skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Whenever I see strategies like these I consider those two cases since they have influence on how negotiations are done. In the car-sales case, there is an incentive to get the most out of the individual negotiation since you almost certainly will never see each other again. In the business case you are incentivized to prioritize the relationship with your peers over any individual negotiation.

Very insightful point.

The biggest salary negotiation mistake I see is when people assume the negotiation is of the first type (one-off, never see people again) instead of the latter type (part of an ongoing relationship).

If a company works hard to minimize someone's compensation expectations and convince them to accept below-market salary, they're going to pay for it later when the person wises up and leaves for something better. This scenario is well-known.

The less discussed scenario is when a candidate aggressively negotiates a very above-average compensation but subsequently performs in a below-average manner. This is one of the most common complaint scenarios in a private manager forum that I'm part of: Managers who get wowed by people with excellent interviewing and self-selling skills who end up underperforming their lesser-paid peers later. It generates a lot of guilt and anxiety for managers when they realize they've been duped into inverting the contribution:reward relationship in their compensation structure.

These people are the first to go in any downsizing, reorgs, and layoffs (and rightly so), but they're often great at talking their way into the next highly paid job almost immediately. This is one of the main reasons experienced managers will go extra deep on reference checks for people with job-hopper resumes.
Self-driving cars substitute for human-driven cars, which currently kill over a million people a year. If the first mass-adopted self-driving cars have half the fatality rate per mile of human-driven cars, then slowing their rollout by a day causes 1,800 deaths. Current prototype self-driving vehicles already have a lower fatality rate per mile than human-driven vehicles. Obviously this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison since current self-driving cars are constrained to certain locations and weather conditions, but if the goal is to minimize deaths, then we should be more gung-ho about this technology than we currently are.

In contrast, CSAM scanning substitutes for... I'm not sure what. In addition to the risk of false positives, there's also the risk that the scanning technology will be used for other purposes in the future. I could easily see governments forcing Apple to scan everyone's hard drives for hate speech, 3d models of prohibited objects (such as gun parts), or communications sympathetic to certain groups. Once that door is cracked open, there is no closing it.
the elephant in the room (that is really overlooked in these discussions) is that a lot of the current inflation is not coming from money policies but rather from supply side issues. E.g. gas and oil due to the ukraine war (also wheat, nickel etc.), less microchips from china due to its handling of covid (lockdowns) and the change in consumerism due to covid which resulted in more demand for things like bicycles, office hardware for home office, baking machines etc. etc.

So why is this supply side aspect often overlooked? Not so much because it is not known but rather because a lot of crisis handling in the last decades came through to the central banks and thus monetary policy. However, this can only be one aspect. We need more classical invention from governments wrt taxes, subventions etc. So, basically, what nearly every economic problem is about: inequality and reallocation of resources.
Optimizing Julia Code
A customer shouldn't really need to concern themselves with the profitability of a service provider though. The price Vimeo demanding is reasonable - what's not reasonable is hiding that prices could increase, and being basically as opaque as possible about the conditions to trigger that increase and what the increased cost was.
philosophers have been thinking about more fair ways to manage resource ownership for quite some time. Mutualists, for example, have a construct similar to what you're describing called a usufruct where land rights are granted directly to the person or group working the land (ie, you cannot own land you do not work), and you only have the right to use and profit from the land, without any right to destroy it.
It sounds like within a year or so the underlying system was refactored enough that the patch couldn't be landed as-is, which makes sense. It's big enough that I can also imagine it being hard to get a review if only 1-2 people know the system well enough and don't find the time to review it... still quite unfortunate.

I run into this sort of situation with OSS a lot lately, for one PR I spent probably at least a dozen days total of my time just rebasing it over and over because a project with hundreds of contributors lands lots of commits every day.
And because this community in particular is probably interested in this, the app is made with Flutter. Highly recommend for anyone that hasn't yet tried it.
There's plenty of sex related scandals that go on all the time that are 'open secrets' so to speak, another famous one being Harvey Weinstein. On one hand you can go in the conspiracy direction and say everyone was colluding to keep it secret, but on the other hand you can think about how little strong evidence there was and how these kinds of people would be very eager to sue for defamation if you accused them of anything.
> The strategy of creating a large die with lots of execution units, then running the chip at a lower clock speed for power efficiency has been Apple's way of doing things for a while now.

> This strategy is something that Anandtech's been calling out since the iPhone 5s chip.

Not sure that applies to M1 Ultra that's clearly marketed as a desktop SoC, not a mobile device or laptop SoC. Optimizing for energy efficiency or battery life is not the same as optimizing for performance first, which is what M1 Ultra is designed for. Not to mention, there's a reason Windows and Linux have multiple power profiles that changes how schedulers and power loads work. macOS has "high power mode" for m1 on laptops and yet strangely, it is not even available on the Mac Studio.

