skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another downside is that while it does prevent spoilers, RCV doesn’t prevent other forms of vote splitting. It keeps an unlikely outlier candidate from tanking the consensus candidate, but it doesn't prevent splits between three or more viable candidates. This is especially problematic because one most important supposed qualities of RCV, according to its advocates, is that it makes more candidates more viable.
So many plugs for approval voting in these threads, but it just seems so terrible for what people really want to express.

For example, in 2016, plenty of people wanted Sanders more than Clinton. Who are they supposed to "approve?" Many of them would note their preference by just approving Sanders and not Clinton, which is the opposite of what a voting system is supposed to help achieve.
Russia isn’t a western democracy. 1975 is almost 50 years ago.
"It is a commonplace observation that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."

This is gold
Learn C and build your own Lisp (2014)
Why? Can't you be honest about how you work in your daily stand ups?
> When I was at Intel in 2 years I saw at least 6 reorgs and had 4 managers. You can imagine my career growth or the lack of it. Unfortunately it needs a real deep clean of non technical power pint happy management and clueless engineers.

My experience at Intel as well. Just about 4 years and had 7 managers through 6ish reorgs. Oddly enough, they never changed the director level management. They did an other reorg the week after I left.

I think Intel's problem is a senior leadership problem more than anything. They keep shuffling the pieces around just to get the same results.
> It was part of a single coherent integrated platform strategy for Windows. Now it's grown beyond the platform, but the reason it matters is because of it's privileged position on the Windows platform.

Just like iOS and Apple apps or Chrome and Google sites?

> XBox just doesn't matter. It's not big enough. If it died, Microsoft's bottom line would barely shift. Office does matter, we just see it's strategic position differently.

xbox was $3.5B (8.5%) of the $41B revenue last quarter - not sure why you think that wouldn't affect bottom line or understand the fact that gaming/xbox is a growth business with a recognizable brand.

To give you a perspective, xbox alone made more than all apple services except for App store (even then the difference isn't that huge).
No, that's a point.
I believe you (and Snowden) are catastrophizing, or in other words self-cancelling. You have chosen to dramatically curtail your self-expression out of fear of social consequences.

It seems that what you fear is being "attack[ed] publicly." If that's the case, what you fear is that others will express themselves in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Wouldn't the cause of free speech be better advanced by defending to the death their right to express themselves, rather than by casting that expression as the death knell of modern society? If your side were to "win" this culture war, a whole lot of speech would be suppressed by new social norms. Free speech for me but not for thee.

If you walk into a bar and start mouthing off, there's a decent chance you'll get punched in the face. This is bad and a crime, but I never hear anyone talk about how it's a sign of the deterioration of free speech norms. Why is that?

This is what I mean by catastrophizing. In response to speech that makes you uncomfortable you have chosen to give up on self-expression on controversial topics (except this one apparently) and martyr yourself. But no one is forcing you to do that. The arena of public discourse is still open to all comers.

To the extent that I see any coherent position in the free-speech-substack cinematic universe, it's rather anodyne: "people should be nicer to each other." True enough as far as it goes.
I tried it at a food court in a Japanese supermarket in the Chicago suburbs (Mitsuwa) Perhaps if you have any Japanese supermarkets near you you could find some.

I (who grew up in rural IL) really enjoyed the taste and the smell. The consistency took some getting used to.
You've been repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines by posting ideological battle comments, taking threads further into flamewar, and attacking other users. If you keep doing these things, we're going to have to ban you. Please read the rules and stick to them from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Since someone is going to bring this up otherwise: We ban accounts that do this regardless of which ideology they're flaming for or against. What color the flames are doesn't change the destructive effect they have on the intended use of this site.

Edit: actually, on a closer look, you've been breaking the site guidelines so often and so badly that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
"Roo poo" Ricky Muir was better than many of the regulars, IMHO. IIRC he seemed to actually think about the bills in front of him.
This would be a nice working theory but it is not really supported by the paper the author references. Not least, this line in the paper seems to contrast with the reality of IT teams in my experience.

> That fact that an exponential distribution arises in this case is a reflexion of the fact that the queue discipline is of a ' first come, first served' type.

In my experience, teams rarely work on a FIFO style queue. They are constantly triaging.

This model would be more applicable to a fast-food restaurant.

