skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
actually "Trump Pentagon nominee spreads debunked conspiracies and _tweets suggesting Trump_ declare martial law"
Thank you! I'm working on the cli for https://www.postgrescompare.com and I really want to make it great!
I’m very pro FP in general, but saying that its inherently more fit for writing software is a baseless claim. People are also unnecessarily harsh about OO, as if somehow the entire industry is operating orders of magnitude less efficiently then they would be if they just magically changed paradigm. FP has its own tradeoffs. Nothing is less trustworthy than a zealot who claims their religion is the one true answer.

Logic and software are fundamentally complex. Djikstra said that software is “radical novelty.” It exists at a scale beyond anything the human race has ever built before, that’s fairly inarguable. He was also very fond of imperative programming, and was able to formally verify his imperative programs. Check out his book, A Discipline of Programming, where he goes over the mathematical theory of a simple imperative language.

There’s nothing more “mathematically correct” about the lambda calculus vs. Turing machines. Both are equivalent models. Whether or not state is implicit or explicit, state and time are a part of computation.
Probably via the IP address used.
> Instead, she said she needed certain things to keep working there.

And, from what I understand, that she wanted to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation (which she was on at the time.)

EDIT: I point this out because I think that this potentially recasts the whole communication from an non-negotiable ultimatum to something more like a fair warning to avoid blindsiding anyone going into an in-person discussion in which negotiation is implicitly anticipated.
Offshoot topic but why on earth didn’t mosquitos evolve to fly quietly? They could bite me all day long and I’d never know but I can hear them almost across the room.

And sometimes they seem to be quiet and other times it’s a loud buzz. Really seems like they’re not optimized for their job?
It is literally chicken meat
We're an F#-first company and I'd like to share our experience here.

All our new code is in F#, we started off from a C# codebase, so that made the transition somewhat manageable, as new F# code can be directly called from C#, and vice versa (still took over 2 years). All new frontend apps are also being written in F# (using Fable), as of 6 months back, migrating away from TypeScript, this forces everyone into a "design your model first, and well" paradigm. We've written quite a bit of code to blur the lines between traditional backend and frontend development roles, so what we have now are:

- product engineers (who write application logic on both frontend and backend to serve business needs)

- platform & framework engineers (who write the underlying persistence/serialization/versioning/frontend-backend-sync websocket/load balancing/IDE extensions/deployment etc)

- component designers who focus on visuals

Platform/framework engineers try to encapsulate as much magic as possible into computation expressions (F#'s monads), so product engineers can focus simply on writing out business intent, with readability given very high priority. We also make ample use of quotations to do some cool tricks (like predict the future states some type can take, based on current state + available transitions).

Our code written in F# has an order of magnitude fewer bugs when it makes it to production, given the amount of thought we pour in modelling the problem domain accurately, and thanks to functional programming itself. They're also more amenable to business requirements changing, simply because they've been modelled well to start with. Nothing that can't be achieved in other languages, but with F#, this happens more naturally.

Almost everyone in our team has learnt F# on the job, and overall, everyone's experience has been extremely positive. There's a bit of difficulty in the first 2-3 months, as junior devs get introduced to functional thinking, but if you've generally being doing functional programming, this is just about learning new syntax, tooling and F#'s choice of operator naming (map/bind/pick/collect/choose/..). Typically, based on prior experience, we ask newcomers to spend two weeks to a month, solving the first 100 problems on Project Euler in F#, without using the mutable keyword, and we assign a mentor to point out best practices and review their code.

The hiring pool for F# devs is much smaller than the regular applicant pool, but if a candidate shows genuine interest in F#, they are usually 10x more likely get through our interview process. If they've discovered F#, it means they find something lacking with mainstream languages, so they're likely to have many years of experience under their belt, and they've found a way to grow. That said, we don't restrict our hiring to simply F# devs.

For more info about us, see chaldal.tech (YC/S15).
Balanced matchmaking is hard if not impossible. And it's why Nintendo loves to design games that make it moot (blue shell).

If a small delta in skill drastically changes how it feels to be winning or Losing, the game is poorly designed for matchmaking.
I don’t get how you can look at Apple’s mobile offerings, which have been years ahead of all the Android competition, and come to the conclusion that Apple customers don’t care about performance.

