skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think maybe I have a different takeaway. The point is to make yourself non-critical. That does not necessarily mean copious amounts of documentation or beautiful diagrams. I don't mean to read too much into your message but there is such a thing as a pedantic documentation. There's a saying in my team: in almost all cases, "short beats precise".

If i were in your shoes, I would ask feedback from my colleagues: am I communicating in a way that works for my teammates? Am I too verbose? Does my doc look intimidating? Are they not interested? What would interest them and could I get to the point faster? Maybe talk about your goals? Maybe your teammates or you manager are not bought in to the idea that people should relinquish their criticality. Maybe they like being like a little sovereign on their chunk of infrastructure, and don't like wasting time learning a system that they see as not theirs, in which case there's a goal alignment problem.

I'm saying this assuming that you can expect competent and helpful feedback. It may or may not be the case, it's up to you to assess. However you sound like you're already in blaming mode, and I would encourage you not to be. Maybe you're not communicating in a way that works for them. Maybe they need to be convinced that it's worth their time in the first place. If you determine that your colleagues are a lost cause because they do not have the interest or skill, don't waste your time trying to craft the perfect comms either.

Beyond documentation it also means paying super close attention to design. The best systems I've seen were designed with the utmost clarity of purpose, about what they were and what they weren't. It was clear what the important things were and how we were measuring towards these goals. From there, the design flows naturally and the code didn't need much documentation.

I've also seen piles of hacks that made up for their shoddy, misguided, over-engineered design by abundant documentation, which was necessarily hard to understand because the design sucked. There was just no salvation possible through eloquence. Crystal clear design is something that is a lot easier to communicate and share ownership of.
Bezos Final Form
How do you explain, with a such simple solution, that there are still billions of people using facebook? Are they just stupid?
You could try to read the pressure in the oleos, but it's likely to be inaccurate. At least if there is a breeze, those wings are still doing their thing...
That is... profoundly idiotic and short-sighted.
Holy shit the bias just reeks out of this paper.
One of cost of a few weeks of strikes to reduce cost of drivers by over half? Sign me up. Also the unions strikes are selfish in nature, they all team up to support one another to keep remuneration artificially high by holding the transport system to ransom anytime sometime tries correct it. The Tube Mafia would be a more apt name.
My takeaway after reading this and having some exposure to the growth-mindset as it is 'taught' to fifth graders...

K-12 schools should not be letting popular psychology fads influence a child's education. One nasty side effect of growth-mindset indoctrination is that children with ability are simply going to stop making an effort because not only are they good at spotting rigged tests, they are now being taught that the educational system is biased against them.
> A culture where people are afraid of asking questions is worse than having the best possible documentation on everything.

No doubt.

However, my answer was to someone talking about people expecting to be spoon-fed in meetings, not just asking questions about some points they don't understand / can't find specifics for / etc.

The dynamic is very different. Asking questions is active. You read, try to understand, realize you don't. You then form a question and ask it. Contrast this with someone who just expects a laundry list of actions. "Just tell me what to do [step by step]".

My answer was also from experience in companies where even people with seniority and who had been there for quite a while will expect a checklist-like procedure to do things, and hardly attempt to actually understand their tools.

I get that the mental model of some tooling is not always self-evident, to say the least. But it's clear to me when someone tries to understand it and fails, and when someone doesn't even try. And I'm talking about tools they use day in, day out. They just learn to click that button and to expect that result. When something goes wrong, they have no idea what may have happened. I suspect this may also be somewhat related with the discussion on HN the other day about error codes [0], as in they get so used to cryptic, vague or downright wrong error messages that they just don't pay attention to them anymore – because 9 times out of 10 it's a waste of time.

[0] What the Fastly outage can teach us about writing error messages https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27443519
I'm working on this at the moment; Reconsolidation should work, but requires that representations/memories be periodically re-activated so that the neurons can re-learn how to encode them. Still very preliminary: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.433413v1....
It’s nothing to do with being overweight... it’s about whether your person impinges upon the seat real estate of the paying customer sitting next to you. If you were as dense as a bowling ball but the size of Ruth Bader Ginsburg they would certainly need to burn more fuel for you but that’s not what the upcharge is for.
Secret Weapon To Making 102,345 In 24 hours with zero cost traffic
Omg, this looks so childish, so ignorant, so infantile…
Haha, I love that you tried that. Thanks for sharing and expanding the frontiers of pharmacology. New off-label uses for drugs are popping up every day! :D
Your response is a bit ironic as OSI more or less did invent the term (causality-wise, rather much of the group that invented the term went on to found OSI), but attached an already-existing definition (of free software) to it.
Isn’t that the exact plot of John Carpenter's “The Thing”?
Short bursts of it also go pretty well with LSD.
Is it right for a government to revoke a permit after issuance for no fault of the permit holder?

