skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Every other alternative: Epic, Origin, Microsoft's shop, etc... is far far worse. Valve reinvests in core technology and open source development. Privately held companies (such as Valve) will always have hit pieces thrown at them, in the same way famous (but independently minded) celebrities will. Meanwhile publicly traded companies role out the PR campaigns (I recall an article posted here with Bill Gates talking about his dead dad, and so many users here lapped that propaganda fluff piece up).

I support Valve because they offer a great consumer experience and have made (and continue to make) PC gaming (on window, mac, and linux) a better experience. I certainly trust them more than EA or Blizzard in that regard. I vote with my dollar and they will continue to get it, so long as they continue to do good things deserving of my business.
Yes, please do. We need more competition in being congressman.

I even think president should be paid like 40m a year.

Stopping day trading is an orthogonal goal. I never see these two coupled together.
In the first set of examples, you have unlicensed work by unlicensed contractors killing people. Survivors are then angry enough at politicians to demand either more strict regulations or better enforcement. It’s a response to your freidman quote

The 2nd example highlights what happens when you have a bunch of unlicensed individuals posing as locksmiths ripping people off because they don’t know how to properly deal with locks. Instead of picking them, they use a drill to destroy the lock and overcharge their victims with new locks. It’s a big problem.

Ie Some regulations are useful.
For me it was learning Fortran IV (after Focal then Basic - PDP-8i) because my dad let me use his account on the uni CDC 6400 - basically built basic bigint math library that I then put to use to determine if 1000! + 1 was prime :-)
> They're very simple and they test for your ability to write code.

This statement is an oxymoron.
I've had that same feeling on that side of the table, too. Like some of the stuff I've run into is really cool and really rewarding and is really tempting because it would make an interview something more fun for me. Because I know the answer.

Over time I've learned that I'd kind of rather lean a little more towards the easier side than the harder for writing code during an interview, because the interview is unpredictably stressful. But at the same time, as prioritizing communication and a degree of thoughtfulness has become more important (which has ended up with me bopping over to a devex job where I am now), I've leaned more heavily on "let's talk through XYZ and suss out how you discursively approach the problem" types of interviews. Which definitely selects for a particular audience, but it's one more useful for the roles I've hired for.
We're going from "It's easy to earn $500k" to "Top-end financial shops in Chicago and New York". And if someone gets a good offer they'll be more likely to put it up on Levels.

SBF earned what... $22B in the last three years in crypto by the age of 29? If he posted his earnings on Levels.fyi at Alameda Research can I start suggesting people can earn $1B by 30 by moving to Hong Kong and working for top crypto trading firms because out of the massive amount of people trying to do that, it happens to people from time to time?
Still, it's not like any other field of engineering has something equivalent to leetcode. You don't make someone with a civil engineering degree and a resume of bridge building go up to a whiteboard and work out an irrelevant physics problem like it's undergrad again. You don't have an M.D. talk you through a hypothetical surgery. Only in computer science is there this metagame that you have to dedicate unpaid time toward, yet is hardly ever relevant to the tasks outlined in the job description. I feel like it's been pushed onto recruiters by companies that specialize in creating this crap like most other Enterprise software sold to HR teams, and now there is this expectation that this is how you are supposed to do these interviews because it's been going on for years now. Snake oil salesmen and lemmings in HR brought this upon us, not technical leadership demanding competency.
Start with Python. Show him how to draw with turtle. This way you will introduce him to logical thinking, variables, conditions, graphics, etc.
I have worked with engineers who treated their work as glueing together various services to get the results required. They were absolutely shit engineers, whose approach to building services for massive scale were simply

1. Glue together whatever services are available and seem to make sense.

2. Throw increasing amounts of traffic at it and check what fails

3. Try to patch around failure point

4. blame the service provider for "not scaling"

5. Ask for more and more machines

6. Exclaim how great their design is on the basis of the cool class hierarchies and interfaces they wrote. Teach "junior devs" their "OOP design skills and patterns"

7. Go to step 2

They think of themselves as great engineers who scale things. The reality is they are absolute shit engineers who have no clue what they are building, frequently have crazy O(n^2) loops in their code, dont recognize a graph problem if its staring them in their face.

Examples

1. They needed a way to rerun map reduce jobs to regenerate data for previous 30 days. It was a straight forward, graph topological sort problem. Instead they built a crazy solution using multiple instances of Airbnb airflow. One server ran out of memory for these airflow instances, so they allocated a whole damn cluster of machines to run 30 instances of airflow! The job of the cluster? Issuing map reduce jobs to the hadoop cluster. They needed a cluster of machines just to issue commands to hadoop. They gave an elaborate tech talk about "scaling to 30X capacity" to process 30 days of data. Meanwhile, my team was processing 3 years of data. We considered hamake for our data rebuild process. Eventually, I wrote a 70 line scala topological sort routine that would do the job for us, because it gave us more flexibility than hamake and linked to our code libraries.

