skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
China does produce some very interesting computing-related papers FWIW. The few times I've been able to get an english version (or to have one translated) I was not under the impression they were qualitatively significantly worse than from any other place. Arguably that isn't hard because most papers in the field are absolute garbage, but I don't go into a paper expecting that to be the case.
IBM’s First PC Was Released 40-Years Ago
> No one tells dog owners this though.

Uh, the barest of a 15sec google search, or the first minute of any halfway decent Youtube article mentions all you talk about

It's very much 101 stuff. People missing that basic knowledge are at fault here.
Oh no.

Anyway,
Ask HN: Cofounder in startup about to get funding but not feeling it
We're about to receive a mil in funding. It's a "cool" startup, as in it's trying to solve a hard problem with a still to be completed hardware solution that also involves a lot of trendy (deep learning and more) software.

I had a discussion with the two cofounders where they confronted me for not being engaged enough. They have a point.

I'm only moderately excited about the product and the problem space. And I don't enjoy working with my cofounders very much.

I am the most experienced (they're basically newgrads). Part of what annoys me is their inexperience (leading to bad decision making, while not listening to common sense advice). At the same time I feel we do complement each other well because we are quite different personality wise, and it's possible that as they mature the issues I have will go away.

I've invested 9 months of ~25% work. It feels crazy to leave when we're about to get funding, and where I don't actually even have to fully commit as I'm parttime at officially 20% supposed to go to 40, and me going fulltime is not being asked for. I'm worried I'm being a diva, I have a habit of dropping people the moment things aren't going well. Maybe creating an ambitious new product does require people that wouldn't hang out normally (diversity is good blabla)?

At the same time there's other things I'd also like to do. And why should I invest more time working on something I'm not excited about, and with people I don't look forward to seeing?

I knew what was gonna happen in the meeting, so I had planned some stuff to say to smooth things over because I thought I should try and stay. But when it was pointed out that after a recent major milestone I hadn't posted anything on any social media, it made me think why I am I working on something that I don't feel the urge to share with anyone? My instinctual answer is because we're very far from having a good product, but I feel that's not good enough. And so I just said I need to think about it.
People use "root cause" to mean the true underlying driver. You can often restore service without knowing the true root cause. In this example, let's pretend true root cause is a memory leak that takes X days to crash Consul. It's possible they don't know that yet, and just shut down, cleaned up logs and temporary storage, added some capacity, and started back up in a region-by-region ramp up.
> Why is Google the only one who can do it? Must they have yet another monopoly?

Google can do it because most website operators want them to index their site. Plus, it is trivial to tell google to stop. That goes for all search engines.
Just one million? About 6 months, as I currently earn over $2MM per year from my options alone at the company I work for thanks to their IPO. Once those dry up it's going to be a hard sell for me to stay. Maybe I'll coast for a year on cash + RSU salary (which is much less than salary plus pre-IPO options) to top off my $5MM investment portfolio and ensure enough of it is invested to produce an income, but after that? No thanks.
We The People should hate on, not only the Patriot Act, but every other "we have to pass it to see what's in it" piece of vast legislation that is:

- rammed through substantially unread;

- despite its prolix nature, is hardly more than a requirements outline to be filled in by un-elected, faceless Executive Branch bureaucrats as "regulations";

- continues to place financial burdens on unborn generations with gusto--"Taxation without representation" turned up to eleventy.

Rather than offer a standard spleen dump, the broader point for this audience that's being made is that the government isn't scalable.

The 1787 Constitution (while brilliant) is as a script that ran more-or-less well on a single instance, but has not forklifted into the cloud gracefully.

And people are not software, but the readers of this site can make some important recommendations about how to capture the liberty we hold dear and avoid the various tyranny traps.
When was the last time you used windows?

Windows 10 has solved all of these, you need to find and use some old 3rd party apps to have this issue
When you consider this, realize that Microsoft switching it's entire browser stack to run on Chrome's engine is likely to make business textbooks as an example of an abject folly. The new Microsoft Edge was literally a choice to hand the entire stack of the Internet over to their top competitor.
Actually just don't release, period. Point to a repository and be done with it.

Anyone who expects support setting up Visual Studio 6 or the like to use this is either knowing what they are doing (so they won't actually ask inane questions but rather useful ones) or not knowing what they are doing (in which case answering their questions is probably not a useful use of your time anyway).

The fact they're trying to set up a website or something hints that either they're in there for the fame (so they have a "surprise the people" mind-framework which makes them want to do releases and hide the source for as much as possible), , that they already know someone who may want to spend big $ on this, or that it's just their first project and are still a bit truly ashamed/naïve.