Will the permit holder be compensated for lost revenue from the oil pipeline they had been given permission to build but now cannot?

What would happen had the permit been revoked after the oil pipeline was already operational?
I think, in really broad terms, in order to get AGI actually we would need to do better than nature.

If our metric is (intelligence)/(joule), nature seems pretty bad at a first glance: it took many trillions of lifetimes to achieve "general intelligence" *

But then again, on the big stuff like this, have we ever really beat nature? That asterisk is there because, sure, turning the earth's biosphere into computers would make us smarter, but... are we sure?

(And also: human = general?)
I am arguing that Bobb is the woke party in this case, but that doesn't preclude Google from also being under the influence of woke ideologues. The woke are not beyond eating their own. It's somewhat tautological — the company would need some woke sympathy for Bobb to be installed in that particular position of power in the first place. Bobb forced Google into an untenable position which is why they had to make the move. It is perhaps also telling that he was not fired. Would a white, non-woke person have enjoyed the same leniency? Difficult to say without seeing more data, but I remain sceptic for now.
I believe the goal of 'general' AI will have to be modified once we know more, what appears as general is probably a set of discrete faculties that play well together.
I can certainly see the value for those long boring trips we do just one/two/three times a year.

Those long 4-6 hour drives we do only a few times a year for vacations or whatever. Totally worth it IMHO if it is 100% hands-off.

I usually prefer to own my stuff than rent, but I don't think paying 10k upfront for something I only use sporadically is worthwhile so this seems great to me.
Yes because you cost more and flying is not an entitlement we guarantee everyone access to.
Protein folding is a well modeled math problem. The alpha fold solution is extremely good at pruning (aka guessing) folding chain structure possibilities. I am
Impressed and this is a difficult problem but this is extremely different from AGI as this is a well scoped easily modelable problem that is basically a chain of 26 inputs types of links of arbitrary length. I am not trying to take away that the protein folding is incredible but AGI is extremely different. AGI is literally having a model that can both do alpha fold and self driving cars, as well as the ability to generate novel models to solve new well scopes problems. RL can do 0 to 1, the 1 to n (generalizeability) is the extremely difficult part.
This has been my experience as well. I’ve worked at several companies and this is far more common than I had hoped when I started my career.

Also most people simply cannot write good documentation especially for complex topics.
You're assuming that intelligence is a computational process, but the sum total of what we know about intelligence says it probably isn't.

(Unless you're making a more general reductionist statement that everything in the universe is a computational process - that kind of reductionism is understandable coming from people who work with computers for their job - but this is then a philosophical stance, not scientific, and frankly a very strange one.)
I'd say it's even less than that. They seem to be summarizing the ways the problem of teaching an agent to do anything (including be generally intelligent) can be formulated as a problem of maximizing a reward (hence the title).

Another way to look at it is, if we had a good enough function (e.g. a universal approximator) it can be made to model any behavior using numerical optimization. Which I think isn't very surprising, but apparently there is some arguments about it.
> Rich people that have their money tied up in these things only get taxed when they sell them (in the form of long term capital gain). This is by design, and I'm very curious how a system could be re-designed to tax people when the value of something like a stock increases, but is not sold. This would effect literally everyone who owns property and/or stocks outside of their 401ks.

Instead of income taxes, tax wealth.

You simply file an affidavit showing your current "snapshot of wealth" at a specific date, say April 15th.

If your wealth is less than 10 million, you pay 1% or your wealth. For 500k that's 5k, for 30k that's 300.

Then have tiers like:
10-50 million: 2%
50-500 million: 3%
500-5billion: 4%
5billion+: 5%

For bezos (assuming 100 billion) this would be 5 billion dollars per year. A shit ton for a normal person, a drop in a hat for him.

This tax system could be modified to provide UBI to people, and have zero refunds, loopholes, etc. Everybody is required to pay whether your net worth is 300B, 300M, 300k or 300.

The government then is incentivized to create more wealth, more distribution of wealth, and less on jobs/income. Perhaps schools could also be more focused on training good financial education so students know how to manage money after high school.
Yes, but that might entail a lot of rework, now that it is a moving target.

Also, that could solve many of their problems. Maybe things did not work out very well initially precisely because of this unsuspectedly huge brain plasticity.
Soga 后端文档
I think you’ve gone off to an extreme view. There’s a huge middle ground between “oh, it uses electricity? Yeah you want to speak to the developers if that’s not working” and “do not disturb, coding.”

