skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Lack of motivation and thus focus could be due to many factors. Finding the root cause is the first step.

If it is due lack of social contact (due to working from home), try hanging out with friends or acquaintances everyday. It's a good idea to do that anyways.

Lack of exercise and exposure to sunlight can be a factor. Being outside on a nice sunny morning really cheers me up. Carve out time to walk in a park or in the midst of nature.

If the work isn't interesting, try to see if there are other places you can contribute and ask for it. If you can also identify a interesting problem worth solving then you can own it and run with it.

Lack of appreciation at work or from colleagues can also be a factor. If that is the case, acknowledge that many are also going through a rough time at this point. Perhaps you can help set an example and try influencing the culture a little bit. For e.g. an attaboy on a solid PR to a colleague or engaging in conversations outside of work before start of meetings.
It may make a huge difference for their servers, that can generate 2kB of data and send you right away, instead of generating the entire 115kB before they can send it.

Those 2kB is a bit too small for top network performance, so you may see a negative impact. But if they increase it to something like 10kB, it's harmless.
Because we are. Without taking action to curb it, the US will start to see deflation take hold. This is due to an overall aging demographic who are beginning to leave the workforce, an overall increase in savings/investment across the population, lowered rates of consumption, the younger demographic having less children, higher rates of education and on and on.

This has already begun to in both Germany and Japan. In the former, they've been able to curb things through government intervention. Japan on the other hand has really struggled.
It's important to recognize this tendency in everyone. When I have the instinct to say something like that, I switch gears and recognize that I'm not helping - I'm actively asking them to stop working on the problem and get me caught up.

Usually the only time I'm actually helpful in situations like that is if I have esoteric knowledge or experience that is uncommon and directly related to the problem at hand - "Oh, I ran into this 3 years ago, here's what we did to solve it". Your peers have already tried the obvious things.

Another rule of thumb to notice when this is happening is the word just. "Why don't you just..." is a belittling thing to say, as if they hadn't already thought of the obvious. Better is "why didn't X work"?
that is a great feedback, the tool is not for everyone.
out of curiosity, are you a developer?
You're going to have a hard time synthesizing SystemC. Yes, there are tools available, but they cost a lot of $$$. And then there are the error messages you get from SystemC - if you like sifting through pages of C++ template error messages to find your mistake, you'll love SystemC.
> I feel for my US counterparts.

You're comparing London to Middle of Nowhere USA. Gigabit symmetric for $80/month is available all over D.C. (More expensive than London, but incomes here are higher too.)
Different measures of efficiency here.

Expansion efficiency is the efficiency of converting static pressure to motion. This can be thought of as analogous to streamlining an aircraft - just asa streamilned aircraft will move through the air more efficiently than a big cube, so too will a well designed rocket engine more efficiently expand its propellant than a simple hole.

Another form of efficiency is thermodynamic. Rocket engines are a modification of the Brayton cycle which has high thermal efficiency compared to say an Otto cycle. They are still well below the Carnot efficiency, and the fact is most heat engines can closely approximate adiabatic expansion.

But for most applications of rocket engines, what we are really concerned about is thrust production. Rockets produce a lot of thrust for a given mass of propellant, and have excellent thrust to weight ratios - hence their use in mass constrained systems like spaceships. However, the energy contained within that mass of propellant could potentially produce substantially more thrust. Remember that thrust is proportional to the mass and the velocity of the exhaust, but the energy required to get it moving up to speed is proportional to the square of the velocity. To get the most bang for your buck, you want to accelerate as much working fluid as you can by a small amount. As an aside, this is why turbofans are more efficient than turbojets. Rockets have very poor performance in this regard, but if you're in space or need to reach high speeds there may be no viable alternatives.

As for the Aeopile the issue was never with the rocket-like jets. The Aeopile is a simple version of a reaction turbine - the working fluid is expelled through a nozzle and the turbine experiences an equal and opposite force. This is the same principle in use today with low pressure steam turbines. The blades of these turbines don't look like rocket engines, but they perform the same expansion upon the steam. The problem with the Aeopile was that the pressure was just far too low. The water being boiled was at atmospheric pressure and the steam generated was immediately vented so pressure never built up. If they had check valves which could form a good seal and survive high temperatures and pressures, they could have achieved much higher performance with essentially the same setup. However it would still literally run out of steam in a short period of time without a pump which could force additional water into the vessel at high pressure as the steam. Of course the ancients also didn't know how to make supersonic expansion nozzles either, but they could probably get by without those at the beginning.
I can confirm that I personally advocated for namespaces before Cargo existed. I failed to convince the decision makers.

