skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe I have posted this before, but one of the big problems with this industry is the mashing of a whole bunch of different roles into the same bucket.

I used to be an electrical engineer. In the traditional engineering world there are mechanics/assemblers (high school with maybe a vocational certificate program), technicians (two-year Associates or vocational degree), engineers (Bachelor's or Master's degree in a specific, relevant discipline), and researchers (Ph.D.+ in a specific, relevant discipline).

In the Valley-oriented tech industry, the first three all get squashed into "software engineer". It's often not clear what a company needs, even to the company. Some companies seemingly don't care; Google, for instance, seems to hire all software engineers to the same bar then sorts them internally into the mechanic/technician/engineer bins based on what teams will take them. I think hiring is going to remain fundamentally broken until companies start making an explicit distinction between these roles when they open reqs and interview candidates.

Now, I'm not saying my former industry's way of doing things is all good. I have effectively left it for good by virtue of not having touched a circuit card or JTAG debugger professionally in 14 years. I do think this industry could learn from the separation of roles, though.
Agreed. I work in information security (risk, compliance, and governance) for a EU-based company and we have a ton of “our lawyers said X” and “we interpret GDPR as Y” kind of policies because there have not been enough court cases to really understand what GDPR actually means.

From a security and privacy standpoint I think it’s got great potential but there are too many open questions about enforcement and it muddies actual compliance.
A List Apart. Man, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time, a long time.
This comment seems to be at odds with your original one. So if the people vote democratically for something, and the elected officials don't do it, it's the people fault for not doing democracy the right way?

I'm not sure there's a better example of democracy than when people vote for something that it happens.
Is the perspective artistically intentional? It feels like there's a lot of distortion at the edges of the screen. Sort of nostalgic, but also a bit dizzying.
At Top SaaS Cos, Founder-CEOs Own ~15% at IPO. & Most CoFounders Aren't Equal
Taipeng heavenly kingdom.

Its just cultish insanity that happens to also be one of the bloodiest ever civil wars.
> The best helmsmen stand on the shore.

The version I've heard is that taxi drivers are the ones who best know how to run a country. :)
A common misconception, probably because the majority of D users are C++ veterans. But D was never designed as a successor to C++.

"One of the earliest design decisions that Walter made about D was that it would be easy to use
with software written in C. Many widely-used libraries are implemented in C or have a C interface.
He wanted to provide an easy path for established software companies to adopt the D language. A
straightforward approach was to guarantee that users of D could immediately take advantage of
any C library their project required without the need to reimplement it in D." from "Origins of the D programming language" by W.Bright, A.Alexandrescu, M.Parker.

D has an optional conservative mark-sweep Boehm GC which only gets triggered when you attempt to allocate something on the heap. If you don't do that, it won't bother you. Finally, you can explicitly disable it.

People generally ignore or miss the fact that D really shines when it comes CTFE, reflection and metaprogramming.
I understand the line of reasoning above and would normally follow it - but Facebook, Apple and Google have all shown that they will do really shady things if they can get away with it. The reaction to Project Dragonfly was pretty nice to see, but you really have to wonder how many things like that make it through without any public outcry - I know real human beings and most of them are pretty awesome, some of them are sociopaths who'd do anything to make a buck though... we're gambling that some moral ones get into the decision making process and, tbh, if the sociopaths have their way the moral ones will remain blissfully ignorant of the shady stuff.
A Pragmatic Approach to Live Collaboration – Hex Blog – Hex Technologies
This I can confirm personally. I could read fluently before Kindergarden because my older sister taught me so, not by force, but because I asked what the big letters of luminous advertising on a supermarket meant. So it began :) And I learned to learn by reading everything I could get. By myself.

But: that probably won't work for everyone. Furthermore the question remains how to do that when both parents have to work to make ends meet? Maybe even multiple jobs, as it is common for many nowadays? Also one can't overgeneralize this, as there are good teachers and schools, and bad ones.
No matter what country or system or schooltype.

As always: it depends...
Click-fraud decisions happen weeks later when it's time to send payouts to publishers. It will show $800 pending for deposit and then will say removed and you'll get an email about click fraud.

That's what happened in this scenario. $800 / a month worth of earnings on a publisher account got wiped out minutes before the new pay period started.
> There is no meaningful data that any hiring process--good or bad--improves the outcome of a hire

This is a manifestly absurd claim. It is possible to improve the outcome of a hire, and almost everyone is using those kinds of processes. The firm I work for does an excellent job filtering people for skill and compatibility. The trick is that if you want to capture the top e.g. 10% of applicants, you're going to have to pay them several times more than the median applicant. Most companies are too cheap to attract distinguished talent.
full stack is a front-end engineer and they're willing to deal with the shitty JS stack.
Tesla FSD beta rollout happening tonight
I'm going to pretend it was artistic.