I have seen both happen many times and it always end with no source ever released, or the source released way too late for it to make any impact.
is this just affecting the .com tld?
You might want to try org-mode
Interviews aren't even like school exams at all. School exams are designed to try to ensure that you learn a certain set of material that was covered in a class. If you missed a bunch of it, that's bad. If at the same time you did independent research in a topic that wasn't covered in the class, it's not the business of an exam to discover that.

School exams are supposed to be fair, in the sense that they only cover the topics covered in class, and only to the level of detail and difficulty covered in the class. They test for weaknesses relative to that standard. When a school exam asks a question, it's because you're supposed to know the answer.

If someone takes the school exam definition of fairness into job interviews, they are going to feel terrified and aggrieved. Interviewers talk to candidates from vastly diverse backgrounds. Other candidates didn't go to your school, maybe didn't go to school in the same country as you, maybe didn't go to college at all. There is no fair, agreed-upon set of standard knowledge. If interviewers restrict themselves to "standard" topics, they will undervalue a lot of people who have unique backgrounds and experience. Not only that, but job interviews can't just measure a candidate's weaknesses against a set standard. It isn't even really a matter of "strengths" and "weaknesses" but wanting to discover a candidate's full capabilities. You don't want to miss a candidate's depth of knowledge in an area simply because you failed to ask any harder questions that would have revealed it. When an interviewer asks a surprising question, it's often not because you're supposed to know but because you might know and they don't want to undervalue you because they didn't ask.
You’re right. Sorry I did see that tweet when it originally was posted, in previous calculations I remembered there being other foods, which they took out to get to their calculations. and this year they congratulated themselves by taking it out to save money. I commented off the cuff at 3am my time, I should have done a litte bit of research beforehand.
> Dom/Sub

Dominance is not even the proper way to think about dog social behavior. It's based on flawed studies from the 1960s.

I encourage everyone to read the AVSAB position statement on dominance:

https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/
Ask HN: Extension/userscript to collapse all comments by default?
Would be cool if this was an option, but I figure someone figured it out already?
I was head-hunted to a 20 person startup in a senior (non-tech) role; I’d been sold a big vision, told the business was very well funded, loads of exciting stuff on the cards. First month in I discovered that the “significant seven figure investment” that I had been told had been made didn’t exist and that the product was such a mess it was unusable - and critically for me, unsellable.

The CTO and I met and discussed what needed to change, and it turned out that most of what I saw as product related issues were things he’d also been trying to change. We presented these to the (hyper-paranoid) founder/CEO who agreed that everything we had said was valid and needed reworking. A week as we began to roll out a plan of changes the CEO had a tantrum and accused us of conspiring against him and wanting to take over the company and kick him out.

When I discovered shortly after that a key part of the product didn’t work and was actually being manually faked I put my exit plan in place. My reputation was at stake because most of the customers I was talking to were people I’d worked with for years. I couldn’t go and try and sell them a product that I knew was fake.

Fortunately as part of my deal I’d negotiated a very favourable exit package that basically immediately vested my first year equity grant to cash and allowed me
to quit and leave with six months salary on top. Actually, the fact that they had agreed that should have been a warning flag as it showed how chaotically managed the business was. There’s no way they should have agreed the terms I got.

It was THE most stressful period of my working life. I wanted the work I was doing to work, I saw how the business could succeed - but there were so many red flags that I had no choice except to walk. I think it was four months in I realised the whole thing was a disaster and about 7 months in that I actually left.

Even if I’d not had the severance package I would have left and picked up some consultancy or gone client side for a bit to tide me over.

If you can afford to leave, leave. If you can’t afford to leave, make your priority lining up something that lets you leave. Being in that sort of situation is utterly destructive to your mental health. It took me about three months to recover from the stress.
Leave! I spent a long time in a car-crash of a company and it didn't do me any good.

Come to think of it, some guy actually faked his own car crash so he could leave that company....

Terrible. The "yes I know it's bad but it's what we have at the moment" attitude will never fade. You'll spend your time fighting fires and nothing will improve.
Peter Watts (author of Blindsight) wrote about the processing capabilities of Portia spiders on his blog https://rifters.com/real/2009/01/iterating-towards-bethlehem... and used some of the concepts in Echopraxia.

But it's not just this flexible behavioral repertoire that's so amazing. It's not the fact that somehow, this dumb little spider with its crude compound optics has visual acuity to rival a cat's (even though a cat's got orders of magnitude more neurons in one retina than our spider has in her whole damn head). It's not even the fact that this little beast can figure out a maze which entails recognizing prey, then figuring out an approach path along which that prey is not visible (i.e., the spider can't just keep her eyes on the ball: she has to develop and remember a search image), then follow her best-laid plans by memory including recognizing when she's made a wrong turn and retracing her steps, all the while out of sight of her target. No, the really amazing thing is how she does all this with a measly 600,000 neurons— how she pulls off cognitive feats that would challenge a mammal with seventy million or more.