2. Some guy wrote a data pipeline to summarize a days results that took 24 hours to run, thanks to 40 different joins. I rewrote it to use a single group by. The code ran in 10s of minutes. He didn't know how hadoop worked or external sorting, beyond writing arbitrary sql. So much for looking up algorithms when required.

3. Guys presents beautiful OOP code that has major race conditions in a distributed environment. I point out the race condition. Keeps proposing hacks to "solve the problem". Does not understand transaction processing or locking algorithms or what options are available to him. Hadn't heard if read write locks. What are the pros or cons. Doesn't understand the difference between local locks and distributed fault tolerant locks. I explain it to him. He eventually comes up with a solution using zookeeper that will need zookeeper to process 1000s of updates per second. I give up.

"DSA, what DSA? They are for kids. I will look up an algorithm when I need it".
There's no such thing as post-theory science because the job of science is to produce knowledge. Knowledge is the sum of methods, facts, and models that we use to understand the world.

When you're using ML models to reason inductively from data you can produce systems that do some work, they can aid with the practical and empirical aspects of science, but they don't replace science because they don't produce knowledge.

This is like the Skinner behaviourism debate from half a century ago but with a dog from Boston Dynamics instead of the organic version
"We need to serve 1TB of data. How would you do it?"

Start there. Let the candidate walk through the problem. Ask questions, and introduce hypothetical limitations. "We need to display the data in a table on a webpage." (frontend) ... "We need an API that can query the data." (backend) ... "We need to sort the data." (discuss algos) It's not that hard to find people's strengths, and make sure you're hiring qualified folks.
How do you come up with this stuff? I need answers.
"youtube-dl" plugin has one neat idea with respect to tests. Both the test and the plugin code for a particular website are in the same file.If the website changes and breaks the plugin updating the tests is much easier way to fix the code. This makes sure tests are always updated, rather the other way of not updating the tests due to no incentive since the problem is already solved which leads to tests being useless.
this is why i've grown to like fighting games, shmups and other arcade style genres so much. there is little to no padding between you and the core of the game and by extension, the most exciting elements.
"regular masks" which just ear loops or NIOSH N95 with straps that go around the back of your head?

"regular masks" that you buy and put on or NIOSH N95 masks with a proper fit test to make sure you have the correct size and are wearing it correctly.

You can make a mask fit tighter with a mask brace or mask seal. https://making.engr.wisc.edu/mask-fitter/
Better advice: Leetcode is easy as shit. Suck up your pride and be good at it. You’ll rake in money getting companies to fight over you. I had a $670k offer that’s appreciated to $1m/yr. The company I joined didn’t ask LC, but it still mentally prepared me for the questions I got.
Yes, but that would destroy the illusion of a meritocracy and the idea that these companies are basing their hiring decisions on rational, objective metrics and not simply making it up as they go along.

Steve Yegge made that observation many years ago regarding Google. For every person working at Google, there is a panel of interviewers that would have rejected that person.
>HR told us they can't fire her because she's Asian and female and in California, that it's just simply too hard.

HR at any big tech company would never say this. thread seems like fan fiction to confirm priors of people who view big tech this way
3M isn't all that respectable:

> A lawsuit filed by Minnesota against 3M, the company that first developed and sold PFOS and PFOA, the two best-known PFAS compounds, has revealed that the company knew that these chemicals were accumulating in people’s blood for more than 40 years. 3M researchers documented the chemicals in fish, just as the Michigan scientist did, but they did so back in the 1970s. That same decade, 3M scientists realized that the compounds they produced were toxic. The company even had evidence back then of the compounds’ effects on the immune system, studies of which are just now driving the lower levels put forward by the ATSDR, as well as several states and the European Union.

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...
Its also important to remove any doubt - to strengthen the bond in the cases where its true
I guess it all boils down to who you are hiring (the OP is talking about hiring senior developers). It is ok to ask more technical questions to fresh graduates as they don't have any other experience anyway.

> it rewards people who at least put the effort in to prepare for an interview

Is this a good thing? Would you rather hire smart people, or people who studied a few leetcode questions the night before the interview?

> Would anyone trust a civil engineer who can't answer first semester math questions?

Civil engineers use that knowledge in everything they do. A really small subset of developers need to implement tree traversal algorithms from scratch on a daily basis.
I think the easiest solution to this problem is to scratch the $1,000,000 thresholds entirely.

