skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>If women are only very recently even able to be more selective, then I don’t see how all this is supposed to work.

That's not what the above implied. You can still fulfill the condition "be more selective" if the male populace as a whole was earning way more than the female populace before, which it very clearly was. This directly questions the notion of there being a bunch of old ladies who'd have held out: the majority would've found their "better off financially" peer. Things only caught up in the last few decades or so. All those younger generation women still need to age into old ladies in the first place.

>Is there even any evidence that modern women are more “choosy” than men?

Financially? Yes. While I don't fully subscribe to the idea of "equal or better than", you only have to look for a few minutes to see the hoards of anecdotes and studies pointing towards women putting vastly higher weight on a man's finances than the other way around, to the point men can use their money to compensate for deficiencies elsewhere[0]. That alone would explain why women haven't been nearly as competitive in the workplace as men: men have a far bigger incentive to do so on top of all the other incentives both experience.

[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...
First Pig-to-Human Heart Transplant May Have Failed Due to Pig Virus
The opinion piece from about a week ago in the Wall Street Journal reporting this wavering on the margins of the conservative bloc points to a more normal, less unprecedented type of leak.

So then, one view is that the leak of the draft is just a continuation of that effort to hold the line on the full overturning, and that view seems pretty sensible. On the other hand, what to make of the fact that the leak goes to Politico and not somewhere like the Journal? Do you instead see it as a disgruntled partisan opponent trying to counter the likely leaks that led to the WSJ piece? Or simply a minor smokescreen?

I don't think there's any reasonable basis to be particularly sure either way. My gut leans toward the leak having come from the "overturn Roe" camp, but I think most peoples' "gut" on this is pretty highly correlated with their personal views on the topic.
Let's remove some of the inflammatory language and look at more as this person doesn't "matter" to me. If I think the taxi driver is just a taxi driver, I am going to treat them as I would any person I'm not likely to meet again. Ideally, with respect but when one's guard is down an asshole is more likely to act like one.

In the interview room, any candidate will be on their best behavior since impressing those people "matters" greatly. Same for the behavioral lunch sessions that many companies also use. If I have any sense, I'm going to recognize that this is still part of the "interview" even though we may be at a restaurant offsite discussing anything from the job to the Yankees pitchers.

The argument, that I tend to agree with, is that gathering info from the taxi driver is a better indicator of true character. I don't expect the taxi driver to deliver a full psychological report but I would like to know if they felt mistreated in some way.
Yes, I did last year.
You're right, I completely misread that comment. My bad.
The Xprize carbon removal is a $100m competition -- https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

IMHO, all the competitors have something that can only make a difference at enormous scale. It's a huge risk to invest in anything that attempts to make a difference in the medium term.

[edit - I've also submitted this link to HN - https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk/articles/meet-the-com...
]
> How does that work?

You can look up "learning rate" much easier than to look up "what is this Greek letter on my screen" followed by "what is the use of this Greek letter in my context" and only then followed by searching for "learning rate"

More importantly, it's possible to know what a learning rate is without knowing what Greek letter it's commonly denoted as. Especially since mathematical notation is so inconsistent across authors. I want less ambiguity in code, not more. Explicit is better than implicit.

Mathematical notation is notorious for being an absolute mess of inconsistencies. Who in their right mind looked at it and went "yep, I want more of this in my source code".
Django implementation of gapless sequences, with a configurable field type
DXM is an incredibly interesting psychoactive substance because it's dosage ranges can change it's effects significantly; from "drowsy" to almost full psychedelic experience. These dosages ranges are called "Plataeus" and vary depending on your body weight.

For more info on this definitely check "The DXM FAQ" which you can find online. Incredibly interesting read and definitely essential for anyone who wants to dabble in DXM recreationally. However, definitely take note of the warnings written in it - DXM is not something you want to abuse frequently, or at all if you want to be totally safe.
So if they make one promotion, they are OK indefinitely?
Tailscale raised a Series A two years ago. They've been doing fine as it was – running a venture funded, high growth startup.

I am wary of investors wrecking incentives for founders but that ship sails when you raise an A round. They've done an incredibly good job for me in that time, I think they'll keep on doing that.

Why would their free service change? They're going to make money off big companies. They're not going to make money off me with a bait-n-switch to capture my $10/mo personal budget.
In California, Tutor Perini seems to be famous for winning government construction contracts despite constant failures and unexpected price increases, because the law does require lowest bidder and doesn't allow ignoring low bids from known liars.
> To put it simply - we don't know what hard problems need to be solved. Having a place where really smart people have the autonomy to work on whatever they want is the best way to find out. This is the classic argument for funding basic research in the sciences.

This really isn't the classic argument for funding basic research.