Having a platform engineering team, if Your company can initially afford to bootstrap such a thing, is a huge productivity accelerator for your developers but even with that in place, I’d say it’s still healthy for the dev to be first port of call for an app outage.
Surely the many efforts being made to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels all fall into the bucket of nuclear, fracking and small amounts of windmills/solar, but those can't make up the difference any time soon due to intermittency alone. So you seem to be saying you're against all the ways of reducing dependence on foreign fuels but are sure that dependency will be reduced.
Each bit doubles the range of values. If the error was that certs were issued for 180 days instead of 90, I'd agree that's a problem.
The truth is, your disposability has nothing to do with how well you do your job, and everything to do with how visible you are. By writing documentation you're making sure that your name is attached to everything in a huge area that most people ignore.
This is sci-fi. AVs are not there yet. And they will not be there for some time to come. Since Google started their damn AV-car-project back around 2014 (or was it even earlier) mainstream media is full of sci-fi. I had to explain to many people that what media is waiving infront of their noses is not something they will be able to consume in the next years. I really wonder why media is so sci-fi-heavy recently. Maybe because reporting about reality has become so grim?
It's almost as if Germ theory is an incomplete model.

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!? I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE !!11!!1
It might be a stretch but some people say that the weights learned by a neural network is somewhat like a language. For example if you look at the weights of a random middle layer it would seem like gibberish. Much like how aliens would react when looking at humans making gibberish noises (aka talking) to each other. In both cases they are just compressing signals based on learned primitives.
The problem 5 is sometimes caused by the management not allowing time for a proper redesign of a prototype. (Even if TDD is employed, which often is not because tests are not user deliverables.)

Hence why my statement "iterative development never works" as the managers will see the initial prototype mostly/partly working and start pushing features on it.

In such an environment, you need an experienced designer from day one - at worst you'll get slightly less performant but maintainable code due to extra abstractions.

If you get a design mistake... Well...
The incentives are misaligmed at fundamental level. If manager could fire you while still getting the same job done they would.
The position of the weight in the aeroplane is important. A poorly balanced plane can have control difficulties. So this would only really work with carry-on baggage. Of course you could weigh the bags again separately later and work it out.
I'm (weakly) leaning in this direction as well. But, there are other proposed functions of dreams that are hard to reconcile with this. Some people think that dreams prevent overfitting and/or sample the negative gradient in a contrastive learning algorithm. Perhaps these are the same thing in end? But I'm not sure how it all fits together.
There are fundamental engineering trade-offs here. The amount of effort required to secure a device AND make it accessible to "tinkerers" would be an effort worthy of an MIT research lab. It's not trivial, and a huge security risk to satisfy 0.01% of the user base. Especially when such users will likely just buy an open source device anyways. Seems like a huge waste of effort to me.
That there are places where foreign buyers outnumber locals ten to one, or other govt interference happens, do not refute basics of economics. Australian cities are tiny compared to Asia or even LA, and certainly units built were not in the millions.

i.e. if your locality has additional issues, the solution is to fix them. Don't use them as excuses to build less housing for folks that need it.
If your end goal is to get to cash it's quite difficult without doxxing yourself. For eg. imagine you do a ransomware hack, you have a BTC address with the BTC on it. Law enforcement as well as the company hacked both know the address. From that point they can follow where the money goes, it really doesn't matter how many different ways you elaborately transact.

You might try and run the BTC through a coin mixer however these attract attention and afaik are unreliable against an opponent like Chainalysis.

You can send the BTC to an exchange like Binance where you have not done KYC, however two issues with that. Firstly, law enforcement can contact the exchange and request halting the account. Secondly, without KYC you'll have very low daily limits and it will likely take a while before you can swap the BTC into something more private like XMR.

All your examples don't consider that we can trivially follow a wallet, get notifications when it does something and follow where the money goes. Yes law enforcement could absolutely knock on the doors of organisations that receive tainted BTC.

Speaking of global fracturing, partially true but I would still ask how do you intend to cash out? The only way that would work would be on a p2p website where you can directly sell to other users. This won't work if your somewhere off the map where there is not a lot of wealth. And somewhere where there is wealth you open yourself up to being caught if you have many large swaps.
> ... although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.

Most countries in the EU just relaxed the requirements to travel before the summer vacations. You don't need a PCR test anymore to travel: just an antibody test (at least for Spain / France / Belgium but I take it many others are doing the same). And there's no requirement to be vaccinated.

They also raised the age at which you need a test from 6 to 12 years old.

Source: always living/traveling across France/Belgium/Spain.