Just say that any corporation based in Delaware has to pay for a license, and everyone else can use it for free.
Security and incident response systems ingesting log files from other systems can get big, add in ‘must store for $x years’ compliance fuzz and you might hit some big numbers
What does an honest, buffer-less estimate mean? Is it the number of person-hours to make you 50 % sure the task is completed? Or 90 %? Or something else?
This is from The Guardian, a popular (as in, for the general population) news publication. Expectations should probably be calibrated accordingly.
I like Stan Switzer's definition that "[a] quine can be formally described as a fixed point of a language's denotation function", but it's insufficient. It has to be some interesting fixed point.

Because, not only is this such a fixed point of Lisp's denotation function:

((lambda(f)(list f (list 'quote f))) '(lambda(f)(list f (list 'quote f))))

because it calculates its own source code when evaluated at the REPL, but so is this:

0

But 0 isn't a satisfactory quine. A quine should be some sort of surprising fixed point.

The requirement that a program must produce its own image in a character stream when run in batch mode, in a language in which programs don't have access to their source code in any shape, and in which expressions do not print their values, usually is enough of a restriction that eliminates the trivial, uninteresting quines.
I sympathize but I'm not sure this is the hill to die on. As a potential employee I'm looking for the best company to join for myself, and the likelihood that I will enjoy working somewhere has very little correlation to their recruiting/interviewing practices. So if I want to work somewhere I'll jump through their hoops (within reason), but I'll also be keeping an eye out for red flags from engineers and managers I talk to, because the downside of an annoying interview that is not to my taste pales in comparison to the downside of accepting a job and then discovering the work environment is a tire fire.
> they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding.

I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skillset.

It's unreasonable to not expect pathological outcomes with such a rigid system, especially when some people are themselves specialized for the ability to game social systems. Nothing is free. There are always trade offs when choosing one approach over another.
There's "GVS SPR644 ELIPSE P100 Elastomeric Half Mask Respirator with Source Control for Healthcare Professionals", which is about $25. Covers mouth and nose but not eyes. The filters can be replaced. It looks like a painting respirator, but it's much lighter, because it doesn't have the volatile organics cartridge for removing paint solvents, just a P100 filter. It's good for exercising, because it has less backpressure than a 3M 8210 Plus.

Anything that doesn't fit tightly is useless for protecting yourself. If you inhale and you don't feel the mask pulled against your face, it's not working.
> Yeah, Agile is not the OP's problem.

Agile might not be my problem, but even so what the comment you're replying to kind of sums up the situation:

> I remember when my employer adopted agile. One of the first things they did was lay off their team of technical writers.

We had a big round of layoffs a few years back. I don't know if technical writers were affected more than others, but we did have a team whose main job was to run training sessions; how to write better code, how to be a more effective technical organization, that sort of thing. That whole team was laid off.

Management may be the problem. It's hard to point the finger at any one person in particular when everyone is just trying to do what they need to do to ship product, and the underlying problem seems to be a sort of emergent behavior that you end up with if you get a bunch of generally smart, helpful, friendly people together and apply all the wrong incentives.

Stock incentives might be part of the problem, but I expect that's more of an issue for the upper layers of management. Lower-level manager can't individually do much to affect the stock value one way or the other. I think maybe a mandatory long vesting term could help. Like, if you're a CEO your stock doesn't vest for ten years. (Maybe "vest" is the wrong word, since that implies you lose it all if you move jobs before it vests. I'm thinking of a system where if you leave you still get the stock eventually.)
Exactly. Nothing is more valuable than a coworker who can implement a half-ass hashtable with a linked list even though there are state-of-the-art implementations available in nearly every programming language.

I’ve got a sickness, and the only prescription is more bloom filters, baby
Absolutely. I find it interesting that many in this thread seem to think that unchecked self interest should be increased!
How to Create AI Art
Fascinating fish

>Icefish blood is colorless because it lacks hemoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in blood. Channichthyidae are the only known vertebrates to lack hemoglobin as adults.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channichthyidae
Civil Engineers and Doctors have professional boards that certify they meet a minimum level of competency.
On one hand it reminds me of todone, but I like that it's weekly and focused on work and performance evaluations.

I signed up for Pro. I think you may want to make a "pay what you want" option with $10 as the threshold for Pro features. I would have paid more, especially as it's a one-time payment.

