skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that the "whole story" matters, even if the bits you highlight are a large part of it. A bit like the relationship between epigenetics and the rest of genetics -- it rather changes how you interpret what you already know.

Given that we cannot say what intelligence is better than "its what intelligent people do", I'd say we were far from the "whole story".

I think pretending that there is no "whole story" and using IQ to make policy decisions about populations is political. I don't think anyone cared that a bunch of researchers were tinkering with some psychometrics. They cared that a whole racial group could be shut out of certain jobs on the basis of a half baked abstract reasoning test.
I think it's not unusual to have base-x number literals (even Python got `0b01101` literals at some point), but not many languages support pattern matching on bitstrings. In Erlang, it looks like this:

1> A = 2#0010010010101001.
9385
2> << _:2, B:4, _/bitstring >> = << A:16 >>, B.
9
3> io:format("~.2B~n", [B]).
1001

I put your number into 16-bit bitstring[1], then ignored first 2 bits, extracted the next 4 bits, and ignored the rest.

CL doesn't have pattern matching in the standard, IIRC, but there are libraries implementing it, so I wouldn't be surprised if one of them also offered bitstring matching, but that's beside the point: I'm comparing Erlang and C++ here, not Erlang and CL.

[1] It could be 14 or 15 bits, but I wanted to have a bit of a leading padding to ignore in the pattern.

EDIT: I missed the fact that the #*01... literal in CL is not a number, my bad. The equivalent literal would be << 2#01...:N >> in Erlang, but you need to give the N (number of bits) yourself, so it's a bit less convenient.
The raw test scores are normally distributed. This much is pretty much forced by the central limit theorem. Now, of course, the raw score distribution does not have mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, but that’s just a norming issue, to make it useful to compare across the tests.
> that was fate and prophecy

That's the part I found objectionable. It's that bit of Hollywood magic woo where the newcomer always "has it" and the long struggling devoted practitioners never have. It makes a nice story, but the philosophy behind it is weak, doesn't reflect the actual world and I find it disrespectful of actual practitioners (of whatever (martial) art).

One last thing,

> Hard training may be an essential ingredient of physical excellence, but it is insufficient for true brilliance in any creative field.

Yes, but before he drew doodles, Picasso was a master of more classical forms. You really cannot skip steps. You know the saying about inspiration vs perspiration (often attributed to Einstein, I think?).
In my view that law is to protect very big US companies that pay the middle men from the smaller US companies that don’t.
Is GitHub actions down? Status seems green
I think this is generally true and agree 90% of the time although I've once seen the opposite in which what was otherwise a successful small SaaS severely underinvested in product. They had an MVP that they basically left unchanged for years and years while ramping up sales and marketing which worked for a while before competitors started popping up with better design/ux/perf/features etc.
What are your requirements in terms of capabilities (how many layers, tolerances, etc) and how fast you need a given board once designed?

Smaller PCB mills and other similar things tend to be more limited in terms of their capabilities. Additionally, you typically do the setup and troubleshooting (which it seems you've already had a taste of) which potentially eats into the time you're trying to save.

Depending on how price sensitive you are, I would definitely consider domestic manufacturers with rapid turnaround services and do a cost analysis vs. buying and running a solution such as the mentioned Voltera.
I have an M1 Max, with only 64GB and only 10 cores (the 64 cores in the Ultra are GPU cores, not CPU cores). For a software developer, it is probably fast enough, and I can use it anywhere. I build Rust, and build times aren't a problem. Certainly better than my i9 Intel MBP.
That's not a given, think typescript compiling to minified javascript. Some compilers like coffeescript do put in some effort to have the output be readable but I wouldn't assert that it should be a goal for everyone
yeah, as I was discussing liability not the ethical nature of auto-driving. There are technical issues as to whether the code could be created properly and ethical issues about how true AI might end up decide that killing the passenger(s) was better than killing a crowd. That's a different discussion.
The QA team brings something significant that developers (myself) will never have: their machines closely represent the customers machines. They use a well-polished methodology to push the models we ship to their limits and provide relatively detailed information about how to reproduce failures.

I can't count the number of times I've tested something 5 times, convinced myself that the code handled tons of error cases, shipped it, and in 10 minutes a customer types "five" into a field expecting an integer which causes the next step to use "0" for processing.
There's something about a physical reference to information that you can't quite capture digitally. You can hand it to someone. You can use it as a prop to express your happiness or frustration. You can destroy.

I know this was a fun project but I hope we can capture more physical interactions in the future, and not just in VR.
I disagree.

YouTube already destroyed its monetization strategy when they told small creators they couldn't be a part of it anymore. Small creators who were working to hit the payout for Google Ads were suddenly demonetized and had their money sealed in escrow forever. That was the day YouTube monetization died for most people. That was when the small creators gave up the platform to the large creators with staff and budgets.

