skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Quite the opposite. Your sizes are more popular so they fly off the thrift racks. This leaves the unpopular stuff on the racks and many thrift stores don't do a great job of cycling out old product.

If you want to find great second hand clothes, figure out when the shops put out new product and shop on those days.
Hey, let's focus.
That's why I removed it. I am asking the questions in good faith. I want to know how the society will avoid having chilling effect of not being able to fire underperformers and making difficult choices when they need to be made.

If we cannot sit down and have a peaceful conversation, calling trolls and other non-sense, please don't divulge in this thread.
The common "nice" way to remove non-performers is a "Reduction in force", also known as "layoff" where they let multiple people go ritualistically, though I've seen it for as few as two people. Then they can argue it was about finances, not personal. They offer a decent severance that requires the employee to sign an agreement that requires, in part, they don't sue.

The word "fired" often is reserved for terminating someone for cause, where you really broke the rules and get no severance, not even the two weeks minimum that is customary. Non-performers usually aren't treated this way. I'm not sure this is really what happened in this story.
> Every single PoC who is fired gets this media attention.

No, they don't.
Here we're talking about something different: suppressing the speech of a person of color raising some well-thought out arguments about racism that are problematic to the employer's core business.

Google has set up a research organization that ostensibly is empowered to ask and ultimately work to openly resolve difficult questions like these... but when the rubber hits the road, they instead throw the researcher under the bus.
> It will also fail to capture the language and the norms of countries and peoples that have less access to the internet and thus a smaller linguistic footprint online. The result is that AI-generated language will be homogenized, reflecting the practices of the richest countries and communities.

It seems amusing to read this when the same person and her followers hounded Yann LeCun for pointing out the same thing with image models.

Anyway, this seems interesting. But I am not sure how you solve this. Do we take representative dataset according to population of a place? Also, assuming this is limited to a single language. How can AI generated language account for nuances from regional differences at the same time in a common model. Isn't what the author asking for here is kind of train, en_US, en_GB, en_IN separately here. For things like completion don't language models already account for this?
Money doesn’t buy happiness, but lack of money is catastrophe. I think the focus should be on that. That’s the problem that we should and could actually fix with money.

Going from no money to some money is everything. From some money to a lot of money does not help anyone.

I always thought people who take issue with this saying never had a lot of money.
By the time they have got to your ears, they've already procreated and made thousand more like them. You swatting one doesn't matter evolutionarily.
Kinda the point though isn't it?

We're only reading a summary of the paper because apparently the authors aren't confident enough in its quality to release it publicly.

You can't claim that Google dismissed this paper out-of-hand while simultaneously saying "oh, but it's too much of a draft to release publicly". Uh, if it was too much of a draft for the public why shouldn't it be too drafty for Google? Are we really pretending that Google has lower standards of quality than the general public?
The excess mortality in the United States doesn't make any sense at all. I followed the link to the article that contained the data regarding the United States, however it was an article that only dealt with the Eurozone and made no mention of "us" "united" "the united states" "America" or "usa" anywhere in the article, so I'm not really sure what evidence supports their claims about the USA?
I think you're agreeing with someone being sarcastic. But it is text, so one can't be sure.
I remember implementing the comment collapsing thing without JS, you have the "[-]" be a label for a checkbox button, and then you just use CSS to hide the sections for which the checkbox is checked.
Perhaps they were curious?
The affect of the title seems to encourage dropping your daily dose of vitamin d, even though as you say it doesn’t conclude that is the best advice. Maybe my criticism is subtle but it seems important.
Software Assertions and Code Quality (2006)
This seems an extreme solution to media investigation of a small number of people losing their jobs

Perhaps instead, in these situations, employers could provide, at the discretion of the dismissed, information gathered while performing due diligence leading up to the dismissal
The real question is: if wood is so inexpensive, why the price of a wood house is close to 1mil in Silicon Valley?
I don't understand why Mummy, Couch Potato, and Toilet Paper Hoarder are part of the set. What are they for?

What is Quarantine Life intended to communicate?
No, I am not, and I don't see how you came to believe that I might be
Bad actors are a fact of life on the Internet and Russian ISPs aren't going to care about this sort of thing.

Cloudflare allows blocking traffic by country, just block all traffic from Russia and get on with your life.
old.reddit.com isn't really degrading.
As the article mentioned, parents being able to navigate the sport hierarchy, is very helpful.
The issue isn't how much BERT uses, the issue is the trend over time in how much models use, with BERT being a recent data point.