Meanwhile, just a few days ago some of my project's crates were freshly squatted. Sigh.

Maybe someday they'll come around.
The protocol may support it, but remember that the bandwidth shared across and entire neighborhood or market is still only as good as the CMTS is capable of supporting, which is nowhere near that.
Sounds like a benefit.
I see it as upload is for creation and download is for consumption.

Nowadays, I see it as upload is for Zoom, download is for everything. It used to be basically okay to have slow upload speeds, but in an era when everything from kindergarten to the workplace requires video conferencing, good upload speeds are more important.
>They do that because it’s cheaper that way for them, and majority of users don’t complain.

How is it in any way cheaper for them? You can't buy a network switch or router that's anything but symmetrical up/down.

Comcast itself doesn't pay transit bandwidth, they strangled all the backbone providers out of existence and acquired them, they're all straight peering agreements, with some smaller players paying them.

This is 100% a scheme to prevent consumers from hosting servers and video feeds.
>Brains, however, don’t work by stimulus and response. All your neurons are firing at various rates all the time. What are they doing? Busily making predictions.

Is this a polling system...

Oh actually more like a branch predicting system...
Yours is literally a philosophical question. You are doing philosophy. Surely you see the relevance and importance of your own question...

More to the point, most of what you hold dear is precisely philosophical in nature. Let us list but two, which I draw directly from your comment:

1. The value of putting a man on the moon

2. The superior (epistemological!) quality of scientific knowledge.

That last one bears repeating. The entire reason you think that you think science is better than philosophy is because of a philosophical stance. You are manifestly an empiricist, albeit one who does not understand empiricism and its rational context very well.

Respectfully, I leave you with the following quote by Gordan Fee:

Before you can say, ‘I disagree,’ you must be able to say, ‘I understand.’
It is axiomatic that before you level criticism you should be able to state
an author’s position in terms that he or she would find acceptable.

Your position betrays an ignorance of philosophy that would appall history's greatest scientists.
Why Your Privacy Matters: A Brief Overview – Getting Off the Radar
Exactly. It’s not some fundamental biological fact that you can’t raise a family in fewer than 1500 sq. ft. of house and 1/4 an acre of property. That was just a cultural norm set in a particular time and place.
You have to A/B test this though because who knows when somebody is in crunch and doesn't have time!

Also, from a teammate perspective, it might be worth pointing it out to the person. "I noticed a bug in the PR that I found later... want to show you why it could be a problem so we don't let it slip next time"

Imo I usually just fire the PR off and message on Slack saying, "this one needs to ship ASAP, anything truly bjork'd here?"

Or if it's going to be critical code, "The blast radius on this one is high. Give it a thorough scan please!"

Communication is key :)
there are people who are sending their ashes to space.
And nobody care, just like nobody cars about btc being utility less.

There are countless bigger issues that HN doesn't talk about can we add btc's env impact to it?!
I do think this is bad UX. The warning message (which basically says "this button doesn't do what it says it does") is commingled with a bunch of other less-important warning messages.

It's also a bit ambiguous-- it seems to be focused on how it will change the settings and last modified date. I could see how one could read that as "this action will create a copy of your files [and then delete the old ones] rather than moving them directly", warning you that your file metadata will be impacted.

There's also the problem that these warnings are everywhere in AWS console so you develop a bit of blindness to them.

So they have a pretty much wrong button name ("Edit Storage Class" --> "Copy to a different storage class") with an ambiguous warning message commingled with a bunch of other warning messages. I'd call that bad UX.

That being said, 8 months is too long for this bill to be considered AWS' fault. and the fact that he's been working really hard on his movie is irrelevant and comes off as whiny
Counterpoint (note that this is tax relative to wealth, not income):

> The big picture: The very richest Americans pay much less tax, as a proportion of their total net worth, than the rest of us.

> By the numbers: The bottom 99% of Americans pay about 7.2% of their net worth every year in taxes, per Warren. The top 0.1%, by contrast, pay about 3.2%.

Source: Section 3 here: https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-capital-d213524e-b2f...
There are many (probably apocryphal) tales of "formally" verified systems being turned on then immediately crashing for this very reason
I have a couple friends who previously worked for Okta and they similarly lamented that the comp was shit and they treated folks poorly in the IPO process. For them, it wasn't worth it.
Most cable carriers, prominently Comcast, have issues with legacy channel allocations (e.g. for the On Demand feature for legacy Motorola STBs) that conflict with the channel allocations required for the higher upstream speeds supported by DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1. This results in a de facto situation of upstream speeds being constrained to only a very small portion of the up to 2gbps upstream capability of 3.1, due to only having typically 3 QAM channels for upstream.

