skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure if you think I'm saying that selfishness causes cancer or volcanoes? That's obviously nonsense. And all political factions are pretty selfish; that's what makes them factions. (Though some are so selfish they remain insignificant because they can't join coalitions and keep splintering after growing to some small maximum size.) So I don't think any of this is relevant to the question.
I'm actually doubtful this would end up being cheaper. Sure, such a building would only pay taxes equivalent to a suburban house, but the construction/maintenance cost of a 2000m building (the tallest building in the world is only 828m) would be insane and would obliterate any tax savings.
I largely agree, although I have known a strange number of people who like talking about tech and programming, but then can't do basic programming tasks. I don't think it's the norm, so perhaps a good conversation is as good a filter as any.
Also don't relate. Got my first job in tech about 6 years ago, last interview was 6 months ago. Found the interviewing process very easy and got an offer I was happy with after 1 week of searching. I'm not applying at big tech where you need to do 20 hours of real time leet coding. Just a regular B2B product where they quizzed me on ruby/rails for 30 minutes and another general vibe interview and that was it.

Reading the responses to this thread, it seems clear most of this is a lack of social skills rather than any change in the industry.
>The rule to never include anything from a header is just the ultimate cleanup.

What? No the two have nothing to do with one another.

The clean up in the Linux kernel involves having more granular includes, that is breaking up very large header files on the order of 10s of thousands of lines of code that often include unrelated or independent declarations, down into smaller header files that are on the order of 100-1000 lines of code and whose declarations are tightly coupled. I don't think many people would argue against breaking down large catch-all header files into smaller independent header files so that a consumer only needs to include what they need instead of having to include everything and the kitchen sink.

>Note in particular that sched.h includes, directly or indirectly, 324 _unique_ header files. Header guards are not going to help you here...

Of course not, and no one is claiming it will. It's also not going to help you if you decide to move all of those 324 unique header files into your .c file which is all this article is suggesting you do. What will help you is to refactor your dependencies so that you don't need to include 324 header files to begin with and instead can reduce your includes down to some minimal set. Once you've broken your dependencies down to a minimal set of headers, it won't matter whether you include that minimal set in a .c file or a .h file, what matters is that you've reorganized your dependencies to avoid having a bunch of declarations that are independent of one another.

Ultimately you're conflating two very different concepts under the vague term "cleanup". Having granular header files is something many people would agree makes compile times faster and also just improves overall software quality, by all means do it. Moving all your includes from .h into .c is just some kind superficial cargo-cult programming and will have no material impact on compile times or quality.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and do-gooders.
>Which state? DMV is my favorite example of government because everything they do is required and everything they do is done terribly. I’ll have to revise if I meet a DMV I like.

Move to New York. I recommend NYC, as the food is fabulous.

Looking forward to having you as a neighbor!
I gotta say, as a programmer "of a certain age", a lot of recent advances have an everything-old-is-new-again feel to me. When I first heard of "threads" in the 90s, the term specifically referred to a mechanism for intra-process concurrency that was "lightweight", i.e. it didn't have the heavy overhead of forking a new OS process. IIRC they weren't even preemptively multitasked. Then preemptive "OS threads" became the new hotness and everything using cooperative threads was old and busted. Now a generation has passed and we have "virtual threads" or things like asyncio to solve the problems created by the thing that solved the problems of the thing before.

A similar thing has happened at the OS level with support for multiple programs. Computers started out running one program at a time. Then "multitasking" was invented, and along with it all kinds of things to make it safer and easier like users and permissions and protected memory, and it was great, many different users could run different programs on the same machine. Then we moved from running statically linked binary executables to dynamic linking and interpreted languages that load libraries at run time. Managing environments for different programs on one machine got hard. VMs and hypervisors let us segment a machine into virtual machines where the environments were easy to control. But VMs were a heavyweight solution for managing environments, so along came containers, which are kind of virtual virtual machines.

So now we're in the position where it's perfectly normal to run a program with several virtual threads running in a "real" thread in a Java virtual machine running inside a Docker container running on a VM instance in a hypervisor on some giant box somewhere. And if we're all living in a simulation, then its' probably turtles all the way down.

I don't mean this entirely as a "get off my lawn" rant. I recently re-implemented an io-heavy threaded program using asyncio and I found it genuinely better. It was easier to reason about what was happening and to get our task dependencies to execute in the right order. The code is simpler and I'm pretty happy about it. But I fully expect asyncio and virtual threads to go out of fashion in ten years, and some new preemptive, OS-managed thing will come along and become the new hotness.

ps - I found this quote in the description of Virtual Threads[1]

> Virtual threads are preemptive, not cooperative — they do not have an explicit await operation at scheduling (task-switching) points. Rather, they are preempted when they block on I/O or synchronization.