The whole point of having AI ethicists is to identify current indicators of potential future ethical problems so that they can be considered in guiding the direction of development, so that you minimize acute ethical crisis.
So not only Bezoz is exploiting people. You are, too.
Assuming you like the job enough and wants to continue working (which seems to be the case):

1) Reflect on your ability to change and influence your work environment. You probably can influence the company a lot more than you think. Don't play the victim card; roll up your sleeves and start building the culture you want to work in. If you're a co-founder, that's your job anyway. If you're an early employee, you have the credibility and visibility, and people will follow your lead.

2) Establish well-being as one of your core values. Given you already had an exit, I'd imagine you're past the ramen-profitable stage, so your focus now should be on scaling fast, and building a sustainable long-term strategy. Long work hours, burnout and a toxic environment are sure ways to crash a company.

3) Give yourself a deadline, and work your ass off till then. If you're proud of the work you did to help turn things around and still wasn't able to make a dent, then it's time to move on, and with your head up. If you can't change how the company operates, you can always change who do you work for.

OTOH, if you don't love the job enough, OR if you don't have the energy to do #1 and #2, then I'd suggest you quit or take an unpaid leave of absence, and use the time to disconnect and recharge. You have plenty of runway, so you can afford to take a sabbatical. If you want to keep yourself intellectually challenged you may want to go back to school or something (given travelling the world is unfortunately not an option right now).

Last, but most important of all: seek help. Don't underestimate the impact of burnout, and assume it'll go away one day. It's serious, and may have long-lasting impact if you don't pay attention, and address the root-cause. Nothing is more important than your mental health. Feel free to ping me if you need a stranger to chat.
Long and nice read.

Ten years ago, there was still heated debates about whether Nicolas Carr was right.

Now we kind of know he somehow was right, so parts of the debate are over, while others, still relevant parts, leave us speachless. Or maybe that's just me.
Fun rabbit hole!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

I knew the expression (and was obviously alluding to it), not its origin.

Thanks!
She wasn't fired. She made it clear she could not work there her demands were not met and would resign. Google accepted her resignation.
Streetmix3d – Design 3D Streets
Employers need solid documented reasons for firing someone. Fired person needs proper recourse for appealing it if they felt it was unfair. Going to NYTimes is OK if there is solid proof of racism, the company needs to face the consequences - both legal and public image / media perception. If the fired person goes out to media and brings down the company without proof - we need to have mechanisms for that as well - I don't see us addressing that.
> Assume that Congress can edit a database of every citizens' net worth by legislative fiat. Answer the question about how lessening economic inequality is going to negatively impact the average American.

> I'm diagnosing the problem, and asking what you think would be the negative impact if we simply took away 73% of the wealth each billionaire holds, which you won't answer, because you know the answer is "nothing bad".

Ok, in a hypothetical fantasy land where the government has a magic database and they can manually edit anyone's net worth at will and it is further specifically stipulated that this causes nothing bad to happen, then yes, I agree nothing bad happens in that scenario.

Back in the real world, such a thing doesn't exist. So if you want to talk about real things that could actually impact the net worth of billionaires you have to consider what other secondary effects they might have. Here's one: stock market crashes. Billionaires lost a lot of wealth in 2008. In your opinion, was this a generally positive event for the rest of the country or not? Bezos's net worth could easily drop by 73% on Monday without any government intervention at all, do you think that would help anyone?

To the extent that governments do have the ability to manipulate people's net worth via printing money, this has a long history of disastrous consequences like the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, etc. In your hypothetical world where the value of anything can be changed at a whim by a bureaucrat, how would anyone even conduct any business at all? How am I supposed to sell you a bag of potatoes for $5 if tomorrow the government might decide it's "more fair" if my $5 is $0 instead?

> Disagree. I'm proposing a return to a previous status quo that was more broadly equitable.

Dude, literally one paragraph ago you're talking about a magic database that can edit anyone's net worth at will. That is not a status quo that has ever existed anywhere in human history.

Are there possible scenarios in which billionaires have less money and everyone else has more money and everyone is happier and healthier and better off? Sure. Is a wealth tax (the closest thing to a policy that you've mentioned) a path to get to any of them? I think probably not. Is a legislative fiat where the government just flat out declares that someone has less money a realistic thing that could happen that wouldn't be a tremendous overreach and huge magnet for corruption and abuse? I think definitely not.

If you want to theorize about potential policies and what their impacts might be, then cool, I'd love to brainstorm about what things might happen. If you just want to fantasize about "Like..what if rich people had like...less money...and we had like...more?" I mean, I'm not sure where to actually go with that.
I'm guessing most dealerships already have 240V at least. Car lifts need a lot of power, unless you want to be waiting around for minutes to lift a car. That's more than enough to charge a test drive car overnight.
> If a key part of Google's claim is that the paper omits relevant research, an author should have simply posted their 128 references and openly asked what work was missing. This whole saga could be easily solved instead of being dragged out for clicks.