Edit to add: I'm not actually sure how the author gets from the paper to the formula presented at the start of the article. My background is not in math so perhaps there's a missing link I'm not aware of. It would be helpful if that was explained.
> there isn't always a price point that is both low enough that people are willing to buy the cheaper returned item, but still high enough that it's profitable for Amazon

This doesn't seem to match what the article is listing:

> There's no rhyme or reason to what gets destroyed: Dyson fans, Hoovers, the occasional MacBook and iPad; the other day, 20,000 Covid (face) masks

Any MacBook or iPad will sell for more than the cost of shipping. Dyson fans will as well. There are other reasons it's not done.
As I explain elsewhere, the problem is you can have a a pool of good candidates who SPLIT/dilute the top votes (and none win) and then you can have the poor candidate who does not split the vote and all the secondary votes go to this unlikely candidate and that candidate wins... to the chagrin of most voters (who cast votes for the top contenders).
The following is speculation on my part, so I'm inviting discussion. To some extent it feels SiFive is trying to turn RISC-V into ARM by locking it up in patents while at the same time holding the keys to the ratification of the various extensions, some of which (H-extensions being good example[1]) have been stuck without much development, slowing down sw support and making it difficult to upstream[2] what has been developed so far. Meanwhile, WorldGuard is available and perhaps thriving as closed, commercial IP. It feels like there could be some conflicts of interest there and, honestly, if Intel bought SiFive, it would at least make those intentions blatantly obvious.

[1] https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/CAAhSdy0F7gisk=FZXN7jmqFLVB3...
[2] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-privileged/topic/risc_v_h_ext...
So seems like from this grouping of exec's:

1. make semi-custom Xeon chips for cloud providers with expected prices

2. make a competitor to the Apple M processors?

3. keep making desktop class processors

4. everything else that Intel does (iot stuff, mobile-eye stuff, etc)

5. GPU / high performance computing stuff for cloud providers / HPC customers

Basically seems like the way they would differentiate things would be:

1. Apple M class processor competitor (low power, low cost, integrated GPU, reasonable core count)

2. Desktop class: compete directly with high core count AMD processors

3. Servers / HPC: ask the customers what they want and build it

4. deprioritize all of the "everything else" category except Mobileeye stuff

5. seems like stuff like discrete GPU's is the odd man out here, so probably will not be a priority

Probably missing something... hmm..
> Implementation is actually a lot simpler

That's not the phase of implementation that's difficult with any of these systems. It's getting the rules changed. Approval voting changes civic engagement in a fundamental way. (It also has much less real-world data behind it.)
I doubt it would be that challenging for the apps to rebalance things. All they have to do is say if a user has X number of likes per Y period, stop showing them so much.

I guess they’re all working on the Yahoo! model though—don’t work too good or else people would quit before you make money off of them. But I bet someone could come up with a business model that makes money off of finding good matches for people and incentivizes good behavior.
I'd go as far as to say Approval > FPTP > IRV. FPTP has good properties like monotonicity (for a good example see http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/), easily distributed counting, and preservation of the secret ballot that IRV does _not_ have.

You really don't get much bang for your buck by switching to IRV; I'd say it's a negative deal overall.
Tell that to the original peoples of the Americas.
I'm pretty sure courts consider eyewitness accounts as evidence, and rightly so. In what universe is it not considered evidence? Note there is a difference between evidence and incontrovertible proof.

I'm starting to think when you say "propaganda" you mean "anything I don't think is true or am unwilling to investigate further for myself."
What I love about our society in general and this website specifically is that it always gives people benefits of doubt.

You have 150kg lady buying a box of soda? Well, she's probably just have some health condition... and soda is for her to share with all friends.

You see a 35-year old healthy guy who was never employed jumping the turnstile? Well, he's surely going to his first job interview.

You have a Google employee who made a statement that can be controversial? Oh, shi...
That's basically just a SHA256 hashing on pen and paper, doesn't have much to do with how bitcoin works.
Suppose you have three candidates, A, B, and C, and the votes look like this:

45% of voters rank A 1st, B 2nd, C 3rd

25% of voters rank B 1st, A 2nd, C 3rd

30% of voters rank C 1st, B 2nd, A 3rd

Nobody has the majority, so B is eliminated, and A wins round 2 with 70%. But 30% of voters preferred B over A, and if they had ranked B first, then B would've won in the first round with 55%. By voting honestly, the C voters threw away their votes. None of their later rankings mattered, because C was not eliminated before a victor was declared.
That brought those memories from ROTC - the military has the talent for making anything mind numbing, and they ruined for me couple things they were big on - dynamic programming and the queueing theory ("parallel service theory" with the "servers" in these calculations being the forces and weapon systems).
They are using Cliqz Tailcat and Bing.
If you can afford to pay someone else's mortgage + profit (through rent) you can afford to buy.
Ah, I dreaded this question. Not at my fingertips. I would look up a university curriculum. Here is something I do have at my fingertips:

https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/ijoc-political-communication-comput...
Nobody is talking about what happens if and when interest rates rise and market prices have to fall, which seems inevitable unless we see significant wage inflation.