She does it like a Turing Machine, one laborious step at a time. She does it like a Sinclair ZX-80: running one part of the system then another, because she doesn't have the circuitry to run both at once. She does it all sequentially, by timesharing.

She'll sit there for two fucking hours, just watching. It takes that long to process the image, you see: whereas a cat or a mouse would assimilate the whole hi-res vista in an instant, Portia's poor underpowered graphics driver can only hold a fraction of the scene at any given time. So she scans, back and forth, back and forth, like some kind of hairy multilimbed Cylon centurion, scanning each little segment of the game board in turn. Then, when she synthesizes the relevant aspects of each (God knows how many variables she's juggling, how many pencil sketches get scribbled onto the scratch pad because the jpeg won't fit), she figures out a plan, and puts it into motion: climbing down the branch, falling out of sight of the target, ignoring other branches that would only seem to provide a more direct route to payoff, homing in on that one critical fork in the road that leads back up to satiation. Portia won't be deterred by the fact that she only has a few percent of a real brain: she emulates the brain she needs, a few percent at a time.
> on the other side of the fence, so to speak :)

Ha! That got a good chuckle out of me for some reason. I swear the CEA is holding stock in some fence-making company or something.

Anyway, very cool. It’s always nice to bump into colleagues in this site. Wishing you good p-values, my friend ;)
> You would expect

Google is not the arbiter of truth.

They've just convinced a bunch of people they were briefly.
Your chain of comments sounds naive and presumptuous to me. What does it exactly mean for the US and UK to "dominate" in research, and in which areas? How are only their research "meaningful" while the others aren't? How exactly do the academics "have the power" and what are the concrete instances where they are successful in doing so especially in non-CS fields? Feels like you're more talking out of vastly simplistic assumptions and imaginations than actual facts.
Facebook’s Meta mission laid out in a 2018 paper written by an Oculus executive
Whether this is worse is exactly what's at question here. You can't just assume the answer.
While this is cool and sort of topical, in the 90s there for sure was not a software cartel that had existed for hundreds of years. We can know this because it simply wasn't a thing for that long at that time :)
Gotta wonder if it’s really community service to contribute to a toll-based system which actually restricts community access to scientific knowledge.
It’s a kind of forward error correction for us. Even if you speak fast under noisy conditions I can tell what you said because certain options collide with the surrounding grammar. Removing this would lead to misunderstandings and more „what did you say?“. For people that already speak the language it is therefore purely a loss.
Ask HN: What are the concepts a developer must remember his entire career?
>It's like winning the opportunity lotto, much the same as with those top-tier universities,

is it actually this good?
One thing not noted in the article is how the albedo reduction from greening in the arctic affects warming, ice melt, etc. It is good that greening has a negative feedback effect, but albedo reduction likely reduces that benefit in those regions.
In an interview, they gave me access to their codebase and asked me to fix an actual (small) bug. The interviewer showed me where the codebase was, how to replicate the bug, all of that took less than 10 mins. Then he left, told me to give a shout once I am done. Took me about half hour to do it, another 10 mins to explain what I did to fix the bug.

There were no other questions - no white board stuff, no algorithm questions, no stupid questions like "where do you see yourself in 5 years?" etc. I still remember the interview nearly a decade later.

Obviously this won't work for all jobs, but this will work surprisingly well for a large number of jobs, because most jobs are ordinary. One doesn't need to know complex algorithms to do these
Yeh, um, no thanks. I've had to deal with too many race conditions, random data loss and week-long-debugging of locks to brush off the "fundamentals" as nice-to-have.

It doesn't matter if you're a frontender or writing a shell script to automate something. If you don't understand atomicity, race condition, locking, etc., not only are you going to shoot yourself in the foot and tear your hair out when shit breaks randomly, but you're going to subject the poor souls who come after you, to unnecessary suffering.

One doesn't get good at these fundamentals by getting a Comp. Sci. degree. All of it can be learnt in a few days. What's important is to keep evaluating your code and design all the time against it to ensure you're not building on crooked foundation.
Shoshana Zuboff's book "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" [1] at times glances over some important technicalities but its eloboration on the social impact and consequences I found to be spot on.