Sorry, that's not preemption, that's yielding at specific safe points. I.e. cooperative multitasking. For example, Classic MacOS's cooperative multitask didn't have an explicit yield, it yielded automatically when you polled for a new event.

[1] - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rpressler/loom/loom/sol1_part1.h...
Been this way since there was a tech industry. I felt the same way 23 years ago with no degree. Just keep learning and be more motivated than the competition.
Yep, I totally identify with you. I saved up and bought an nvidia gpu and am about to start learn about video editing to see if I can get into that field.

I’m pretty tired of getting laughed at and the rampant dishonesty.
The original Staff Engineer!
I know this is nitpicky but the logo on your blog should be linked to your home page, not back to the blog.

The purpose of the blog is to promote your company/product.

When I visit your blog, I am now curious about what your product/service is. I expect to be able to click on the logo and find out about your company/product/service.

Linking the logo back to the blog itself is a missed opportunity to increase sales/marketing.

I'm curious about your product, but at first my curiosity is very low - I am willing to spend enough effort to click on the logo, but I am probably not curious enough to then go hunting to find your home page after the link sends me back to the blog.

A potential customer being willing to click one link on your site has significant value - don't squander it.
About W. R. Smith: Master Clock Builder
Dating can be easier, at least for me; with interviews no one can figure out how to make it work...
Except those incoming investments are all matched by an equal amount selling . That’s not something you see in a Ponzi scheme.
You don't see a difference between people losing their homes, and people losing their money because they were greedy and bought some pictures of apes they thought would make them rich?
They don’t have to in the (very real) sense they can quit. In light of that, they might choose to do what their employer directs (no pun intended) or make a principled stand.
So its not exactly legal in its current state right, that’s my point.
* They seemingly can't recover from this GitHub debacle (it's been a month without GitHub Sync).

* They had a massive security breach where core-db was breached. Hashed user passwords and encrypted env vars were leaked. (And a hell of a lot more I bet—but they haven't admitted this)

* They're operating with probably 1/3 the staff they were at peak due to attrition with no backfill and a layoff.

* They've been under a feature freeze for going on 5 years. Check Heroku Changelog to verify this yourself: https://devcenter.heroku.com/changelog

Yes: Heroku failed.

EDIT: just because Heroku has failed in 2022 doesn't mean it wasn't also successful. It's not too different than Flash in that respect.
Belt drives are fine, but I don't think they're really the improvement over chain drive they're touted as.[0] If you really want reliability out of your bike, they're both sensitive to dirt and grime and benefit from a full chain case.[1] Definitely a fan of internal hubs for commuting, but they're usually at least an order of magnitude more expensive than derailler systems.

Both enclosed chain cases and internal hub gears have been around over 100yrs though, almost from the beginning of bicycles.

Surprised it took so long for tubeless tires and disc brakes to become popular on bicycles since they've been used on motorcycles and cars for many decades. Otherwise the "gold standard" fancy bikes still exist and still look closer to a bike from 1900 than most bikes on shelf do.

[0]https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ba-n.html#belt
[1]https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_g.html#gearcase
Maybe you could think of it like a PE on a growth stock - people expect the house to go up due to inflation of cost of goods as well as all the money that was printed - they are willing to take a punt on the house value in the future, similar to many stocks.

There's also sunk cost in the effort of finding a house you want and reluctance to keep looking.
Stunningly, there are some people still trying to swing trade Luna. To a dyed-in-the-wool crypto investor the price is just a number that could go up or down. And people get dollar signs in their eyes thinking "If it's $0.00001 now, it only needs to go up to $0.001 for me to make 100X"!

Of course, they usually miss that there is no liquidity left in Luna to realize that 100x on an investment larger than pocket change, even if the market swings in their favor for a moment.

We won't see the bottom of crypto in general until more of the speculators with that mindset have been separated from their dollars.
as someone who is responsible for hiring in this space: i miss the autodidacts.

I see too much buzzword-hype-cycle candidates, and not enough people who have really built something, including real world stuff like badly performing apis, broken edge cases, etc.
Yeah, as I said above, it's not mostly about the performance¹ but about the bugginess, which is to say, the comprehensibility. There are arguments both ways about whether C or Lisp is more bug-prone (less comprehensible) but I think the results are in. And there are new languages like TypeScript which combine and exceed the advantages of both.

______

¹ Though GCC still routinely generates much better code than SBCL, much less the new Elisp compiler, that's not the primary consideration. I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.
Yeah I had the same thought. I get the feeling there are more than a few places out there posting jobs just to gather massive amounts of resumes with no intent to contact anyone.
You're a little quiet about the cartel profiteering, and the wars and global destabilization that follows the energy industry around like a faithful dog. And substituting cement for military was pretty blatant but I have to give you points for effort.
This would have been at a period before any real sophisticated attackers exist, and before life had built up any specific requirements of an "internal" environment too.