In truth, I did it from memory and my first guess was close enough that I didn't feel like sitting down and working out the math correctly.

I'm sorry if it's making you nauseous.
Tor is sort of a virtual network. You need a gateway between the virtual network and the Internet to access the Internet.
Hang on, you think there are individuals who can reason about how complex systems work with perfect certainty?
Those are good engineering efforts, but its like building a bridge vs understanding the theory of gravity.

They are definitely not foundational in anywhere near the sense that bell labs was.
Show HN: The Highlights Club – top performers in one place
Thanks to anti-trust actions both from the US and EU, we will find out.
Cool, can you reference some docs or any communication from Apple re the captive portal workarounds?

It feels rather heavy handed as there are ways other systems have worked around this that don't hijack routes.
This isn't true, depending on your definition of large. For example, Stripe is known to have an engineering interviewing process that diverges from the typical leetcode-style questions.

I think hiring is "doing just fine" and there's room for order-of-mag improvements on precision/recall.
IP Address Management systems. Similar to solarwinds Orion.

We used that particular product extensively at my previous company. If you stole an ip without putting it into Orion there was a job that would enumerate/update info, if possible.

If the job failed, you and your boss would get an angry email.

This was in a company probably much smaller than F500.
Completely off topic. Am I a bad parent? I just saw a baby sucking on the keyboard, and the mother simply said very calmly "do you want to key in something?". I would have immediately started shouting "ughh nooo... don't suck on the keyboard. Bad. Bad." Now when I see my daughter shout back when she can simply reply back, I wonder if it is I who taught her that.

:(
If you consider both the strength of vacuum permittivity, ε0, (aka permittivity of free space/electric constant) and the vacuum permeability, μ0, (permeability of free space/magnetic constant) determine the speed of light in vacuum as per the following relationship:

c = 1/(μ0 ε0)^0.5

0 being the vacuum case

then it follows that c will change when either or both values of μ and ε change. (The value of both the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability, along with the Fine Structure Constant‡, alpha, α, which is closely related and involves the electric constant, are now precisely known).

Normally, the speed of light decreases when it encounters a medium or dielectric (as we observe when it propagates within a coaxial cable or through glass etc.) but in photon tunneling it's not necessarily so. Thus the question to ask is what are the effective values of μ and ε at the instant of tunneling. If the effective μ and ε coupling from photons to the surrounding medium, is 'lost' or reduced at this instant through quantum coupling effects—or the lack thereof—then one can see how c could exceed c0 — the vacuum/free space figure.

OK that's the photon case, but if the same were to apply to the 'coupling' of an electron [which has mass] at the very instant of tunneling, then its mass might not be 'seen' thus we might end up with the electron exceeding c0 (but only for the duration of its tunneling).

I'm saying first thoughts out loud here (not a wise thing to do), so I've more thinking before I come to any conclusions, and clearly energy, conservation laws and possibly time constants have to be considered with an electron. That said, I've just looked at Thomas Hartman's equation and I've not come to any opinions, as I don't know enough about it at this point. All I'm saying now is that his equation shouldn't conflict with the one I've given above.

Would the real experts among us like to comment or offer various alternative explanations?

-

† Presumably, c could also 'legitimately' exceed c0 if it were to travel through some medium with 'meta' properties (if one were ever found).

‡ Alpha is defined by various relationships (hence different equations). This specific eqn. defines alpha in terms of the electric charge, e, and vacuum permittivity: α = e^2/(4πεħ0c).
It's okay! It's not severe, and it gives character to the game.
The toys and "adventures" you buy the military cost vastly more than what you give to those milking the welfare system.
How does it compare in performance with the optimized code from ClickHouse?
https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/blob/c0fef71507b43c...
The encrypted traffic will be the traffic Amazon will be most interested in, since you took the trouble; they won't peek into the DB but they will be able to infer lots about what's going on if they want. It's the Tor Paradox.
>Fantastic comment, always brought up, except that this same >subset of Python (really how to use CPU efficiently) is ?about the same that anyone writing about Julia performance is >preaching.

This is completely and demonstrably false. Julia allows fast programming with macros, multiple dispatch, abstract types and more.
It seems to me that it is the maskers who interfere with the noses of others, and quote Mill while they do it.
If something fishy indeed goes on in a large company, it must be on a need-to-know basis.

But the higher access you get, higher the penalties of sharing company secrets go.

Snowdens come into the picture every once in a while, but most average programmer Joes wouldn’t risk being internationally manhunted for whistleblowing questionable business practices.