So, we have on one hand, a researcher who got perilously close to litigation with her employer in the past (IMO because of missteps on both sides).

On the other hand, we have an employer that then was skittish about telling her that they didn't want the paper published (to protect the employer's business interests, mostly, it seems, while maintaining a veneer of open research organizations). And resorted to small statements through HR and intermediaries demanding retraction.

This relationship has broken down; there's no ready process to tidy up the misunderstandings.

I will say that Google's claims to be fostering an open discussion of AI ethics and confronting potentially uncomfortable truths on this path are looking a bit more dubious, though Ms. Gebru doesn't look so particularly easy to work with, either.
> Most of the internet is from Western sources and some fraction of that is racist/prejudiced. I think this is obvious to anyone who has ever used the internet.

The impact of that on AI and the difficulties in counteracting it are not obvious to anyone who has ever used the internet or even—from, among other bits of evidence, public clashes Gebru has had with people who work in AI outside of ethics—not even to everyone building and training AI models on public data that is impacted.
> If a person of color (I am myself non-white) is not performing, what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you?

I think it is going to be extremely hard. From the same article, I opened a tweet and look at what a high voted reply is: https://twitter.com/PocketNihilist/status/133495412981528985...

This line of reasoning means, you can't be pro diversity and fire someone from the underrepresented groups at the same time for their behaviour.

People are conveniently choosing to forget this is the same company which not long ago fired a person when he complained about the company being too pro diversity in their hiring.

I really hate Twitter and its mob culture.
In fact it says in read me that it is inspired by nitter! nitter is written in Nim though, while this uses NodeJS
Here is explanation what happened: https://www.thegeorgiasun.com/2020/12/04/fact-check-were-sui...
First, if. The lower Mississippi has poor hydro potential.

And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants.

This is an extreme reach.
I personally think that just the way the employer is required to document the reasons for firing, the person going off on media must also provide proof that they were being treated unfairly.
I don't think you're truly economically "upper class" if you have to worry about student loans. I was paying off loans into my 30's, but my children will never have to pay a dime for school unless they make an active decision to ignore the money my wife and I have set aside for that.
It isn’t just Amazon, look at Home Depot or Walmart. Canada just costs more money and has a lot less choice.

I’ve imported a lot of books and they are supposed to charge GST but I’ve never been invoiced for it.
None of this comment has anything directly to do with the article; the article is just a coat rack these arguments are being hung on.
The way this is presented is going to be interpreted incorrectly. It is incorrect to compare percentages or probabilities like this.

Here is a different example to try and illustrate the problem:

Is 10% larger than 5%?

It is not possible to answer this question if the basis on which the percentages are calculated are different.

What if I said the 10% was 10% of whatever you last spent money on, but the 5% was 5% of Google's annual revenue. Which is larger?

The same thing is happening in the above - it isn't okay to calculate the probabilities in two situations and then try to cross compare them for size.

Sadly this error seems to be cropping up quite a lot! Matt Parker (Stand-up Maths) has an example of this and related to a recent election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. His explanation is likely better than mine.
Ask HN: Is providing references common to get tech jobs?
I have recently been offered a job by an US tech startup, the role is outside of US in the country where I live. They have offered me the role and I have accepted the offer. Now they have asked me to provide references from my current and past jobs, they must be my managers.
Is this common in US?
How do people provide reference from their current place of work?
I don't say that it is unethical, I say that it is racist. Like, being based on race.

If you dig deeper, you will find that the racism of our world was excused with "God blessed our people" while LOTR made it true. So, if there is something unethical, then it must be Tolkien who made people not exactly equal. However, I'm not inclined to judge someone's fantasies until they stay there.

In regard to genetic exceptionalism, it is practiced as a policy or unconsciously by many communities around the world. Whether it is bad could be decided when checking the consequences. They are rather obvious in small communities where inbreeding leads to all kinds of genetic diseases and "preserve your genetic line" turns rather ironic. In bigger communities the effects are a bit more subtle because the lack of diversity is not so pronounced. Issues begin when you consider your own as human+, because it is not so far off to consider everyone else as human- which provokes things like lack of cooperation, general hostility, and the occasional genocide.