It seems intuitive that this would be how it started, goopy little bubbles filled with goo, just barely keeping out the other goo that would disrupt it.
I recently went to a virtual meetup for help on a project and the organizer got mad at me for using a tutorial to scaffold my project and called me out on the call.

I was so frustrated by the ridiculousness that I just immediately signed off and left the meetup group and discord.
The only way a true collapse to zero could happen for any other cryptocurrency is via a similar mechanism (either an unprotected mechanism to mint unlimited amounts of the currency in a rapid manner, which some mid-tier cryptocurrencies do have, or a bug/vulnerability that allows attackers to duplicate/double spend reliably).

Luna didn't collapse 99.999% in a matter of days because of a loss of faith in 99.999% of ITS value by speculators, but because of a ~50% loss of faith that triggered exponential inflation (printing of Luna tokens) based on the simple algorithm governing the ex-stablecoin. The fact that the supply of Luna started multiplying exponentially every minute that the stablecoin remained underpriced flooded the market with insane amounts of Luna. By virtue of the total amount of new Luna minted, its market cap is still around 300M (a "mere" 98.5% loss).

Bitcoin could go to near zero, but it would take DECADES and be a very drawn out process without SHA-256 breaking or every relevant country jointly criminalizing its existence. You could look at the values of any of the other deflationary early cryptos that clearly are now not going to play a pivotal role in the crypto landscape (e.g. LTC, BCH) and yet have essentially maintained their values and slightly grown with the market, slowly ceding market share to more relevant coins. In reality, coins like LTC and BCH should have lost 99% of their 2017 value, but because they are not inflationary like Luna, it hasn't happened and won't anytime soon.

Contrast this with a company that can clearly, unambiguously go bankrupt. These go to zero all the time when their value is essentially nothing by virtue of no longer doing business, they are legally disbanded, and removed from exchanges.
Two judges gave Texas control over Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
You got the wrong impression here I guess but, its a Google Analytics alternative not for OLAP workloads, those both are a lot different.
Interviewing is absolutely terrifying. I've been a software engineer for over 40 years and I still get the shakes. And freeze. It sucks hard.

Don't worry about the degree. After ten years (even after five) it doesn't matter. If it does matter to the company in question, you probably don't want to work there anyway. Seriously.

Lean heavily on your contacts. After ten years you almost certainly know good people at other companies, and you may be surprised how well they regard you. Most of my jobs have been through such connections, and they have been the ones I've enjoyed the most. Reach out.

During interviews, I find it helpful to communicate a little of my emotional state as well. "Let's see, I'm pretty nervous, just so you know, and I'll probably make a few mistakes here until I get it right. Now, the obvious thing is N-squared and clearly terrible, but let's do it anyway and see if we can get some insight and improve it..." And once you decide to have fun with a problem and can stop pretending that you're a giant, perfect brain, I've found things go a lot better. If your interviewer is an emotionless robot, you probably don't want to work with that person.

My own lack of a degree has never been a problem. You're fine, man. As long as you keep up some kind of continuing self-education (doesn't need to be fancy, just read interesting conference proceedings, maybe learn a new language every few years) you're going to do great.
> The Russian air force’s failure is perhaps the most important, but least discussed, story of the military conflict so far.

This article would have sounded reasonable up to about a month ago, but the US has become more open about the intel support they are giving Ukraine.[1] Most of the surprising things mentioned in the article seem to be attributable to that assistance. Now that it's become common knowledge, it's weird the authors make no mention of it.

[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-...
This is mostly a central banking failure. Take a look around the world, for decades the only thing the central banks have been doing is printing money. If that is ever going to work, put swines in their seat would do their jobs perfectly.

To me printing money should only be used as emergency measure just like administering of adrenaline in emergency room and must be reviewed afterwards. Unfortunately such instrument has been abused for a prolonged period as central banks saw no inflations. Of course there was no inflations in central banks' eyes. The first thing was that the definition of CPI was biased and not considering assets.
Secondly in a global economy, inflation can happen elsewhere. So in the past decades, China actually absorbed lot of the actual inflations. And lastly and most importantly, the printed money went into the wrong hands. The extra printed money goes to the banks first, then goes to the rich in the form of loans. There is so much money in the market and it would be nice and easy to make money by bumping the assets prices up. So why would anyone put money into anywhere but virtual economies? That's pretty much what happened in recently decades, properties, shares etc. skyrockets but what really make their value changed so much? Nothing but too much money. For the poor, obviously they can hardly get any loans, so they only get their normal pay which would be diluted over time.