And besides, this "study" didn't even offer any way for YouTube to fix its strategy. The article points to some flaws that aren't relevant and then goes on to describe content creators themselves. You did not address YouTube at all.

The title is misleading and the content is questionable. How about you interview a couple large and small content creators instead of just trying to peer in the windows from outside?
if you want to live in my house, and within the safe and comfortable legal framework of tenancy in a property lease contact, then you have to pay competitive market rates to live there.

"Pay your fair share" to the "rent seekers" if it is a place to live that you are seeking...
I read a story yesterday[1] how the policy inside Google is to cc their legal department on any emails that you think could make the company look bad in any future legal proceedings. As I understand it, this shields the email from discovery.

Did you have similar guidelines inside Microsoft?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30760923
What most people need is a few close, intimate friends (say, 5 to 10), a larger group of semi-close friends (say, 30), and a still larger group of friendly acquaintances (say, maybe 100). If most people have that, they feel "connected" and "community".

So I wonder:

1. Do you need something different, or do you need that and don't have it?

2. If you don't have that, is it because the city is making it hard to form friendships (especially intimate ones)? Are people too busy to really connect with you? Are you too busy to really connect with people?

3. If you do have that, is the problem that you can't see that you have it because of the 10 million random strangers around you? Or that you don't have it often enough, because with everything going on in the city you don't get together with the people you know often enough?

4. Or is the problem on a completely different level? Is the problem the city itself, rather than connecting with people?
I know of a company that was pretty successful with a VB6 app they wrote in the late 90s, but twenty years later they needed to modernize. They spent two years on a from scratch rewrite that was never completed (second system syndrome).

The company abandoned the rewrite, acquired a competitor, and rebranded it as the company's new product. It turns out the competitor's code base had serious deficiencies (couldn't scale to the company's size, had important bugs), and was very unpleasant to develop against. In the 6 months following the acquisition, well over half of the engineering team left the company (heavily skewed towards the highest-caliber engineers) because they couldn't stand what their jobs had become. Many long-time customers threatened to leave because of user facing technical issues in the acquired product.

A telling incident: the company needed to deploy an emergency fix to the mobile app. The only machine authorized to publish to the app store was a laptop that the owner of the acquired company had left at home overseas. To complete the deploy, he needed to call his wife and walk her through the publication process over the phone.

The company managed to fix enough of the problems that they're still around today, but for a while there was a lot of uncertainty around the company's future.
I would suggest that declaring all views to be right and all views to be wrong is indistinguishable from your brain having fallen out. We can do better.
Going to the office means getting to know the people you work with to a meaningful level (there are other opportunities to do that besides meetings, such as having lunch together or going out for a coffee/walk) in a way that is simply not possible when chatting via google meets.

But there’s also the increased exposure to serendipity. Unexpected things occur in the office. Maybe you overhear a conversation that makes you think about your career, or during drinks after work you end up discussing a new cool startup idea with colleagues. None of this really happens when you stay at home.

Sure, there are pros to staying at home. You will have more free time and fewer distractions, among other things. But there are also massive perks to putting a bit of effort and going to the office sometimes. Those perks, admittedly, may be hard to understand for the average introverted, socially anxious software dev.
12 AM and 12 PM makes no sense, because none of them really means noon, while both of them are 12 before noon and 12 after noon

just because you got used to meaning of this nonsense, it doesn't mean it's right
> This question is a trap. If you try to answer it, you’ll find yourself beset by semantic questions. What’s intelligence? What’s a factor? And if you get past those, you’ll then find a bleak valley of statistical arcana.

Thing is, building the ontology is the most important part of the scientific process. Otherwise you're just praying to a blind idiot god and listen into the void for answers. Or as the author puts it, "statistical arcana."

To be concrete, I'm pretty confident I overtook half of humanity in that fitness test in the last year. Not because I was bitten by a radioactive spider, but because I started to work out. Now to claim the analogy to intelligence, that would need an answer to what the analogy of working out is in intelligence.

Or to look at it on the level of people who compete in a sport, I'm quite confident that Tom Brady is not very fit by NFL player standards. Similar for Xavi in soccer, but Christiano Ronaldo is probably near the top, and I don't have a good intuition in case of Messi, because he is a quite small player and that will have an effect.