So I do not think your argument is valid.
I would like to see data on Google's revenue distribution per user, guessing it would be very lopsided. Some users are clicking ads for 50%+ of their searches. DuckDuckGo users are different because they most likely at minimum know the difference between a search result and an ad.
> Those who undergo the birth trauma, like Google, are sitting on a river of AI gold and putting AI into everything; those who fail will whine on surveys about how AI is a scam and overhyped and an AI winter will hit Real Soon Now Just You Wait

I wouldn't call Google as sitting on a river of AI gold.

It is using AI to make more gold from the same mine, instead of the obvious gold, it scratches and extract gold from the dirt and rocks. But it's still doing it from that same mine.

And that's exactly what AI is, garbage in, garbage out. I used to be a machine learning engineer in a company that is about as old as the dinosaur. They wanted to apply that gold digging AI machine google had on a landfill, which didn't quite pan out the way they liked it.
Although I think we have enough, I think the way people use emojis cements my view that they are a good thing.

Nothing trivial annoys me more than people writing in "I luv u" shorthand, so if an emoji can a more emotional message in less characters I'm all for it. Even if it's a thinly veiled sexual euphemism.

Emojis in official corporate communication can burn - I got one recently when applying for a relatively serious job: sends a strange message, that and it reminds me that I want to save the emojis for my friends and family (sadly not the people we most of spend our time with in)
If you watch a video like this and notice things that you can apply to improve your own approach to your daughter, then that makes you a good parent.
Just look at the amount of engineering effort and time that has gone into projects like kubernetes: https://github.com/kubernetes/enhancements/issues/508

That's just for IPv6 support, which is beta, and took years to get there. Dual Stack is still in alpha, and that didn't appear until a really recent release (1.16).

I think routers and switches are probably the easier pieces of the puzzle, at least as far as managing them goes. The vendors have worked out all the kinks (hopefully?) before the equipment gets to you.

That's just to get the stuff to work. Then you have corporate/government policies and validation. Then you have to solve problems like "My VM resolves things to IPv6 by default, but I have no IPv6 gateway so everything times out". And then make sure that logic makes it up through your entire stack. Multicast? Not allowed on many networks.

Is it the end of the world? No. It's just a lot of extra work for everyone.
In a lot of cases, the security guard can't actually do anything about a shoplifter -- they're not allowed to touch them or detain them, usually for fear of prosecution.

This is why places like Target will first build a case before detaining a shoplifter; They want to make sure they have enough proof to cover their asses legally.
> I've intentionally under-allocated with array space on my drives

Same here - created on each drive a partition slightly smaller than the HDD's capacity (using ZFS raidz1).
This is yet another surprising thing to a lot of people: cars can be very, very cheap in the US: insurance and gas can cost more than a reliable used car. I just sold a perfectly fine car for less than $2000, having bought it new 10 years ago. Someone else will probably buy that car, after a few cosmetic things are fixed, for $3000 or so. It's spent most of its life south of Pennsylvania, so it doesn't have road salt damage, and will probably last another 10 years or more with regular oil changes, etc.
Fantastic article!

Could the kernel restrict the AVX use to memcpy to/from user buffers & to use a different API so that it was clear at the syscall boundary when that save/restore would be needed (+ you could potentially restrict the number of AVX registers used)? That way it wouldn't have the concerns of replacing all memcpy operations within the kernel & would just focus on I/O operations from userspace.

Or is the space for potentially stashing away the AVX registers for each thread also a major concern rather than just the cost of doing so?
Even if structs worked, they wouldn't be part of a good type system, don't work with abstract interfaces/inheritance,traits, multiple dispatch, fast union types, zero allocation immutables or any myriad of other things
Wouldn't most companies who are in the shoes of company A in this example, find some excuse to lay off the employee in question when the person applies for this arrangement?

Or do you mean the employee would do this in secret from company A? If so, like the other commenter said, that excludes anyone who can't put in weekend work time.
I think it's important to distinguish "introvert" from "lacks social skills". I'm introverted in the sense that social interaction drains my energy and solitude recharges it (with the stereotypical consequences like I don't like parties qua parties). However, I have good social skills in that I can make almost anyone like me, quickly. That is extremely useful in both getting hired and keeping a job.
I believe the other rate has been traditionally called "underemployment"
> Very fair. We should just bite the bullet of Covid.

I'm sure you'll still feel that way when it's someone from your family "biting the bullet" of COVID.

The vaccines are coming. It will be months, not years, for them to be widely available to anyone who wants one. The fact that people simply cannot put their lives on hold for 6 months for the greater good here is just mindblowing to me.
the level of understanding in government of how the Internet was shaping up way back then was really really low; I was around then and felt it was crazy but unless the regulators can understand and measure an industry, they won't every stop an acquisition like Doubleclick.
IAAL, and that is a good question. (This is not legal advice.)

CRFA appears to apply to contracts that bind an "individual" and not a "person". This technical difference is important in contracts: an individual is also known in the art as a "natural person" (i.e., a human being), while a "person" could be an individual, a company, or other organization.

