily just drop a file in Dropbox to move it from place to place, but its hard to allow multiple apps to modify that file in real time.
>America is all about quantity.

America used to be about quality. Sure, quantity was still a thing but the "shining city on the hill" image of America was about quality.

We've lost our way.
The Biden campaign has admitted that the meeting described in the NY Post article "might" have taken place even though it wasn't on the official schedules. This was the most newsworthy part of the article because Biden has been strenuously insisting throughout the impeachment and his presidential campaign that he never helped his son in his business dealings.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1316521338295783424
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs vs. the Max Neef Model of Human Scale Development (2016)
You're not describing free speech, you're describing the challenges of moderation.
This is like asking why you aren't allowed to go into any supermarket and scream in people's faces.

Yeah, if what you are doing is obnoxious and a lot of people hate it, you are going to get rejected from the vast majority of spaces.
This is a problem all over, but it's 100x worse in America, where it's basically impossible to survive in 99% of the country without a car.

Redesigning cities is glacially slow even with a clear political will, but taking a bunch of people off the roads at peak times is quick and relatively painless.
IIRC there are entire commercial toolchains in this area under the UML model driven arch label.
I was born in the late 70s and also was there and ready for the heady birth of the web—as a teen and then a college student, it was great. I subscribe to the free speech, anti-censorship ethos.

But this ain’t censorship; free speech is alive and well for anyone willing to find the right platform. This is a platform provider [belatedly] denying access to lies (they aren’t opinions) that have been weaponized to exploit those platforms’ recommendation algorithms for the liars’ own gain. It is more like how the internet started to develop defenses against spam in the late 90s, with spamsum, SpamAssassin, etc.
> As other have mentioned, I think however plausible that conception of speech was then, it's utterly ignorant of the problems we're facing today

I think it is the exact opposite. Maybe I have read too many dystopian novels like fahrenheit 451, or 1984, or read too much about Chinese govt's control of its population, but I feel that modern technology has allowed too much censorship power in hands of not just the govt, but a few corporations. And it is extremely important that we do not compromise on free speech now.
So basically anti-WFH people are sad that they can't hold pro-WFH people hostage anymore.
This was nice to read, as was https://moultano.wordpress.com/2020/06/21/the-defaults-dont-...

I bookmarked the site under my "long reads" tags.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9980/jewish/Cha...

Deuteronomy 16:18
The model seems like it's a bit more digestible / open for reading than Twitter's infamous threading model. Might be some promise here, though I have difficulty seeing the chat model scale well to many users. Is this intended to be self-hosted, or centralized?
Taking this back to the startup world, I find that the enjoyable wicked problem of cross-disciplinary engineering in a startup environment is that you get to build things in areas in which you have only generalist knowledge. The task of the founding team is to optimize not only the process of discovery within those specific domains but also to ensure the development and management the team, providing a correct degree of emphasis on tangible outputs with respect to commercialization and available resources, with an eye on the future developments and business and research landscape. It's damn hard, it's fun, it's addictive, it's unlike anything else.

More briefly, the venture notion might be re-construed as the belief that generalists who reliably and tirelessly execute win large returns because they have their eye on the big picture and can deliver aggregate value beyond component achievements. The patent world has long recognized this notion as something like a 'novel arrangement' of pre-existing components.

Another idea is that specialists, by virtue of the well defined discipline in which they hold expertise, are easily located and hired/consulted. Arguably rarer competent generalists therefore become the de-facto 'glue' to link the requisite fruit of those specialist domains.

Da Vinci himself was apparently against overt formalization of learning and rigid professional hierarchies: They will say that because of my lack of book learning, I cannot properly express what I desire to treat of. Do they not know that my subjects require for their exposition experience rather than the words of others? And since experience has been the mistress, and to her in all points make my appeal. - Leonardo Da Vinci ... via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
Nice. Significantly more legible without glasses.

Those blurred images, on the other hand, look nothing like what I see without glasses (I have myopia and astigmatism). Has research been done into reproducing what visually impaired folks actually perceive, or are designers just reaching for a convenient Photoshop filter?

The blurred images are uniform, stable and lower intensity. I see images which are just as bright, but non-uniform (value banding, especially near corners) and some chromatic aberration (which may be a result of viewing on my monitor). Anyone else?
>Can you remember one time in history where we now like "thanks god they censor these thoughts!"?

Nazism in Germany, post-WW2. And I'm okay with that.