A $600,000 mortgage at 2.5% costs roughly the same per month as a $500,000 mortgage at 4.25%.
And why are women swamped with requests do you think?
The rest of the comment seems to explain that the problem is that poorly considered candidates win because people don't give as much care below the top spot in a wide pool of candidates:

> We’ve seen surprise results where an obscure candidate has won when too many top choices split the first choice votes and someone relegated to the floor vacuums up all the throwaway votes (people think they have to “spend” all their votes)

I think its an understandable concern under any single round ranked-ballots method where you arr likely to have a large pool of cnadidates. But it can be simply remedied with a two-round system using the same method iterated to select a manageable pool of candidates (possibly gating in the top couple first-place vote getters even if they otherwise wouldn’t be in the top) for the runoff round, which still uses the same ranked-ballots method with more confidence that all the candidates have been vetted because there is a narrower field.

This keeps the integrity of whatever ranked-ballots method is chosen while avoiding the (small, but not nonexistent) risk of winning by flying under the radar.
At that point in time Russian-Ukrainian history was tight knit. It is after Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth influence of Western Ukraine did what I assume your understanding of the difference between Russia-Ukraine's history start.
Recruiting during hyperscale from the guy who did it at DoorDash and Carta
I don’t think Lexapro did anything to me other than reduce my anxiety. Certainly no side effects in the first few weeks. I started at the lowest possible dose though.

I was also told that the effects only trigger after 2-3 weeks, so to not stop during the first.
> Instead, the progenitor of known SARS-CoV-2 sequences likely contained three mutations relative to the market viruses that made it more similar to SARS-CoV-2's bat coronavirus relatives.

So, it came from a bat not a rouge lab experiment, and the early sequences sampled at the seafood market only looked "unusual" because they were not a fully representative sample of the Wuhan epidemic as it later spread out from there. Good to know.
Gotcha, yeah I know for sure twitter is allowing 100% remote. People will have the option to go to an office if they want at Twitter but there's no requirement or need to apply like what you're saying google is doing.

Though, google has way more employees than twitter I believe (5,000+ vs 130,000+)
> You can get a sense for what it's like to vote in a ranked-choice election here:

That’s a neat visualization. The step where mushroom pulls ahead of sausage really shows the flow.

Though I do question the integrity of a pizza topping poll that manages to exclude pineapple-ham, not individually, but as a joint entry. Did it miss the filing deadline?

> And you can see Mayor Bill de Blasio eating a pepperoni pizza as a result of this here:

Worst mayor ever eating one of the worst pizza toppings ever.

(Seriously even Google dedicates multiple pages of results to De Blasio: https://www.google.com/search?q=worst+mayor+ever)
The table's the point cloud. I guess if you want to be really pedantic about grammar then I should point out that a set of one item is still a set. :-)
> in some applications of ranked choice voting it's possible to rank an arbitrary number of choices

In New York City, it was arbitrary and up to five. So yes, perfectly backwards compatible.
Managers outwardly grow by acquiring prestige/reports/products. There are many counterproductive methods of gaming this success criteria via empire building, irrational promotion of internal managers, and over-hiring.

Growing startups either need to hire skilled management from successful firms by offering an outwardly visible step up - or promote internally. Either way your odds of hiring a manager gaming the metrics to one extent or another are pretty high.

A good alternative is to aim for less management overall and explicitly avoid using metrics like hiring etc in your evaluation of managers. Almost every large and successful firm I’ve known has gone through a “less management” phase prior to reverting to the mean.
DoorDash June 19th Outage Explained
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and attacking other users. Seriously not cool.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27598433.
Thanks for mentioning this. I am no expert in voting systems, but reading these, it seems rank-based ones are not theoretically nice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system#Recent_develo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_system...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
> Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.

If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing... where is the bright line between that and the "cancel culture" bogeyman?
Interesting, but it seems not entirely implausible that the effect could work in the opposite direction, if gut microbiota influence behavior at all (behavior such as adopting small furry animals).
>Now they're the largest genre and saturate all media.

Not true. They might be the biggest genre in terms of revenue, but look at American films released in the last couple of years [0,1] and you'll find the vast majority of them are not superhero movies. And while there is undeniably an insane amount of superhero merchandise out there, there aren't a ton of superhero books (outside of comics,) superhero albums, or even superhero video games either. So they're far from saturating even their own media, much less all media.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2020

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2019
As an excellent alternative: Approval Voting

An amazing in-depth interview podcast from 80,000 Hours on the subject:

"Politics is so much worse because we use an atrocious 18th century voting system"

https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/aaron-hamlin-voting-...
This is a poor understanding of what an iterator is. For one, the iterator of a std::vector<T> is not a T*, it's a std::vector<T>::iterator and you are welcome to verify that the following assertion fails for all T:

static_assert(std::is_same_v<T\*, std::vector<T>::iterator>)

Link provided below for convenience [1].