Of course, the topic is much larger. I haven't talked about diversity of communities and cultures, what makes humans a species, and so on, but I spread myself well enough, I think.
Ahhhhh my mistake, she's informed me it's the campus library. The lecture halls and general campus is shut down, the library remains open for limited hours.
So make laws to prevent monopoly, rather than making size/employee count based.
How can it be privacy focused if it is terminating my TLS connection to Reddit? Your Reddit browsing patterns are just going to accumulate at Teddit.

Given the increased importance of things like /r/wallstreetbets, this data could be pretty valuable.
Honestly question to fellow HN commenters: what is the popular take on energy efficiency against entertainment industry? Where do people draw the line, regarding what and what not should be an ethnical use case for energy?
Haven't checked those numbers, but if that 20-80% paid worker's wages, that was a good thing. Also, Amazon reduces the number of players in the market and reduces the number of jobs virtually everywhere for some hotspots. A free market cannot combat this sort of monopoly.
> The top 1% net worth and the top 1% income are different things,

Obviously. But if the figure is exclusive of their primary residence their return on investments isn't especially impressive-- e.g. it's sub index fund rates even assuming they have no other income than gains. :)
China wants to weaponize its currency. A digital version could help
with sbmm, roughly half the players you face off against are better than you (assuming you have been accurately ranked) and half worse. You have ample opportunity to learn from better players. SBMM simply limits the skill gap between you and the better player.

I am never going to get better at basketball by playing Lebron in 1v1s.
Could you make the site usable without javascript? Right now there's a sidebar with a transparency that overlaps half of the paragraphs.
The problem with sarcasm on this issue (beyond the inherent ambiguity of plain text sarcasm) is that this is something you can see people saying literally (or, at least, as what they see as only a slightly hyperbolic description of a real trend that they are complaining about.)
Where did 800m come from? There are ~330m people in the USA. There are around 160m people in Bangladesh, 90% of whom are legally prohibited from purchasing or consuming alcohol without a prescription. The scale difference for this country alone is around 2x, not 10x like you're claiming. I'd argue 2x doesn't make much difference to enforcement.
One potential study would be a similar comparative analysis of mortality data from Melbourne Australia.

- Longest and strictest lockdown in G20 countries.

- Quality health records, low COVID deaths (as they were aiming to eradicate COVID risk altogether).

Factors difficult to adjust for would be the relatively high (compared to other countries) levels of economic support provided by Australia to those in lockdown, easing rent and utility bill concerns, etc.

Not all lockdowns are equal, after all.
In an at-will employment state (i.e. most of them) companies do not need reasons. Maybe you mean to help their chances in a lawsuit or something?
I think that leading with this is what's causing the confusion of what your intent was:

> Each exhibited the same pattern of awesome-burnout-intoxicate-destruction as Hsieh is described as having here
U.S. Marines Won’t Stop Taking LSD
I'm a tech lead responsible for deciding stuff like what front end framework to use. I have a personal preference for Angular and svelte but earlier this year when given a greenfield project I still went with React (with TypeScript of course). As the author correctly states: always bet on boring.
I have only had to provide references twice in 12 years. I have alerted my managers ahead of time and they indicated a willingness to provide a reference. I left off my current job (I always find a new job before quitting the current one).
Unless I missed something (and I just rechecked) there's nothing in the guidelines about comments having to be on the topic of the submission.

IMO it enriches HN comment sections to allow for people to bring up adjacent topics, things that came to mind or funky little "this reminds me of..." anecdotes.
You say "deserve" as if it is a moral imperative, but then all of your justifications are utilitarian.
It could be privacy focused by not accumulating that data.
Google curates the play store with a much lighter touch than Apple curates its store. Possibly because they don't want to drive people to sideloading.
If a person of color (I am myself non-white) is not performing, what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you?

For them to be one of 99.9% of the world who can't mobilize a following to create a complaint about this?

Are we creating a society that makes it impossible to fire a person of color

We so far from such a situation like that that your complaint is absurd. A few places with a history of discrimination may have trouble firing the few people of color they might hire. That's about it. In the real world, incompetent people get fired and often competent people as well. A few people may make a career of playing the race card but that's a limited number of people.

Both racism and opportunists "playing the race card" can be real at the same time.
Their capacitors will die. In the power supply this could destroy unobtanium parts.
Sure. It's like Poe's law.
Top-Down Code Reviews
'playing the race card' and asking about firing for non-performance in the context of a story that does not involve someone being fired for that are not invitations to 'peaceful conversation'. They come off as deliberate provocation. Again, if that's not what you have in mind, just edit it out and focus on whatever it is you want to ask.
What if many billions in capital are needed, and there’s risk too? It’s just not worth getting involved unless you can earn billions.