All you're saying is that it's hard to know what will prove to be a useful tool, and that's really beside the point for figuring out what should be rewarded. Absolutely having a commanding understanding of a broad set of technical tools should be a career asset, but it should be a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

You don't need to know what hard problems need to be solved to address the original criticism here. You need to understand what problems the organization is currently focused on, and solve those problems with simplicity and efficiency, even if that doesn't allow someone to show off that they can solve the harder technical problems than anyone else. The reward systems in the company should reflect that, and if it does, I would expect that people who could solve the harder technical problems would be more likely to be rewarded than others, but their skills would be much more likely to be directed towards simplifying and improving the efficiency of the company's execution rather than having a bias towards the reverse.

Now, another important skill at more senior levels is being able to identify new problems deserve focus (i.e. figuring out what problems are useful to solve), so that should also be reflected in the company's reward systems as well, but that is still an orthogonal skill to "demonstrates they can solve the hardest problems".

Think of it like product managers: if you primarily reward your product managers for launching new features, pretty soon your company will be weighed down in operational overhead from trying to support a cornucopia of features, many of which aren't particularly well done, rather than having a streamlined operation that delivered products that excelled at delivering on the solution they most wanted.
The Future of Search Is Boutique
#realtalk
Seems difficult to get onto these teams, especially as a new comer
if i were to institute something like this, the driver would be fairly (and well) compensated to do this task. Any tips would be handed over at the end, so there's no consideration of compensation involved. Obviously tipping is a data point, but it wouldn't influence the drivers report beyond that checkbox.
Leetcode is fine. Once a dude asked me to write out merge sort. Like, I’m not from a CS bg (I suppose that wouldn’t matter). And I literally did look at merge and other sorts two days back. But that didn’t matter, the only way you can write merge sort is if you memorize it (or spend an inordinate amount of time writing sorting algos). I didn’t get that job, but I’ve been monitoring that company and they’re not doing that well anyway. Perhaps a coincidence?
> he could've easily worked at Google, take advantage of the rising stock prices AND continue work on his SaaS.

Wouldn't Google then own all the code he wrote, even on his own SaaS sideproject?
"The paper mentions 35 (!) manual restarts to train OPT-175B due to hardware failure (and 70+ automatic restarts)."

https://twitter.com/awnihannun/status/1521572873449533440
$100m xPrize carbon removal competitors
As an experienced (semi-professional) musician, I think this is probably a false dichotomy. For one thing, "users of music notation" implies that these users know how to use it. Very many "amateur" musicians read traditional notation just fine. It's not that hard.

There is really no such thing as a "decision-maker" for music notation systems. That ship sailed a long time ago. There is no orchestra conductor anywhere pondering whether or not they should abandon a millennium or two of traditional notation for something "better."

You would be doing your elementary music students an enormous disservice by teaching them some "alternative" music notation system. And for what reason? As I've said elsewhere, learning to "read music" is far easier than many things we ask elementary students to learn.

Apologies for excessive "quotation marks."
> liberal lawyers (which is 90% of them)

What is the basis for this claim?

> believe that their position is not only correct but above debate and above the political and legal process

You seem to be accusing everyone who disagrees with you of malice and abandonment of all principles - more or less evil. I would counter that this kind of argument is only ever made in bad faith in an attempt to demonize those who don't agree with you.

> politics and law are merely vehicles for imposing the moral views of highly educated professionals on the unwashed masses.

And one could likewise say that much of conservative thought is an attempt to force people to adhere to certain religious values using state coercion. But that would just be an opinion, not a fact.

What is fact is that many (possibly most?) conservative policies and doctrines do not enjoy majority support in the United States, yet are being rammed down our throats regardless because those policies are a) supported by those in power and b) convenient wedge issues or rallying cries for a small minority of the voting base - a minority that happens to be highly motivated.

Even the current composition of the court was a blatant power grab to deny Obama's constitutional right to appoint a justice with a made-up rule that it was "too close" to an election. Then immediately discarding that so-called rule when Trump was in the same position. In that sense the current conservative majority is illegitimate. Regardless of how you think any specific SCOTUS decision should go I hope you'd agree that a court that the majority of Americans believe to be illegitimately stacked is not a good thing for the stability of our separation of powers.

For that matter the overall tilt toward conservatives in House representation thanks to gerrymandering along with over-representation of conservative thought in the Senate due to the 2-senators-per-state rule undermines the legitimacy of Congress and the entire government. You can only get away with preventing the majority from being able to enact any significant policies for so long before a representative government collapses. Granted that might take tens or hundreds of years but in the long term it erodes the very foundation of our society. I find that very concerning personally but some people would rather win at any cost (witness Trump's recent loss and the fact that some conservatives attempted to sacrifice free & fair elections for a single win of a single presidential term. How cheaply they were willing to sell out!)
Another massive frustration for me is that Julia has no formal way to say "here are public functions and these are private" but does have a completely orthogonal way of saying "these are functions that will populate your global namespace if you use `using`", i.e. `export variable_name`, and people absolutely confuse the hell out of these. I don't think there's even agreement in the Julia community if you should use `export` for your public API or not.