Keep in mind that Apple showed a graph that clearly shows the GPU was at 100-110w. Why do that if they won't run it at that wattage or even talk about 3090 in the first place? Why ruin their reputation over a silly little thing? Everyone on the planet will easily debunk that.

Also, why even bother adding a high-quality cooling system that the Mac Studio clearly don't need since both CPU/GPU are going to be capped at lower power wattage?

We'll find out eventually one way or another.
Indeed, the previous poster might be interested in z/VM for example.
Another effect of inflation is that people are forced to invest and take on risk, in order to not lose their savings. I think this has a major effect on workforce productivity and mental health. Everyone has to watch markets and worry about their savings. Active investing is like having an extra job.

I don't think that inflation can be 'cured' in the current monetary system. Like he said, there is a cure, but there is no will. It is impossible for a society to resist the temptation of creating more money.
Any open source solution would be trivial to disable, by definition. Hence OP's point that pursuing this to its logical conclusion means banning F/OSS.

(See also: Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End")
> Why would this be news? B+ trees do not scale, it's why log-structured merge trees were invented.

I agree this article is low quality and often incorrect, but I don't see what the choice of data structure has to do with it. Sharding is orthogonal to data structure.

For example, Facebook migrated their largest db fleet from sharded InnoDB (B+ trees) to sharded MyRocks (LSM). Still sharded either way.
>"Do you package it up in a library?"

I package it mostly as a code. For example in C++ those would be the header file "xxx.h" ans an interface and "xxx.cpp" as implementation. If I only change the implementation there is no need for me to to touch anything else. Build system will figure out what services (executables) need to be rebuild and relinked. It will then build, deploy, run tests etc while I sit and pick my nose.
can you elaborate why the music box is bullshit?

because its use it not handed to you on a silver plate?

dont you think thats part of the game design? that such things are 'secrets'? you can find and share with the community?
Be sure to use a shotgun clause.
And not just Meta! I browse Reddit mostly via Firefox on my tablet. It's very unreliable. And every day it has this sad, "This page looks better in the app" banner at the bottom. I just can't imagine asking an engineer, "Hey, can you make your web app continuously talk trash about how much your work sucks?"

And it's the same deal with Twitter. All sorts of bugs on mobile Firefox, some of them which I've been tripping over daily for years. When I worked at Twitter some years back, the web version was the red-headed stepchild of the clients. The engineers on it were nice and smart, but the team was underresourced and the client was treated as secondary to the mobile apps.
The latent images in undeveloped rolls degrade much faster than the images formed after the film is developed.

So it may happen that if those rolls are ever developed, not much of the original content will be recovered.
GP's claim has been publicly proven time and again, yet the myth persists because of the failure to actually match Apple's hardware feature for feature, spec for spec. Sure, you can build your own laptop without magsafe or Thunderbolt for <$x, but then you've failed to actually match Apple's hw and specs. Once you actually do that, you'll discover you can not duplicate any Apple hardware at any time in history with third-party off-the-shelf hardware without spending $100-$1000 more. And this does not take into account that Macs, as a rule, will remain in use longer and retain their re-sale value far better than any PC, so the total cost of ownership ends up being a lot less, and even this is not taking into account all the users' time Windows invariably wastes on idiotic things like randomly dropping a driver spontaneously without cause and requiring some attention to restore functionality of, say, a printer. Try using the search engine of your choice with the terms, "macs are more expensive," and nearly all the results reveal the notion that macs are more expensive was always a myth.
IQ and lack of tribalism (ie: the Hajnal line theory)
Not with a week to decide on such a massive hike
I wonder if the problem is this breaks the American dream. Americans see themselves as potential future bilionaires and they tell themselves they're just as capable as the rich, but if the rich become genetically superior, it creates a gap that clearly can't be overcome.
In general: Suppose the fallback positions are x slices for Alice, and y slices for Bob, and they get n slices total if they reach a deal. Then we can figure out the split by defining the gain, g, as the additional pieces they get if they reach a deal. So g=n-(x+y). Then the fair split should be x+g/2 for Alice and y+g/2 for Bob.

Another kind of situation is if there are 3 people, Alice, Bob, and Charlie, with fallbacks x, y, z respectively. Suppose they all need to reach an agreement to get n slices. Then g=n-(x+y+z) and Alice, Bob, and Charlie should get x+g/3, y+g/3, z+g/3 respectively.