So it is possible that the law does not apply to Orca Security because they are a "person" and not an "individual". In other words, if it can be found that Mr. Shua was acting as an officer or other representative of Orca Security instead of in his personal capacity, then CRFA may not apply to the license agreement.

Again, this is NOT legal advice, and anyone seeking a legal opinion should engage a licensed attorney. This law is pretty new and I don't know whether this specific question has been tested by any court. But I would tread with caution.
As a general rule, you want to prevent software from bypassing a user's informed consent. Apple typically does this in one of two ways:

1. Have functionality only accessible through system frameworks, so that the OS can be responsible for prompting for informed consent and granting it to a process. This means that the system itself has to have functionality to prompt for that informed consent in a way that users can understand.

2. Require processes which an application cannot script that are technically complicated enough that users might realize they are pulling off the warranty-voiding stickers. A prime example would be rebooting into recovery mode to turn off system integrity protections via a terminal command.

Both of these wind up getting gated in priority, but such is the priority of their system - limiting the ability of arbitrary software to act as an unrestricted agent of the user so that user security and privacy (as well as device operation like battery life and radio reception) can be protected.
Wow, this is taking me back to a former life of mine! The idea of a built-in TBC scares me a bit though. I guess it's not a big deal if you don't plan on mixing with other sources. I'd always prefer the shared black-burst generator in that case.
Facebook hires many of the greatest engineers known to man, and has them build things like HHVM so that others of their engineers can hack on monstrosities in almost-PHP.

You're going to see both good and bad Facebook engineers.
Maybe, maybe not. See my analysis elsewhere about the importance of the word "individual" as opposed to "person" in the language of CFRA.
> that "we" is the whole of the citizens and residents of the country, not a central planning committee

But none of us have the power to run the entire country, and we couldn't do it properly even if we had the power. So saying that "we" should do things that are beyond our power is pointless.

If you think not enough people have jobs, start a business and hire some. If everyone who complains about unemployment went and did that instead, if it didn't completely solve the problem, it would certainly make a huge dent.

> the government is the power apparatus that is meant to express and realize our common good.

If "our common good" just means ensuring a level playing field and letting freedom work, sure. That's what the US government was originally intended to do.

However, governments today have gone far beyond that to try to dictate to everybody what "our common good" should mean based on some particular interest group's ideas about social policy. That is a recipe for disaster, and we should stop doing it.

> wealth by itself, especially as we measure it, is hollow and a poor collective goal

I'm not sure what you mean by "as we measure it". If you mean that "we" measure it in money, then of course you are correct: money is not wealth.

If you measure wealth as economists actually measure it, however, by the possibilities that are open to people--the range of things they can choose to do with the resources and options available to them--then people today are wealthier than pretty much every human being who ever lived.

> industry, purpose, solidarity, community, well-being, welfare, success, esteem, respect, free expression, etc. are all (much) higher on that list.

If you think these are valuable things, then go build them.

If you think government should dictate to people that they need to build these things, whether they want to or not, IMO you are being inconsistent, since the whole point of all these good things is that people can only do them voluntarily; if they are forced to do them, you don't get them, you get sham imitations instead. So once again, government should not be used to impose these things on people; it should be used to ensure a level playing field so free people can build them as they see fit.
NAT-PMP, PCP, and UPnP take care of this.
"By phasing out old people"? Meaning what? Kill them? Remove them from Social Security?

I presume you don't mean either of those, but I'm at a loss to tell what you do mean. What exactly do you have in mind?
The debugger has had a huge amount of work done on it recently.

Anyway, half the data-scientists I know don't use the debugger, they're solidly in the print-to-debug camp, or they're using notebooks and going step-by-step.
Amazon's model is entirely reasonable until they become a 1st-party seller that competes with 3rd parties. Then it is all too natural for there to be some market abuse. For instance, configuring search ranking to always put the Amazon branded option in the top results is Amazon abusing their market position as a marketplace/distributor to now directly sell goods.
I feel the word "toxic" is maybe a bit too pejorative for what it is? Another framing is that it is "guild knowledge". The incentives in academia are complex and it affects how open some folks are or can afford to be with such knowledge.

That said, there are certain open avenues for making such knowledge public. MathOverflow is one. Some academics document their guild knowledge in "technical papers" which they put up on their website. The ML community (which I'm not part of, but that I'm able to observe as an outsider) seems to be particularly open when it comes to publishing blog posts -- sometimes to gain reputational points?

In some journals, arguments over publications are carried out in the Letters to the Editor section. Sometimes this leads to public feuds however, and some academic communities are small enough that if you make too many enemies your publications may be visited upon with disfavor when it comes time for peer review. It's not worth getting into public tiffs unless there's a principle at stake.