I’d say Apple’s customers are far more sensitive to performance than Google’s given what Android users have been willing to put up with (e.g. flagship SoCs that are years behind what’s in last year’s iPhones). If you factor in broader aspects of performance (e.g. Face ID, fingerprint unlock speed) it’s clear that the _only_ thing most Android users care about is cost. I’m not saying this to diss them, I just think the Android manufacturers owe it to their users to actually produce competitive hardware and software.

P.S. if you factor in longevity, Apple products are usually cheaper, too.
Firing someone who's given notice is still firing them.
It sounds like you’re just reading code with zero context and no further information about the design, all the mistakes along the way and the code that didn’t make it.
My first recommendation for large changes would be pair programming (there’s plenty of screen sharing tools out there) or at the very least having the developer take you through the code.
"and unexpected roadblocked at the last second "

This is a essentially false. The author submitted the paper the day before publishing, given there at least was some form of standard review - the actions by Google could not be construed as 'roadblock'.

There is no 'roadblocking' and the review was certainly not 'unexpected.

The constant misrepresentation of the facts in this situation is harmful for those ostensibly wanting to do good.

"This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important."

Since there was no roadblock - this answer makes no sense.

The answer more likely that the researcher wanted a named list of what she perceived to be as her personal enemies.

"Failing to cite some recent research is rarely grounds for rejection."

There doesn't seem to be any reasonable cause for major concern in this whole issue - it seems the company raised some points and she could have managed them reasonably in professional terms.
Ask HN: Is the future a future of large tech consultancies? or small ones?
I resigned recently from one of the largest tech consultancies on the planet. On day 1 I could tell I probably made a bad decision to work for them. I kept delaying the inevitable hoping I was in some isolated environment that was not indicative of how this company does business, and that somewhere within the conglomerate I could find a good opportunity to further my career goals. Fast forward 2 years later, unfortunately there was no real change and they turned out to be just as incompetent in every corner of the company that I had the opportunity to explore.

This technology company's internal practices are borderline criminal IMO. When given a choice they focus their efforts on changing a client's PERCEPTION of them rather than trying to fix real internal / systemic issues that prevent them from being a competent technology consultancy. They're so far from being what their clients think they are it's crazy to see how many (probably desperate) clients confide in them for their partnership.

Knowing what I know now I don't really think I could even label them a technology consultancy. They're a sales company who happen to do technology.

I'm thinking this SHOULD be a perfect business opportunity. When you lay out the options, you could have (1) an enormous company who is clearly collapsing under its own weight, or you could have (2) a small nimble company who is going to be a far more productive company but far more expensive than if you were to just hire them as an employee. IMO the decision couldn't be clearer. Though the small consultancy per-employee would likely be significantly more expensive they're going to deliver a far better product in substantially fewer man hours.

My goal here is to try to understand what "market forces" or "market perceptions" are at play here that have allowed this sort of madness to even exist let alone be the de-facto standard when it comes to technology consulting companies in the Fortune 500 world?
I'm not. One of my side projects for example is a programming language where I have 100% code coverage.

From a career perspective, I have seeded new infrastructure services with 100% code coverage. At core, I believe achieving great reliability requires a solid foundation.

I don't claim these services are perfect, but when a bug is discovered then I can usually use the logs to figure out what state the program is in and then test the bug with a unit test. Then, I can protect future engineers from that issue.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are LOADS of silly tests for languages like Java to make code coverage tools happy. Like "new ClassThatOnlyHasStaticMethodsInIt()", but the key is that you can alarm on code coverage less than 100% but once you let the paper cuts build up it is hard to manage.

I'm a big believer in "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast" when it comes to building services for others.
> That, however, is a strawman. Nobody suggests that at all. People who support more progressive taxation point to things like the New Deal and the strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure and education that propelled the United States forward.

You're making that exact argument in fancier words. "strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure" implies that the problem is not enough money. So take more money from people who have lots of money and let the government spend it.

The US spends more per-pupil on education than almost every other country [1], with worse outcomes in most cases. The corrosion inhibitors that would have prevented the Flint water crisis cost $140 per day. That's not a misplaced decimal point. That's One Hundred and Forty dollars. Do we need to revamp the entire US tax system to come up with a 140 bucks? No. The money is there, what's needed is some competence in how it's applied.