Another possible situation is if there are 3 people, but they have unequal roles. Alice only needs to make a deal with at least one of Bob or Charlie, to get n slices. If Bob and Charlie both agree to the deal, then the total is still n slices. Intuitively, this would make Bob and Charlie less important, so they should get less of the gain. The split here should be x+2g/3 for Alice, y+g/6 for Bob and z+g/6 for Charlie, if they're all in on the deal. The reasoning there is that if we're adding games together, then we should also add the payoffs together. We can make a Alice&(Bob|Charlie) game by adding together Alice&Bob + Alice&Charlie - Alice&Bob&Charlie. Similarly, the payoffs should add like this: (g/2, g/2, 0) + (g/2, 0, g/2) - (g/3, g/3, g/3) = (2g/3, g/6, g/6)
Not just that, but it actively and blatantly lies to users. For the past few years, facebook has displayed the red number overtop the "Messenger" section. The desktop website correctly shows that no, it's been quite some time since anybody sent an direct messages. The mobile website will not display the non-existent messages, and instead tells the user to install the Messenger application.
The money supply-driven inflation you saw in Argentina is nothing like what developed nations are seeing now. Prices are spiking because real demand for semiconductors, slots at ports, oil, etc is outstripping supply, causing prices to go up. It’s possible that the situation will devolve into a wage-price stagflationary cycles similar to what Argentina and other emerging markets have experienced over the decades, but that is not what is happening now.
why did you down vote me? i was agreeing with you
Vimeo is losing money, but cost of revenue is only 26% of sales. This is an upper bound on hosting fees, since it also includes platform fees, card processing fees, building rents, and customer support.
> Like, why can't I share my YouTube premium with my partner? It's stupid as hell and Google really just ruins my UX with it.

You can, its just not free. Family plans are $18 for 5 people (individual plans are $10).
Like all infrastructure with network effects and pksitive externalities, it should be tax funded.

Privatised OSes or other platform software is an absurd and insane proposition
Reminds me of https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-pizza
Unlisted Youtube Videos aren't great for content producers though, because if the URL ever gets posted publicly you are screwed.
Thank you for this. However, this article is talking about moving savings deposits from M2 to M1, and the graph of the commenter you are replying to is one of M2. Therefore, the graph would not look different had the definition change not happened, correct? Because M2 includes M1 by definition.
There was a similar program called Cathode for macos.

The effects were cool (including the ability to change the bitrate of the terminal, made me understand why ed would make sense even aside from the other resource constraints, even `cat` takes ages at low speeds). There were also a bunch of included sounds like hardware boots (relay clicks, fan ramp up, etc…)

But the neatest thing is is that IIRC its “DRM scheme” was that the display would slowly degrade if you didn’t have a paid license. You could also degauss it (though I don’t think it would fix the degradation, you had to reboot for that). Obviously if you liked the degradation effect you could keep it even with a paid license.
Ask HN: How should I design flexible domain model
I want to build a domain model where the model elements/fields' relationship depends on categories of requests. Let me explain: If requests are from CompanyA then Order Title is same as the line items, and the line item names are parameters. Also depending on the type of Title category, the average cost of items are weighted differently.
Most of what youtube needs is the non-time-critical filler of Google's workload so it's pretty flexible and cheap to host in whatever space is free in Google's data centers, which are already the most efficient ones. And with such a large amount of compute needed they can justify hiring a lot of people to optimize every little part of software and hardware involved with Youtube.

Google's infrastructure scale is such a big advantage for Youtube compared to competitors
Subscribed. Glad you mentioned the value props on a landing page.
For the Windows users, you can run this with WSL and Cygwin.

(Maybe you can do this in WSL natively now, not sure, it's been a couple years)
why should the person who "owns" the land be the one who gets to keep all the value?

They don't. Farming profits are razer thin. That value goes to the person who owns the land, the people who work the land, the people that ship the product, the manufacturers of equipment, shop owners, the list goes on.
probably this is why they decide to do it as last m1 product, in genera the more you use a process -> less error in the production process happens.
This depends on multiple factors. Entities like YouTube which use a lot of bandwidth own boxes in datacenters (well in Google's case, they own the datacenter as well). From there it depends on the DC. Most IP transit is charged based on the max of your egress or ingress costs. Some DCs offer you unmetered bandwidth but then charge you more than you would have paid for transit.

The big cloud companies, like AWS, GCP, Linode, or Hetzner usually have these deals in place already and then charge you for egress to recoup/profit off their bandwidth costs. At $200 / yr, you're going to be playing big cloud egress costs as most IP transit is a lot more expensive. Cloudflare [1] has a series of posts about this though the costs are probably very out of date by now.

[1]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-a...
I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense.

> the proxy spoils of colonialism

Yes, that’s a thing. Here’s an essay that I found with one Google search. It clearly illustrates exactly the kind of disillusionment in your stance.