The preceding criticism is enabled, by having a good intuition of what the fitness test is, I have a pretty good intuition about the mechanics of a push up. That is not there for intelligence, and I strongly suspect that this whishi-washiness is whats actually holding up all arguments about iq, since it prevents concrete criticism.
Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Does twitter adhere to it?
Yep, because we have absolutely no way to do e2e encryption without closed protocols like GPG.
If a constructor is called automatically then it also needs the destructor to be called automatically and both introduce a bunch of additional complexity, especially for stack allocated functions, the need to take into account the concept of a default constructor (not necessarily requiring it but still needing to consider it), etc so that someone doing...

while (something) {
foo foos[42];
/* use foos here */
}

...will still have their 42 foo constructors and destructors called at the appropriate times.

Meanwhile by doing it manually you just bypass all that complexity at the language level and it becomes the programmer's responsibility to do it (or not) properly.

Also while you often want the above, this isn't something you always want, e.g. when you need to differentiate between where the memory of "foo" comes from and its lifecycle as an object (e.g. custom memory allocators, reusing objects without allocating/releasing their memory, etc).

Of course all the above could be done with functions too, after all there are a bunch of C programs and libraries doing OOP without the language itself providing any support for it.
When I've seen companies sink for technology reasons, it's usually been because of the cumulative effect of tech debt accumulating over a couple years. Engineers need to hit a launch deadline, so they throw in some global variables or make a few private APIs public in the interest of expediency, figuring that they'll clean it up later. Later comes, and the engineers move onto new projects instead of cleaning up the previous mess. New code gets written that depends on the previous hacks. Eventually you end up with a big ball of mud that breaks whenever anybody touches it, and nobody can launch any new features. Now the company is forced into the position of rewriting everything from scratch, but can't do so strategically, they just need to do it now because they don't have any other options.

Companies failing for "big" single decisions - like rewriting their code from scratch, or a poor tech stack choice, or a poor initial architecture - are much more rare, for the simple reason that most experienced technical leadership knows that these are risky decisions and tends to put a lot of thought into them, and then there's a lot more organizational commitment to following through on the decision once it's been made. Also, if done from a position of market leadership, you can usually recover from them - many startups start with a poor tech stack and poor architecture, and just assume that they'll rewrite everything once they get lots of funding and a suitable lead over competitors. The insidiousness of the "creeping tech debt" scenario is that you often don't realize you're screwed until you've fallen behind the competitors, which means you enter the "rewrite and tech switch" scenario from the position of being market laggards, which can kill you.
What is your definition of bribe then?

Keep in mind that in countries like Cambodia and Yemen, something like 70% of public companies receive bribes. It is very much common practice and culturally acceptable.
I know a guy with a similar background who wanted become a coder.

He got a temp job coding. Not too good at it.

Eventually wound up doing sales for a FAANG, selling SaaS to C-suite execs.
I'm fully in favor of replacing shell scripts with Python3 scripts wherever possible. In fact that's part of my job. That being said, the author of this article is using confusing / wrong terminology to discuss bash.

This article says that, "The [bash] shell isn't a complete programming language". While I agree that bash lacks any real data types besides strings, bash is a Turing-complete programming language[1], so it's theoretically possible to write _any_ program in bash that can be written in Python. It might be a hell of a lot uglier and lack things like imports, modules, etc., but it can be done.

For example, there is an implementation of an HTTP daemon written purely in bash[2]. Once again-- terrible idea, but great execution.

[1]: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bash_Shell_Scripting#A_few_not...

[2]: https://github.com/avleen/bashttpd

edit: added newline to separate references
> I don't think that's necessary part of local culture

> Ikea decided not to bribe officials, so they didn't get approval to build their shops here

Pick one
I enjoyed the response on Twitter https://twitter.com/aschmelyun/status/1507043742167060487?t=...
Some of the difference in scores will be driven by differences in g, some by differences in motivation, some by education, etc. There are tests that, controlling for motivation, do a pretty good job of getting around this (like Raven's progressive matrices, etc.) They don't even require language.

I think you're on the right track, though. But the key sticking point is this: many people are very uncomfortable with the idea that there are differences in intelligence among people, both within and between populations. Unfortunately, that is undeniably true. And so we get this ridiculous, unproductive dance.

Also, just as an aside, the latest evidence around the "poverty actually makes you literally stupider" claim is that it's not supported--studies aren't replicating. Which makes sense because the claim is prima facie crazy, but I digress...
Like I said, it upsets people, and since we value not upsetting people, that's the metric we optimize for. This has costs and consequences, like anything else.

It's the social sciences version of technical debt.
That there is some diversity we must cater for, there is also diversity we should cater for while pushing for uniformity (and optionally ridiculing the obviously inferior solutions such as imperial measurements, non iso dates or 12-hour clocks).
Show HN: Online Marketplace for Planners of Small Meetings and Events
I created a way for the overlooked but numerous people who are planning small meetings and events to easily find appropriate venues and the right vendors.
I'm pretty sure it is quite right. It's standard Bayesian statistics.