Fun fact: when you travel by car in the EU they typically do not bother to check. You can cross several countries and they're not verifying anything. Another fun thing: test is supposed to be less than 72 hours old, so if you're traveling over more than 3 days, you need to get re-tested during your trip.
By departmentalize you get silos and reduced efficiency across teams, by going the other way and having full cycle developers you reduce the silo effect and get alignment of incentives.
Again the problem is that you need people who know a lot, and the mental load is very hard and not everybody is interested or able to handle that.

As an old developer, this is very much how we operated before CI/CD was a thing in the early 2000. I remember we were responsible for developing, monitoring and support. In our team we had one week each where we did support and monitoring as the primary task.
It should be a inverse U curve. If the amount is relatively inconsequential or occurs in super high frequency then it should be ignored. But if you lose more than 5 million then it's kind of on you

I'd estimate orgs with roughly 100k to 5 million in revenue it is mostly small players and assuming margins of 20% they are really only doing 20k to 1 million in profit/discretionary spending.

Add in a few factors like charity vs Inc, and it shouldn't be hard to narrow down who LE should assist.

Meanwhile the US oil pipeline gets hacked by a exposed password and the whole Federal Government comes in to fix the mess and agrees to spend more money.
VW has an interesting prior track record with economics, truth around numbers and diesel emissions in particular.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-09/vw-charge...

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15339250/everything-you-n...

Based on that history I'm not convinced that $8.50 per hour is even remotely reasonable and they already know it. Autonomous driving is a lot cheaper.

This doesn't mean that people won't pay it. Plenty will. But its more expensive than it should be.
Show HN: Free Tailwind CSS and React UI Kit for web developers (open-source)
Material Tailwind Kit React is a free and open-source UI Kit based on two popular front-end technologies: Tailwind CSS & React. It was built to simplify the developer's work in the quest of creating intuitive interfaces. Kick-start your development project with this stunning product inspired by Material Design!
Sorry but where is actual scientific content in that paper? I'm concerned with the state of AI. saying that "reinforcement is all you need", when reinforcement learning is defined as abstract as "agent does something, adapts to environment and rewards, then does another thing" is borderline tautological.

The actual scientific question is, what are the mechanisms that make agents work, what are the fundamental modules within intelligent systems, is there a distinction between digital and biochemical systems, what costs are there in terms of resources and energy to get to a certain level of intelligence, and so on. Real questions with specific answers. For all the advances coming from just upping the amount of data and GPU hours, there is so little progress on trying to have a model of the structures that underpin intelligence.
Ah, more animal experimentation. I wonder if consent was obtained?
Some cynic remarks that during the first AI golden years, claims of imminent success seemed to come from a place of hopeful naïveté of a fledgling science, whereas those same claims nowadays seem to come from a place of cold calculation of a booming business.
In some cases biological 'genetic algorithm' hill climbing can be remarkably ineffective.

For example, the classic "design a car that can drive over this terrain" problem, even after a billion generations (~ the same number as life on earth), shows no substantial performance improvement.

That makes me suspect something is missing from our biological genetics model.
This is compatible with Bitcoin being a store of value. If velocity stays low, the price will continue to go up.
> I don’t particularly want my dollars to “hold value”

Sure, but would you really rather your dollars "lose value" as in they can purchase less and less goods and services over time? How does that benefit you personally?
My knowledge of them is from here[0] and I understand their availability to have generally declined over the past several years.

[0]: https://www.seat61.com/motorail-trains.htm
It of course depends on the complexity of your product. For sufficiently simple things, a single developer can handle everything themselves. But it doesn't take much to reach a point where a single developer doesn't even understand all the software, let alone all the infrastructure around it. Sysadmining is hard, it's a tall order to expect someone you hired because they where good at inverting binary trees to be a competent sysadmin.
> wasting resources on employing people for unnecessary tasks does not have enormous benefits

Agreed, but that assumes perfect knowledge by business owners of what is most efficient.

I think business owners often lean much too far toward seeing labor as a commodity and an expense, to be minimized. Another approach is to see humans as the most powerful parts of the organization, and to invest in and empower them.

I'm speaking in the abstract; of course it's not always the case that more investment in labor is better. But there is a history of it: For example (and this is more a legend than something I have details on), back in the 1980s American auto companies had long treated workers as commodities. Toyota was far more successful by empowering them; famously, any worker could stop the assembly line.
> You do it by having models with proven track records of correct predictions

Yes. And the process by which one conceives, tests, refines, reviews with peers, and converges on settled models and practice as in engineering is one of consensus.

Some societies or organizations may reach a specific consensus that decision making is to be done by plurality vote, but consensus is not a synonym for plurality vote.

> So whenever I see anyone claiming "consensus" as the basis for shoving some idea down my throat, I know they're up to no good.

Like, again, the consensus that smoking is bad for you, right?