And if you misspell the exports or change the variable in question, Julia won't even warn you about it. That is straight crazy behavior to me, and I still don't understand how that hasn't been changed.

The `using` + `import` packages in Julia combined with how `export`s work make it SUCH a confusing and frustrating experience for beginners in Julia.

I personally like mathematical symbols when I'm writing and reading code in my domain, but I do feel very lost when I'm reading Julia code outside of my area of expertise. All my colleagues hate it too (hard to grep, hard to type if you don't know the math and are just a software engineer) and I'm coming around to the idea of not using it or documenting it explicitly.

The fact that mutable structs are easier to use but immutable structs are more performant, the lack of composition of fields the way Go handles it, the lack of traits or interfaces, the sorry state of compilation time, the non existent tooling all lead a beginner / intermediate Julia developer in the wrong direction in my opinion. It's very easy to write code that is straight up broken or just not efficient in Julia, and that's probably why I won't pick it for a big project going forward.

But I'm still keeping my eye on it. Maybe in 5 years it'll be the language for a lot of the jobs?
A Minsky moment for venture capital?
> For a fine to be significant, it has to exceed the profit made from the crime

I think their point is that we don't know how much profit Intuit made from the crime (at least, I couldn't find it in the article). The assumption is that tricking people into paying to file when they didn't have to is not 100% of their revenue.
Me too. If I turn on some Javascript, I get just a logo and a hamburger symbol on a black screen. If I click on the hamburger symbol, it turns into a big "X" still on a black screen.
JavaScript Web Apps Aren’t Going Anywhere
Cresta | Software Engineer, DevOps Engineer | Remote, Berlin, U.S. | Full-time | https://jobs.lever.co/cresta/ab205df0-a587-4e66-a4c7-26f49f5...

Spun out of the Stanford AI lab and chaired by Google-X founder Sebastian Thrun, Cresta launched in 2020. We’ve assembled a world-class team of AI and ML experts, go-to-market leaders, and top-tier investors and advisors including Andreessen Horowitz, Greylock Partners, and Tiger Global

Tech stack: React/ Python/ Go/ Kubernetes clusterings, Terraform/CloudFormation, AWS, Linux

Compensation: base salary depending on qualifications + equity options

For US employees: full benefits packages; generous equity in an early stage startup; unlimited paid vacation
Learn more about Cresta: https://cresta.com/
It’s not much different at large corporations, just far less money.
If you want to work for someone else, React is the thing you have to do and have prior, validated, experience in. The only employers not using React but other SPAs (Angular) are the “I want to be cool too” companies pretending to be in the tech sector.

All major SPA’s have had convergent evolution towards the same optimizations implemented in the same ways with similar syntax as well.

If one briefly had an advantage on package size, thats gone now.

If one briefly had an advantage in a DOM manipulation technique, thats gone now.

And thats that
The technique is called a "canary trap" or "barium meal test": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap

No idea if anyone offers it as a service. It's unlikely because the primary consumer of the service would be someone trying to prevent documents from leaking, so trusting them to the service is itself a major point of failure.
I don’t think it’s hard to articulate why. The reason why is that expected value places too much emphasis on low probability edge cases.

With 75% probability, you make at most 4 dollars. There’s almost a 94% chance you make less than 40 dollars.

As humans, we evaluate improvable events as not mattering so much.
> I am curious because everytime I considered using it so far, the prospect of just any dev who might well not know all the intricacies of infra should maybe not build it. I guess some barrier to entry is something I would see as a benefit.

First, your dev process should go through a review phase robust enough that beginners should be able to develop on things they are unfamiliar with confidence.

Second, the infra being 'intricate', needing huge tooling etc, is a sign that it has become too complex; maybe because it is not well aligned with the application side, maybe because the 'devops' have been making an infra monolith, or maybe because it is making use of too low level features.

For example we're on GCP, and we're making use of serverless tech such as cloud run, functions, cloud sql, pubsub, IAM, etc. Those are all high level building blocks that are very easy to configure & deploy using pulumi. Since the devs can for example add a cloud function for a feature & go to prod entirely on their own with just one language, they make use of it, so we get better architecture as a result. In a sense the cloud platform itself becomes the full stack framework.

The cloud platform provided blocks also enforce good practice so it's harder for newcomers to shoot themselves in the foot. If we were using native k8s, self managed postgres etc, then it would probably not work as well.