Crisis happens mostly because the poor doesn't have enough money to spend. Printing money obviously cannot resolve the problem, but it do be able to maintain the momentum a little bit longer by making it worse. The burst got delayed but eventually will come back harder, sooner or later.
Can you imagine if you had her problem and found her post, and then realized she'd omitted that detail?

(Yes she tells you how to figure it out yourself)
As someone who spent many years in academic computer science, I have zero confidence in the peer review system. Zero.

Hoskinson talking up peer review for Cardano makes him look, to me personally, like more of a fraud.

My micro-specialty was worse than some others, though. The quality of peer review is not a constant across all of computer science.
It would be nice if the compiler could tell you:

ERROR: DUP + is not SQUARE. Did you mean DOUBLE?
I like that idea, it's like a perverse deviation from the mean.
“Lying” is a bit emotive, suggests you might be a bit too invested here to get the argument the GP was making.

Look, Tesla got early success in EVs by being considerably better where everyone else was weak (drivetrain, battery, software, charging network). That doesn’t mean it’s not weak where they are strong (QC, basic manfacturing competencies like panel gaps, dealer network, interaction switchgear refined over generations).

Yes, Tesla have also been innovative in attempting to turn those “bugs” into features - better online ordering, rapid response to QC fails, replacing complex switchgear with an tablet and a modally overloaded pair of dials).

Regardless, what matters is there are people who feel about Mercedes the way you clearly feel about Tesla. Emotion has always mattered with cars; you don’t win those people over with talk of cubic feet.

GP is betting there’s a huge market for “car like I always knew it from a manufacturer I love except with a battery” and I’ll bet they’re right.
It's an intrinsically flawed concept even without the 20% interest rate.

The algorithmic balancing between UST/LUNA doesn't help at all with maintaining a LUNA/USD market. UST is pegged to USD indirectly through LUNA, and LUNA itself isn't pegged to anything. Nor is there a big market maker willing to buy/sell LUNA at any price.

A stablecoin that isn't pegged to USD by a 1:1 cash backing by the issuer just can't work. Putting an extra cryptocurrency and an algorithm in between the stablecoin and USD makes the system seem more legitimate to users but doesn't solve the fundamental issue with an unbacked stablecoin.
> IMEI is the same, but two digits transposed. Enough that it won't show up on a search. Enough that he has plausible deniability. Failed the IMEI validity check

What's the point here? Who requires an IMEI but doesn't care if it is valid?

How do you launder money through Turo? You can't pay Turo with an envelope full of cash.
> Do we really want to continue having "a web"?

Speaking only for myself, I'm not at all invested in having a website. Yes, I want a publicly accessible site of my own on the internet with which to share documents, and I currently do so over HTTP, but I would equally happy to share them over Gopher or even anonymous FTP.

However, I'd rather pay NearlyFreeSpeech.net for hosting than run my own VPS or self-host on a machine in my basement because I'm lazy, so I'm stuck with HTTP because they explicitly don't support anonymous FTP (and by implication don't support Gopher or Gemini).
Damn, we might have to deal with opinions we don't like. Whatever will we do?
I don't think he did. Section 8.3 deals with the termination fee and it doesn't list 8.1(b)(i) as a reason it gets paid. 8.1(b)(i) is the government blocking.
My experience is that this practice brings things back into spec while still cold.
> a recent grad could easily ramp up to out compete them with about 1 year worth of training and investment.

What about if you gave the veteran programmer 1 year worth of training and investment?
I would argue its not even gambling, they're just slightly more complicated ponzi/ pyramid schemes.
Sounds like you were lucky and ran into the right HR person.
Ask HN: DJI possibly providing location of Ukranian drones
Apparently from this CNN report there is a suggestion (@1:57) that DJI is feeding Russians the location of Ukranian drones used to call in artillery.

Is there any scheme (alternate firmware, open source app, firewall settings) that can prevent DJI from receiving this location data?

https://youtu.be/b166ecyNBCw?t=117
> This was for a customer service position.

Nice
* Not everyone is for web development, even though I'm very fascinated with back-end development and solving sophisticated problems that are considered unsolvable. I have a Computer Science degree (a 2-year diploma, which basically is nothing comparing it to a bachelor's or a master's) and still cannot please them.
* My important projects were in-house for certain clients under NDA, which ties my hands and cannot demonstrate any of them.
* I had LinkedIn account and closed it after getting spammed countless of times. I have informed the company at that time and instead of fixing my problem, they would start sending me their own ads for Linkedin Learning courses instead LOL!
> My point was that engineers get promoted to engineering manager without any kind of "manager test", so there's no assurance of competence at all.

Of course they do - their entire experience with the company prior is the "manager test".

A company that just promotes anyone to EM that just puts their hand up, despite demonstrating their not suitable, has other problems.
I'm pretty sure this wasn't an accident