One note for you: the title of the pages on mobile are "Accoumplishment App" rather than "Accomplishments App." Probably an html title tag to edit.
I prefer interviews that ask leetcode questions because they are standard. I can prepare once and interview with multiple companies. The alternatives are take-home projects, pair-programming sessions which in my opinion are very subjective and more time-consuming.
One of the interesting things about Law and Order: SVU is how some characters find a calling in the work while others have to walk away, as if it were akin to radiation exposure.
> Problems like designing "the most popular package manager on macOS", for example?

Yes, those fall through the gaps, but people with that kind of extremely strong, publicly viewable history are much more the exception than the norm.
I also did this and also got AEROS/UNLIT (well, AROSE/UNTIL in my case). You've made the same minor error I did of looking at the frequency distribution of all guessable wordle words, not the smaller list of possible answers, which has a different frequency distribution. If you look at that you get ORATE/LYSIN as the best starting pair (based on frequency only, not considering position)
Asking people to stop accepting interviews because they're bad (which I agree they are) is a bit like asking people to stop using combustion-based car because it is bad for the environment. On an individual level, sure -- a few people might flat out decline such interviews as a matter of principle. But as a whole this kind of appeal hardly has any impact.

I rue the day that leetcode-style interviews became the norm, but I don't think they're going away any time soon. The incentives are just too strong. Leetcode style quizzes are a (yes, flawed, biased etc) somewhat reasonable proxy to coding skills, they cost very little to implement, scale easily etc. Personally I prefer take-home half-day projects, but its easy to see how absurdly impractical those are for larger companies.
To be fair the parent commenter's post doesn't claim that this process is even remotely efficient, only that it's reality and they find it easy to game.

Also more meta-level commentary, I find the word "should" interesting, as in general I have found that comments on HN which contain this word reflect a level of frustration that X is X instead of Y, because "X should be Y". Someone else may come along and say "X should be Z", and all the meanwhile, X is X.
States are not truly serious about nurturing businesses, especially small businesses.
I don't see anything adversarial, it is just someone describing how they play the interview game.

There's a whole leetcode culture on sites like teamblind.com. A lot of people are happy to play the game.

Not my cup of tea either, but to each their own.
You are absolutely right from your angle, but this is the perfect example of why the process is wrong. Nobody should be using something as trivial as leetcode to choose people they are willing to pay $1M.
It's different and worse than you say. We put it on a pedestal, decided it was worth any cost, decided everyone should have the ability to go, but that they should all have to shoulder that burden themself. A large part of the issue right now is the system we've built allows any student to obtain a predatory loan to cover the entirety of the outrageous costs, and any political effort to change this is likely career suicide because it will be seen as keeping underprivileged students out of the best programs and therefore stunting their futures.
Train burglaries in LA
> They think the interviews are designed that way because they are supposed to be representative of the job — I don’t believe that’s the case.

This may be the case. But even if it does act as an effective proxy--and I'm not sure it does; my worst yeses in interview loops have been very adroit programmers who I passed against my better judgment when my "not sure I want to be around this person every day" bells were ringing subtly in the back of my mind--then it has a different problem. You've now set expectations with the interviewee that oh yeah, we do hard stuff here. Then they go frob knobs or write frontend stuff all day.

(This actually happened to me at my first job. I didn't know any better, of course. The hiring manager pumped up my tires with all the difficult scaling work, etcetera etcetera. Then I was writing HTML into templates for the first six months I was there because they needed a body to plug into the role.)
>And, Amazon obviously has the talent and compute resources to build their own model like GPT-3.

Let's be clear about something

GPT-3 is state of the art. It is really good. It cost A LOT to develop.

I don't think Amazon replicating it is trivial.
A less work-centric and more personal-life-centric version of this is a gratitude journal. I started doing mine some years back and, much to my surprise, it does actually work.

https://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/gratitude_journal
People shouldn't have to cram little tricks and algorithms into their brain just to pass a Leetcode challenge; that's the point. No real-world programming career is driven by such pointless exercises.
The book Rapid Development is somewhat evidence-based, has a chapter on estimation and concludes the same thing. At every stage of a project, there's just some amount of inherent uncertainty and spending more effort on estimation does not remove this uncertainty -- only getting further in the implementation does.
I've thought about just copy pasting the linking exception here and modifying the relevant bits to suit the AGPL project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception#The_Clas...

As the wiki says, the LGPL offers even more, but the linking exception alone might be enough for some/most projects. IANAL.
Very cool!

How hard would it be to add some kind of article category filtering? E.g. I only want to see articles about engines, or about the south pacific. I think Wikipedia has indexes with those.
Video satellite imagery from planet skysat
Just host it on IPFS :)
If you use SSM instead of a bastion host, how do you tunnel traffic to internal services that are not exposed to the internet?
> regexp'ing the whole project looking for matches

That's basically what these tree-shaking tools do.