[1] https://www.manhattan-institute.org/issues-2020-us-public-sc...
Nitpick: "...and that HTML just wasn't going to get us there" (CSS came out in 1996).
I love JavaScript, I spend 40 hours a week elbow-deep in the stuff, I'm just having some fun.
First off, those employees have been paid already, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. If they agreed to work for 100k/year, and forgo the risk of starting a company, why should they get more than the agreed upon price after the company does well? It may be in the companies interest to give them a bonus to keep them around, but that's a separate issue.

Second, the only way you can argue they created more value than the founder of the company is in aggregate. But they also likely made more money than the founder in aggregate. A company tries to pay employees based on the value they bring. If a CEO makes 10,000,000/year, it's probably because the company thinks that CEO is worth it (adds more value than that). So it's silly to point out that the 1000 engineers below him add more value in aggregate. Why, yes.. they also get paid way more than 10,000,000/year in aggregate.

And if the CEO/founder flat out owns the company then all this talk is irrelevant. It's theirs. They can do what they want. If they hired people to build the company for them and the people agreed, good for them. Sounds like a beneficial negotiation for both parties.

Edit: I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the existence of billionaires. That's a tough problem that I don't think I know the answer to. I'm just saying that pointing out that "employees add the real value to the company" is a dumb argument.
I think most people agree that a book author deserves a couple dollars every time someone purchases their media. JK Rowling's stories have been read and watched billions of times? Who deserves to control that capital more than JK Rowling herself?
"...explains that muscle cells naturally contract when they are grown, making the fibres that result in the flakes of the burger that you would expect."

I wonder how similar these fibers are to actual chicken/beef. My understanding is that these vat-grown meats are essentially just compressed globs of cells, with no real structure
It's not that they contorted their workflow to satisfy some arbitrary rules, it's that the fact of the dependable consistent rule made it possible for them to formulate an efficient dependable consistent workflow at all.
> It is completely normal to have to obtain prepublication signoff on material before it is submitted to a conference (and manager signoff even before abstract submission)

To be clear, both of these had been received for the paper in question.
agreed, this was the magic of #sourcescrim back in the day (if you played css). you might get five kids who just bought the game, or you might get rolled by some invite team.

SBMM with first party servers is definitely more accessible though. I'll grudgingly accept it if it means a larger playerbase and more active development for my favorite games.
I propose "cheef" or "chork".
I suppose there is an ambiguity regarding whether the "bluff" was that she wasn't actually prepared to leave or whether it was that she actually was.
I have not seen much new evidence seen the super-early SSC mask review, which concluded that the masks probably help a tiny bit and are worth wearing but not game-changing. So the authorities did flip flop, and I suspect it’s because they needed some bullshit magic to sell to people to make them feel in control.
Even Jeff Dean had to include:

> I also feel badly that hundreds of you received an email just this week from Timnit telling you to stop work on critical DEI programs. Please don’t.
largely because you avoid the incrementing DB key issue if you have an exploit or opening. another reason is when you have so many rows in your table you overflow numerical keys
Since most people are frantically working on their papers until day of/ hour before ML conference submission deadlines, the "final" version of the paper may very well have been submitted the day before the deadline.

Someone in the ML community posted the abstract and provided feedback, which seems to indicate that this followed the typical review cycles for conference papers.
> People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.

I strongly encourage people to read some books on negotiations - as well as read up on legal ramifications to some negotiations.

Pretty much all books/courses on negotiations say: Ultimatums have their place, but are a minefield (i.e. they can blow up on you), and should be used as a last resort. From a negotiations standpoint, the response was adequate - which is why they all caution against using such an approach.

As for the 2 week thing, this is a convention, but not a requirement. In my company, it's not unusual for someone to be shown the door the same day they announce they plan to leave to another company (it's not the norm, but not at all unusual). The manager/company always ponders whether there are risks in keeping the employee for a few more weeks vs the gains, and this is the question Jeff pondered - that he did this is quite normal. Will the employee provide anything useful to us in those two weeks (e.g. handoff work to others, etc)? Could he/she cause problems (bad mouth people to fellow employees, steal IP, etc). If it's a disgruntled employee, they are usually shown the door the same day. In Timnit's case, it's unlikely there was any value in letting her stay for 2 more weeks.

I once intended to leave the company I was working for. The night before, I took out everything of (personal) value from my cubicle, as well as from my work machine. Only then did I have the discussion with my manager.

Having seen how she communicates and handles difficult situations, I think she really should read those kinds of books. Sometimes her behaviors are textbook examples of what not to do.