Unfortunately, eliminating these issues requires large-scale replacement of not just equipment in the field (nodes and amplifiers which are broadly all being replaced anyway to support Node+Zero architecture) but equipment in customer homes: the legacy STBs. Cable carriers have found in the past that getting people to turn these in to swap out for newer models is excessively expensive in customer goodwill, and less so cost, so there's a major technical disincentive to such a change.
Please write your senator!

[DONE] CO - Bennet (Thanking him)

[DONE] CO - Hickenlooper (Urging him to support)
Oh yeah, that guy. 'I didn't get into the companies that I applied to, here's some content...'

Say what we will, but he's gained a recognizable infamy.
> Government already knows how much you owe them.

I don’t get why people think this is true.

Take a really simple example of donating to a charity.

How would the government know you donated without you telling them?

How is the government going to know exactly where you put all your money?
That sounds like one step away from being a robot.
You are comparing two different things. Lockdowns, mask wearing, and other mitigations seek to drive down the number of infections. The death rate (IFR/CFR) is the relationship between the number of infections and the number of fatalities, so no one should expect lockdowns to change the death rate (up until health care runs out of beds/staff).
That sounds right.

I wonder what the current split is. I'm not in HPC computing, but I see a lot of posts about how quickly Julia is being adopted.
Find which episode of the FRIENDS based on dialogue
really cool website, for a FRIENDS fans like me, haha
because we have neurons and a glass of water doesnt
Upvote. Made me literal lol.
I'm always suspicious of anecdotes that go "I never wanted to do [thing], and then I had a thought that changed my perspective on [thing] though it's not really logical up front, and then [thing] happened and now I love [thing]." I always suspect it's the psycological immune system [1] kicking in to alter your own perceptions of [thing] so you don't go crazy, because [thing] was originally something you Did Not Want and being stuck with the consequences otherwise would just drive you nuts.

Specifically with the biological imperative argument... I've always felt the opposite effect: being aware that my biology so wants me to have children makes me doubt whatever impulses I may have towards having children as being motivated by what I want, and instead being motivated by an evolutionary adaptation that doesn't take my psychology into account.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_the_surprising_science...
Yes, DOCSIS does have a download/upload ratio. But DOCSIS 3.1 (required for gigabit down) has a 200Mbit upload limit, they are artificially capping it far lower and should have no issues supporting 100mbit up on a gig down plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
Well I'm sitting here with my 1000/1000 internet connection and I couldn't be happier.

I'm always amazed how users will demand less for their money.
Bluespec is Haskell underneath SystemVerilog on top and it seems quite nice.

It's open source as of about a year ago
Are Companies Hiring Fewer Data Scientists and Are Data Engineers Taking Over
> but ML enthusiasts (as opposed to experts) are so eager to use it that they end up prescribing it as a solution to every problem

Interesting you say "as opposed to experts". I think that's right on. It's been my experience on data science teams that the data scientists are often the ones pushing back on ML solutions and it's leadership who want GPT-3 or whatever latest ML model in the stack. I had one team where we were told we needed to call our ML work "AI" because if we didn't, leadership would think we weren't cutting edge and spin-up a competing team who was doing "AI".
So you're okay with people who could work but have stopped looking for work to not be counted in U3 as unemployed?

> Ceteris paribus

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

> If no one was employed and everyone was actively looking for work, you would have 100% LFPR even though you had 100% unemployment.

Impossible strawman and lack of common sense.

What's your answer then? You didn't provide any specifics. What are these "alternatives?"
It makes perfect sense to intentionally mistake a bunch of clowns strolling through the Capitol as an attempted coup if it helps your agenda along.
USA built out its internet infrastructure earlier than most of the developing nations, who now, almost universally, have better connectivity.

That caused two things:

1. Coming later to the game, you don’t need to deal with legacy infra, that’s there, costed huge amount of money, and replacing it will cost even more (like cable connections to the houses)

2. USA has a general approach of building out infra in sprints, and then neglecting it until next sprint. Few examples - credit cards and their security, roads, space program, internet infra. And while it’s more complicated, politics are large reason for it. It’s much less catchy to say “I’ll spend $500B to maintain X”, then “I’ll spend $1000B to build Y”.
Threat Models: How to Establish One to Protect Your Privacy
I see what you mean. The "existence" part I suspect is a trick. I think "That thing going on for the ride", is actually just a feeling evolved for a bodily purpose.