Furthermore just like a cat is animal does not imply an animal is a cat, a pointer being an iterator does not imply that an iterator is a pointer and holding such a confusing thought is the source of many bugs and poor C++ code. An iterator not only represents a form of indirection to an object, it also represents traversal through a collection of values.

unordered_map guarantees that the objects it stores will remain alive until the unordered_map is destroyed or the object is removed from the map. However, unordered_map, as the name once again suggests, does not provide any guarantee about the ordering of objects. Hence, if you have an iterator to an object owned by such a map, and you add or remove objects to that map, the iterator becomes invalid not because the object the iterator references gets destroyed, but because the iterator loses information about where it's located within the unordered collection.

For further information, please review the following link [2], specifically the quote "References and pointers to either key or data stored in the container are only invalidated by erasing that element, even when the corresponding iterator is invalidated.".

[1] https://godbolt.org/z/Y5f4d74Kb

[2] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/unordered_map
Thanks, I was wondering the same but too lazy to figure out the addresses!
Interesting, in my tests (posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27598329), the results differ a lot.

Maybe its more about localization, I'm curious to see the same example from someone in the US, but there are two links which do not seem to be in Bing's results at all, making me believe it has been taken from somewhere else.
> teams rarely work on a FIFO style queue. They are constantly triaging

True, but when you're busy enough, "constantly triaging" itself adds to the workload.
> because it's being used in a significant (and growing) number of places.

Which is because of advocation over the last (mostly) 2-3 years. We're only two states in, that's not significant momentum. FYI, we have approval in Fargo and Lane County/Eugene are close to passing STAR (I'd argue RCV hinders that effort due to confusion).

> First past the post is the enemy here. Not RCV, STAR, or Approval.

I'd disagree actually. The enemy is non-representative voting.

Why I'll actually fight IRV is because history. We've gone down this path before and had states/cities/counties use IRV and then revert back because it didn't solve the problems they set out to solve. So, what is different this time around? There's a "good enough" bar that needs to be met. IRV doesn't meet that.
This makes a lot of sense to me, thank you.
Used to work in the Semi industry and I hear Intel pays super mediocre. Has this changed?
The technical term was 'geriatric primagravida' for us with a first child at 32! It felt quite insulting at the time.
Large corporations are very pro censorship and anti free speech these days. Amazon bans books even though it’s the worlds biggest bookstore. AWS, Apple and Google all ban businesses, apps and content that they don’t like through selective enforcement of TOU. Netflix and Prime Video refuse to carry certain content.

Inside these companies, a few loud voices control the Overton window, and management kowtows to them either enthusiastically (many of them agree) or at least resignedly (easier than taking the bull by the horns and potentially alienating large swathes of employees or customers.

The reason that radical ideas with marginal support have this level of impact is the total recalcitrance and volume of the proponents. I don’t need to reason with you; i just need to shout you down and label you a moral pariah (“racist”, “white supremacist”, “climate denier”, etc). Natural self-censorship will cause almost everyone to shut up so I don’t unleash on them too.
There are so many areas in C++ that are footguns. Heck, it sometimes is non-obvious what A=B; does.
DDG search is fine for me, the thing I think Google still does better is all the searches like "what's the weather in X", "3.5 miles to km", "what's the next NBA game" etc

I found that Google still does these things much better.
I think they're fighting an uphill battle because these incentives are sexual selection incentives. There's not much you can do to 'fix' them.

I think what happens is that both sexes go through it and come out the other side. If they were lucky enough not to pair off with a bad mate early they can then choose more wisely.

For a lot of men this means being unhappy and lonely in their 20s, for women it means being unhappy while sleeping around a lot in their 20s. Eventually people figure out what they want.

I'm not sure an app can do much to fix that.

Sexual selection's affect on behavior is a powerful thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7QZnwKqopo
Hmmmm...does that follow? I mean the alleged lab source would have been from bat coronaviruses anyway. Is there something about these mutations that would be key to the lab leak theory?
> I've now worked in three companies where this is extremely apparent. In the latest company I've gone from 3-degrees from the CEO to 6 in little over ten months.

On the other end of the spectrum, I worked at a company where the CEO tried to eliminate middle management and manage engineers through 1 layer of management or even directly by himself. It was terrible.

Large companies require subdivision and layers of amazement. Getting it right is difficult. Getting it wrong is easy.

In my opinion, it requires an executive management team that is focused on deliberately building the right structure rather than letting it evolve organically. Organic middle management growth usually turns into a race for headcount because the quickest way to move up is to put more people underneath yourself. An upper management that knows how to set the structure from above and have zero tolerance for political games is key.