But yes, pulumi is less mature & we're hitting some bugs here & there, and we're completely locked into a cloud provider. But the upsides are impressive & IMHO worth it.

I used to be a proponent of monoliths for dev speed, but now I've seen that you can match the prototyping speed with microservice/serverless & get a much better solution as a result.
https://archive.ph/DLqix

> Venture capital returns have puked this year. The next dangerous stage is investor outflows.
Falke Sensitive
>Czech republic is a solid choice, but beware there has been a massive Russian propaganda/disinformation campaign going on for decades (not as strong as in Donetsk, but recently growing rapidly).

Russia is Canada's neighbour. Russia has operatives here as well.

>Language will definitely be a problem, even in Prague.

Like I tried learning french and non j'etais merde. Cant imagine how much effort would be needed to learn a slavic language from scratch. This might be one of the key factors. If my government doesn't start returning our rights and freedom, it's being compared against the main of moving across the globe to a new country and integrating.
It doesn't do well with them, basically it'll transcode everything so it's quicker to serve up, that's about it.
Anybody use anything good to organize home videos?
BeReal notifications look a lot like emergency alerts
I'm probably from a different culture than you so this is new to me. Care to elaborate? Am I picturing it right that someone is put under stress for six months without pay (or at least for pay that might barely cover base rent in my experience) to see if they can deal with stress without burning out or doing a worse job?
I have seen several stories like this - the janitor, or secretary, or whoever is actually a trusted individual who is the true judge of character. To me, it seems implausible, more of a "feel good" story, but it also seems ill advised. Does the driver know he's part of the loop? Does the driver attend the debrief? Does the driver distinguish between great, normal, sub-normal, and bad social skills? What portion of jerks would be jerks to a single specific tax driver? Even a big jerk probably isn't a jerk to everyone all the time, and even a nice person may be rude or obnoxious occasionally.

Stories like this also remind me of the "Magical Negro" trope where a simple but helpful black person offers sage advise or magic to help the protagonists out of a jam. These "The taxi driver was your real interviewer" stories don't (necessarily) have a racial element, but it's the same, magic wisdom of simple lower class folk idea.

When two people don't get along it's hard to find the objective truth by talking to one of them. Maybe the candidate didn't talk to the taxi driver because he was nervously thinking about the interviewer and that came off to the driver as aloof or arrogant. Maybe the driver didn't like the candidate's race, gender, experience, age, etc. Maybe something was said that was misunderstood by one or both parties. Point is - it's a very weak test.
None, it is a relic of a time long past
this looks a lot like grafana loki no?
I'm an amateur double bassist, and a fluent sight-reader. To be fair, I gravitate towards situations where reading is an asset, since it gives me a leg up on the "competition" including pro's who haven't maintained their reading chops. Plus I benefit from the networking opportunities afforded by those situations.

For me, here are the problems that I see with any new notation system:

1. "Standard" notation (SN) has created a symbiosis between composers and players. If you don't compose in SN, nobody will play your stuff. If you don't read SN, you won't be able to play anybody's stuff, and will probably not even get a chance to develop your reading skills to a performance level. The ultimate stage of learning to read is sight-reading in an ensemble with other players.

2. Learning a new notation gets exponentially harder as you get older. I started learning to read when I was about 10. It's like my spinal column has created a special circuit directly from my eyes to my hands, through my ears. A lot of time when I'm sight-reading, I'm actually thinking about other things.

3. All of the repertoire is in SN, virtually none of it is in computer readable form, and much of it is out of print. I play in a large jazz ensemble. We still maintain our entire music library, entirely on paper. For this reason, SN has much more inertia than one would expect from other "notations" such as programming languages.

For these reasons, the shortcomings of SN and benefits of new notation, are practically irrelevant. Now, "standard" notation is not carved in stone. For instance, jazz bass parts are notated differently than classical clarinet parts. I get a lot of chord symbols and am expected to play an improvised bass line.
I think the comment was more that the interview doesn't stop when you leave the office...
I must admit, I am still surprised to see Rust gaining acceptance when the reasons Linus gave in 2010 for rejecting C++ in the kernel appear to apply to Rust equally well. I can't think of any of the pragmatic points which he raised which doesn't apply to Rust.

For example, the arguments against namespaces and function overloading, high context dependency, easy of understanding and in favour of C's simplicity in general.

My guess (it's just a guess) is that his position has shifted over time to consider a higher-abstraction, higher-complexity language, as development methods and the complexity and professionalising of the kernel have changed since then.
Well here's the asshole response: this explains why they can't make anything cool.
Yes this was our strategy when I interviewed folks at Microsoft and some companies later. Key point being what happens when they hit the unknown.
I can't remember which, but there are countries where traffic fines are scaled to your income, which would be a great way to fine companies.