If the math is wrong, show us.
Its a complex highly aromatic (in the chemistry sense) large molecule that there is active research in trying to convert to useful chemical products.

However it's quite difficult to break its bonds in ways that yield useful compounds. And until there is a viable way of upcycling it, burning it for energy is what they do
This seems like such a short sided take. For a company to be labelled a "tech" company the tech itself should be the product. For example Apple, people buy iPhones and apple stuff because they perform well (e.g. fantastic camera, displays, M1...) and they work well with each other. Certainly at this point Apples name gets people to pay a premium but that's still grounded in the quality of their stuff. You can pick similar examples across other tech companies too. For example, Netflix got their head start because of their streaming tech.

> The most common engineering mistakes can be fixed with more money.

That applies to pretty much all mistakes.

> Typically some other factors is what makes or breaks a company.

Tech is still pretty much at the top of that list, especially for "tech" companies.
> you don't then get to use the unprovability of negative existentials the way you are attempting to.

You are simply and obviously mistaken. I get to do whatever the hell I want, because you are not the boss of me, have as yet been unable to assail my bulletproof logic, while yours is riddled with fallacy, such as ad hominem (personal attack), straw man (false attribution of statements), and argument from authority (your confidence in your belief), unapologetically employed unconvincingly as impotent and faulty reasoning bereft of any support beyond your say so.

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>Destiny's ban reason and length are only speculated (Twitch uses "indefinite" in its literal sense).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/tnegaw/the_end_of_...

>If the ban is from the trans athletes take (I do agree that it's the most likely cause), Destiny's usual edginess [2] probably contributed. Others have been fine with the same position.

It seems just because he had been banned several times before they finally just said enough is enough.
Yeah, this is the market I'm talking about. For example, say I'm pretty successful in another field (medicine / accounting / law) - earning maybe 500K. Been coding on the side since I was young, enjoy it. I'd probably be a "success" in some ISA type school (past good history with testing / studying etc). But the income split is not appealing, I'd be chasing ultimately a more management level position longer term tech side. So I'll select away from ISA model.

Now you have someone who has struggled, they did art studies, in and out of school, realize the movie director dream is probably not going to happen and art pays horribly in general for day to day work. ISA is perfect for them, they have no income prospects currently. But this may be an adverse selection in terms of someone who has struggled with education generally (though a fantastic story if they make it through.)
The Electric Car's Shrinking Role in Reducing Oil Demand
It would take him 5-10 years to become a competent programmer. Does he want to finally achieve stability in his career at age 70?

I would suggest that he become a business advisor to small companies. His expertise is invaluable and he could be useful immediately.
One piece(manga)API in GO and GraphQL (super basic)
Hi, i created my first project for my portofolio in go and graphQL dedicated to one piece (manga), is a stupid/simple API, but im so proud anyway, hope you star it , or would work together to improve it!
Reminds me of this great piece (and hn discussion) regarding corporate bribery during the Watergate years:

https://longreads.com/2018/11/20/the-second-half-of-watergat...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18498796

This reads as the modern chapter to the story.
Ask HN: Career Coaching for Software Engineers?
I consider myself a very good engineer, but after over a decade in the industry and building up an impressive resume, I am very lost on what’s next. I am ready to move on from my current role, but am trying to judge the trade offs between a FAANG job, a startup (if so, what stage), doing independent consulting, starting my own company, trying management and more.

Has anyone had success with a professional career coach to help guide them through these decisions? If so, can you provide recommendations (both Bay Area or remote)?
Cat Printer
Are you new to GNOME? this is a few years old when Canonical dropped Unity.
What was happening was that each GNOME release fixed some memory leaks but create a few new ones, the lag was terrible and when Canonical moved back to GNOME a Canonical developer started fixing stuff, GNOME devs were blaming the hardware for the bugs or were busy with removing features.

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/10/ubuntu-improves-gnome-sh...
you can google the dev "Daniel Van Vugt" and check his work on GNOME, or you can google "GNOME shell memory leak" , as I said I stopped following Linux stuff (I am still a Linux users) and I have no idea what happened in recent years except the major things like GNOME's reset triggering a new fracture in it's community.

Anway, Canonical was not using GNOME so RH did not avoided paying for better developers because Canonical would benefit. Later when Canonical decided to use GNOME they fixed the major performance issues and memory leaks and put back some of the features the users wanted but designers refused to provide.
I think we're the same generation, but I'd consider that incident Peak Grauniad™ - it was a very different newspaper back in those days. The first half of the Rusbridger era, which followed soon after, was probably the last time it had any worth as a source of news. The last ten years or so though it's just painfully middle-class angst in newspaper form.