> The Swedish Crown, merchants, and political leadership shared a Eurocentric worldview and supported the right to conquer, dominate, and civilize in the name of superiority and technological advancement. But there was also a specifically Swedish twist to colonial ideology: Swedish neutrality turned out to be a strategic position and to offer competitive advantages in relation to colonial superpowers at war. When Britain and the Netherlands were fighting, Sweden exported cannons to the Dutch and iron for weaponry to the Brits. France could, when fighting Britain, rely on Swedish shipping of smuggled slaves, weaponry and other goods in the Caribbean. Also, hundreds of US trade ships managed to avoid customs by sailing under Swedish flag—and thus Sweden could maintain the lucrative Saint Barthélemy trade traffic.

(https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
Open Matrix Language
I'm not and economist, but I think its quite obvious that there is a difference between a localized price spike from a particular asset, another is all assets increasing in price uniformly. The second is not all assets becoming scarce at the same time, but the devaluation of the currency used to measure the assets' price.
If graft is a problem, the answer should not be "make graft easier and more common"
People argue over these minimal differences for good reasons.

If <insert objective measurement> = binary size, and I'm buying ROM in volume to hold that binary, +10% ROM address space can easily cost more than the ARM license.

That can matter quite a lot for adoption. Especially in the short term.

Obviously, priorities differ and change as a function of time but as the saying goes, the only thing worse than making a decision with benchmarks is making a decision without benchmarks.
> It's their home too.

It’s not. You’re choosing to allow a very dirty animal to inhabit your home. There’s a difference.

> To pull the "children" card …

Children are seen as burdensome, but they are also seen as human, and eventually, will be human adults.

They also tend to not do things like eat your furniture, can be more regularly bathed, and smell a lot better, too.

Oh, and they’re humans. Did I mention that already? If a non-human animal is slotting itself into our biological drive to parent, that’s a parasite.
Obviously, definitionally, it's impossible to verify that server-side logic isn't doing something evil. (Local homeomorphic protocols count, when the secret logic is imported from remote servers).

This is one reason FOSS is actually-important and actually-relevant. Isn't it valid to know exactly what your personal computer is doing, to be able to trust your own possessions? Richard Stallman was *never* crazy; his understanding of these issues is so cynical as to be shrill and off-putting, but that's well-calibrated to the severity of the issues at stake.

You joke about anti-Putin memes. Here's a thought for well-calibrated cynics: Apple solemnly swears its hashes are attested by at least two independent countries. Russia and Belarus are two independent countries.
I'd say it's the exact opposite, especially for dev jobs. People don't even want to submit a cover letter.

I would have withdrawn my application too. In my mind, a key aspect of the process is reciprocity. I don't mind interviewing, including coding, but I'm not doing anything major that is "free" for the hiring company in the sense that they don't have to invest anything but can make me do a bunch and then just ignore me if they want

That is exactly what is wrong with this format. They (Canonical) think their time is more valuable than the applicant's and don't want to waste it having a discussion, they just want to make him do all that work on his own and then decide if they want to engage. That is not a positive relationship to have with a potential employer
I've had absolutely no issues with it here in Norway, but Norway gives folks a number much like a SSN, which is used more widely than a SS# in the US alongside a picture ID.
> Currently employees in reality, are provided 0.00001% of the company.

0.00001% of Amazon's entire revenue (not profit, but revenue) last year would be about $14,000.

Fortunately, every one of their full time employees is paid more than that. Entry level engineers make 10X that amount and the best engineers make 50X that or more.

At some of the most highly paid companies like Uber, paying employees according to the value they create would actually make salaries go down in every scenario, because the company is still fueled by investor funds and can't self-sustain on revenue alone.

After round-tripping from IC to manager and back a couple times, I've come to realize that the value given to engineers especially is extremely high. Many initiatives in the tech industry don't ever turn a profit for the company or investors, yet we get paid six figures all the same.

If anything, I would expect such a hypothetical initiative to redistribute more of the wealth away from engineers like us and toward people like the customer support team who are fixing all of the problems created by products that don't work quite right. The person on the phone with grandma walking them through a support issue arguably contributes more to the LTV of that customer than anyone else.

Stepping outside of tech, I think people imagine profits to be much higher than they are in reality. Grocery stores are a common example of a business that has very narrow profit margins (some times a couple percent) that don't actually have large amounts of leftover profit to distribute to employees.

Regardless, it's all hypothetical. The employment market is supply and demand, and that's why engineers are paid so highly. End of story.
The base case, in which Alice and Bob don't reach an agreement, has a specific name: BATNA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

Also note that it's two humans agreeing on a deal, and the way of looking at things described in the article might not be shared by both. If your other party is convinced that 6/6 is the most fair distribution, it is to your advantage to agree with that notion, at least if you are Bob. If you are Alice, then you should absolutely make the case. Of course if the game is repeated and you don't know the future game's distributions, this might come back at you, if the roles are switched and the other party goes into the game with that memory.
Hollywood’s Cancel-Culture Consultant