The body is doing the ride, with all its chemical gradients pulling the levers, and the thing we call Consciousness it's just "the feeling of the ride" which has evolved to keep some temporal/spatial unity. You could have legs, and memories, without being able to connect them to you.

For example, without that feeling of unity, the brain wouldn't not know which subject all the things are related to.

Something would be thirsty or hungry, but it wouldn't know that is the same thing with those legs and memories that it was referring to a just a moment ago.
True. But for me, a product is variable while a vision is constant. If the vision here is improving async communication through the use of voice, and if the current iteration of the product doesn’t fulfill that vision (which is determined by traction, not conjecture like mine), then hopefully what everyone has written in this thread will provide some helpful insight to the founders. That was my intention at least! :)
Controversial opinion on here but these are already directly related.

ESG investing is investing. There is no difference. ISS reports or whatever ESG ranking de jure actually hinders that process because it tries to quantify and simplify something that is inherently complex (and btw, ISS do this with their other products, their proxy service exists because ETFs don't want to actually do hard work and think about how they should vote their shares...it is anti-capitalism, rewarding sloth). It is like China's "social score" system...it is identical.

I worked in this area, I met many fund managers (and worked in equity research myself). When people talk about fund managers not doing ESG work, that is because some fund managers just don't bother doing any research at all. ESG was a critical component of investing before the term ESG existed, it isn't possible to value a company without considering the value that company generates for customers, workers, suppliers, the communities in which they operate.

Also, one of the key points on this actual subject is that impact is ambigious. There are competing notions of impact and good. The number of companies that openly embrace criminality is, thankfully, quite small. In every other case, you have a company that is providing a service, someone else pays for it and you have to make a judgement, there is no magic formula...often, these conclusions are counter-intuitive. As an example, bookies...gambling is awful, you hear lots of poor people do it and waste money...where I am, we have public health, and the only people funding gambling addiction are bookies. In countries where gambling is illegal, there is no funding, and the addiction isn't recognised or treated. Sometimes you have a gambling govt monopoly, like HK, which drives people into illegal forms of gambling. So it is unclear that impact is negative (the issue is that gambling addiction actually exists, and ppl will gamble whether it is illegal or not) without actually doing research, beyond a simple: gambling = work of Satan (btw, this applies generally...the growth in ESG investing is correlated to a growth in moral Puritanism).

Honestly, it is a little unfortunate that people have gone so deep into ETFs and ESG ETFs...active funds do this work, they won't necessarily align with your own system of ethics but it is a totally and complete fiction that investors do not consider impact beyond profits, and that some ESG/quant approach is the solution. I have never come across a manager who doesn't consider impact when doing research. And any quant approach I have seen is totally and completely deficient (there is no incentive to do the work properly) if you actually care about values.
Love it. Wish I could "walk" through the rooms with arrows, or some other way than constantly clicking back to the map
Does anyone know of any similar calculations for switching most the web over to https?
> ignoring the fact that is the program that is responsible for the behavior, not the human

This is called the systems response to the Chinese Room Argument. [0]

Searle's response [0] goes something like this:

You're missing the point. Suppose the man in the room memorised the program, so that he could answer the questions himself with no need of external aids. Now, the man and the system are the same, and yet by your account, the man doesn't speak Chinese, but the system does.

Personally I find the whole argument to bear no clear connection to the questions of consciousness. The question of whether a system consciously understands a problem is muddled, as it isn't clear a priori that problem-solving competence has any connection to consciousness. To use Dennett's term, a system can be competent without comprehension. A pocket calculator is quite unable to explain what it's doing, but is able to perform superhuman number-crunching. The argument may succeed in tying the reader in a knot, but I figure that's just because most people haven't thought much about what conscious comprehension really means.

Another problem with the Chinese Room Argument is that, if it really holds up, it ought to hold up just as well against the human species itself. If you're going to attack the idea that consciousness can arise from non-conscious components, where does that leave us?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Systems_and_virtu...
The entirety of the equipment used by Comcast for cable internet delivery (modems and CMTS) are built for non-symmetric service because it is designed into the standard. Further, most cable carriers face technical constraints that prevent them rolling out service much faster than DOCSIS2.0 to customers (20mbps up) while downstream upgrades are much easier. The design of the cable system is fundamentally asymmetric, cable having formerly been a broadcast medium, and so upstream improvements generally require complete replacement of equipment in the field.
In the end it's up to the reader to understand what it means. Many think "100% test coverage" is something you should strive towards as they think it means less bugs while in reality it just means that the test runner at one point or another accessed that line of code.
The most charitable thing you can say about this power grab is that we can attribute it to stupidity, not malice.