(Hint: If you're trying to influence someone, or a whole industry, you are negotiating, whether you choose to think of it that way or not).
Sure. I was responding to this:

“To me, if something acts logically like it is run from top to bottom, it's a scripting language.”

I don’t see them as scripting languages, but that definition would include them.
Oh I understand it(well sort of because even Communists can't agree), I've read all theory about Labour theory of value.

Marx never defined the terms about value rigorously, so it can be whatever people want it to be.

I know all about socially necessary value, etc and all hacks people have applied to it over the years. There are tons of interpretations about it.

It still has zero predictive ability in the real world.

Subjective preferences explains where profit comes from with much greater predictive ability. And models real world phenomenon we see.
In a hereditary monarchy, the king rules until he dies, or abdicates in favor of his son. If this breaks down, through war, sibling rivalry, or lack of an heir... that tends to be a real problem.

In the United States, the titular head of state is chosen through a weird gameshow, and any given head of state can play that game twice. On two occasions, the son of a successful game show contestant has leveraged name recognition to also win a round in the hot seat.
> but the bottom line is that if you yield, you've given up all control.

This doesn't seem logical to me. I don't doubt there are indeed scenarios where this is true, but as an absolute, this doesn't resemble my real world experience at all. It seems like kind of the opposite of how human interaction should work.
I think it's reasonable to ask if the people are the same. Who has moved into or out of Colorado? I've heard that initially, large numbers of marijuana users moved to Colorado. They may have different average behavior than the previous population of Colorado, with or without marijuana of any legality.
> Savir says the production cost of his chicken burger is $35, which seems high but is dramatically less than it was a few years ago. In 2013, a Dutch pharmacologist, Mark Post, made history by eating the first lab-grown beef burger. It cost about £225,000.

There may also be some differences in complexity between the process involved for cultured beef versus cultured poultry, but even if the difference is 10x, this is the kind of reduction in costs that tends to point toward a technology actually becoming feasible in the mainstream.

It's quite possible that the global meat industry will look very different another seven years from now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25307167
"Give your controversial opinion" always, always just leads to to people saying the thing they know people they like will agree with and, and that they imagine people they dislike will disagree with. In practice, they end up just saying things that are entirely uncontroversial and immensely boring.

You, though, you're getting there.
Be careful with labels / generalizations like "stupid legal system" and "inequitable laws". What you, some people and some companies might see as such, a whole bunch of other people and other companies might see as exactly the opposite. The world is not black and white. And it's all about perspectives ...
caveat: i'm not opposed to
coaching for specific
skills (speech/diction, video presence), therapy to work on your emotional issues that may be holding you back or taking a course to learn about something specific. Even if a promotion coach works it's a hack and not sustainable. If
you can't develop a strategy for this on your own, again I just don't see you thriving in any type of leadership.
I used to play Battlefield 2 competitively. After our official clan practises we'd roll into random pub servers to mess around. It usually only took ~6 of us to just dominate the server, and this is a game with (2) 64 players teams.

Rarely did we ever win though, usually we'd end up getting admin kicked for 'cheating'.
But does that tax levied on that car / maintenance expenses cover the costs of road maintenance, excess utility infrastructure from the sprawl that driving infrastructure incentivises, negative health and environmental externalities. I highly highly doubt it.
The Apollo app has gotten so good that I'm starting to worry they'll purchase it and neuter it or shut it down, just like they did the Alien Blue app a few years ago.
I guess that's why they're only good as burger patties. Can't be hard to match the texture of ground chicken.
The one who needs to demonstrate a sharp memory (journalist) and the one who lied (Erlichmann) are not the same people.
> the idea is the exact same

Yes, in that they are both childish. Your version just added more weasel words. The second you bring up the "R" word as a threat you have played your hand; everything else is window dressing.
More specifically, she stated in her original email [0]:

>Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized?

So she did get feedback of some kind, though my reading is that it was probably vague legalese that she reasonably deemed insufficient.

[0] https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...
My wife had a professional put together a T-shirt quilt. It is awesome.

It was made before we met, so I don't have a sense for the cost. As a functional swaddle of memories, it is worth far more than a blanket from the store.

One thought for those considering it -- the shirts can't be completely worn out. A threadbare shirt will make a threadbare quilt.
It says it was a party piece for friends.