Here an excerpt from Chapter 3 "IV. The Discovery of Behavioral Surplus":

"[...]Google would no longer be a passive recipient of accidental data that it could recycle for the benefit of its users. The targeted advertising patent sheds light on the path of discovery that Google traveled from its advocacy-oriented founding toward the elaboration of behavioral surveillance as a full-blown logic of accumulation. The invention itself exposes the reasoning through which the behavioral value reinvestment cycle was subjugated to the service of a new commercial calculation. Behavioral data, whose value had previously been “used up” on improving the quality of Search for users, now became the pivotal—and exclusive to Google—raw material for the construction of a dynamic online advertising marketplace. Google would now secure more behavioral data than it needed to serve its users. That surplus, a behavioral surplus, was the game-changing, zero-cost asset that was diverted from service improvement toward a genuine and highly lucrative market exchange. These capabilities were and remain inscrutable to all but an exclusive data priesthood among whom Google is the übermensch. They operate in obscurity, indifferent to social norms or individual claims to self-determining decision rights. These moves established the foundational mechanisms of surveillance capitalism.
The state of exception declared by Google’s founders transformed the youthful Dr. Jekyll into a ruthless, muscular Mr. Hyde determined to hunt his prey anywhere, anytime, irrespective of others’ self-determining aims. The new Google ignored claims to self-determination and acknowledged no a priori limits on what it could find and take. It dismissed the moral and legal content of individual decision rights and recast the situation as one of technological opportunism and unilateral power. This new Google assures its actual customers that it will do whatever it takes to transform the natural obscurity of human desire into scientific fact. This Google is the superpower that establishes its own values and pursues its own purposes above and beyond the social contracts to which others are bound."

[1]
https://www.worldcat.org/title/age-of-surveillance-capitalis...
People who disagree with it. Why exactly?
Similarly, in Oracle, Temporary Tablespaces might be utilized when a query uses sort operations for example.
Then tax the money out of circulation. The solution is obvious. You might start with the segment of the population who hasn’t been paying their taxes.
I think one of the articles headings basically sums it up:

> "Anders Tegnell’s mass manslaughter"
Yeah that's unfortunate. I think that this is amount is obviously relative to a lot of factors, like where you live. Not just because of the cost of living, but also if you live in a progressive tax country, and you're making enough, that 20k is effectively cut in half.
Triggers, SPs, and referential integrity are of value if you need and care about data integrity and correctness.

For systems most likely to run in public cloud: High availability and scalability is valued much more.
The high gasoline prices in California are due more to state government policies that have artificially restricted supply. The state requires a special blend that's not really used anywhere else, and they don't allow construction of new refineries.
People are so entitled that they demand 1000s of hours of free (OSS) dev and aesthetics that please them.

If the name is off-putting to you, you're free not to use it. If lots of people agree with you (that the off-putting name is more significant than the contribution) then the market will have spoken and the tool will die.

But if it doesn't die then you should probably reconsider your hang-up.
This meme of simplifying it down to a problem of individual personal responsibility, though, strikes me as being a lot like the "rational agent" simplification in economics. It's commonsense, easy to understand, elegant, and completely fails to line up with how things actually work in the real world.
The problem is that me switching away from Google products isn't going to change their behaviour at all, and I'm disincentivised from doing so because on an individual level, the benefits to using Google products outweighs the cost I bear from their actions. And even if I decide to bear thr cost of switching away as a largely symbolic act of protest, it doesn't change Google's behaviour at all. Problems at a societal or institutional level require solutions at the same level. There are things you can do individually (contrary to the parent's claim) to achieve systemic change but they're things like helping Google employees to strike or unionise, or building a movement around advocating for the breakup of Google. These are individual actions with the intent of building collective action.
Sure, but the school can't justify spending triple per student than standard dorms cost. Even with the gift, the school needs to be financially responsible, and making a huge leap in quality of life would seem financially irresponsible when thousands of other colleges squeeze kids into forced doubles and triples. This is a step towards giving students both privacy and spaces to socialize, with some drawbacks that are a consequence of not having infinite funding.
My theory as to why this happens.

1. You write some code.

2. You write a duplicate of #1.

3. You write another duplicate of #1, so you should refactor. But the PM doesn't understand why you're changing the code you made in #1 and #2 as part of ticket #3.

So the jaded devs are certain the duplication will occur, but believe their choice is either to pre-emptively fix the duplication at #1, or never to fix it at all.
You can have knowledge silos in either kind of company. We didn't magically get better at spreading work around or writing documentation just because we went remote.
Ah, I didn't realize they had both 11 and 17 in Bullseye.

I guess Debian users should stick to Java 11 then, which is presumably covered by security updates as usual? Is this documented somewhere?
Just ask yourself: would this company go out of their way to keep me employed if it wasn't in their best interest (i.e. financial trouble, your skills are no longer needed etc.) or would they give me my two weeks notice?

As you'd probably realize, they likely give zero shits about you personally.

So don't give more than that about them. Just leave. You don't owe them anything, not even an explanation. Let alone your guilt.
People working on the cloud infra are not the people working on games.