skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As someone who lived in a bunch of countries with and without English or my native language (Dutch); I would say; just try it. There are many places where you won’t mesh with the locals generally; I was in hk and Shanghai for years and social life was great but, even though there were some native colleagues who wanted to hang out, most social life and including some new friends were expats. I had the same experience in some countries here in the eu where I lived. The language barrier isn’t really the problem in my experience; often times it is the incredibly culture shock that you (or maybe them) won’t get over anyway and if you accept that, it will be fine. Like someone else said; you can always move back; people take things so ‘final’ for some reason. See where time takes you and your new young family over the coming 5-15 years. Maybe after that time your wife is ready to move again with your kid(s). Life is short but by the sound of it, you have 70-80 years left; start with the coming 5 and go from there.
Wow.

Kinda want to plagiarize this response to bring it full circle
eBay handles their own payments for a while now. PayPal is still an option, but sellers are required to register a bank account with eBay.
I can't agree, sorry.
This is a preposterous comparison of apples to oranges.
> When I was younger I used to very anti-cheating, but I realized with time that was a foolish principle to hold on to. The game is rigged and there is no shame it taking short cuts. The university is trying to exploit you the student so why would you not return the favor and seek to exploit the system whenever you can?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes the university system has its issues, especially through the COVID pandemic. But that does not justify this behavior.

> Ignore the cheaters and spend those extra hours chatting one-on-one with the students that actually give a shit

Actions have consequences. You can't just ignore them.
So I think the teacher missed the main point of his own essay:

"The argument was that chat groups have become indispensable tools for students taking courses online during the pandemic. The essay detailed all of the useful info passed around in chats. I totally agreed with this point....Their strategy was to leave the chat before every quiz and midterm so that they couldn’t be there for the cheating. Then they rejoined afterward."

So, in order to be competitive in a class where (whether explicitly curved or not) the difficulty will be adjusted up or down until the "right" portion of students are passing, even a student who wanted to not cheat needed to be in the chat. He made a course in which it required extraordinary efforts to find a way to be able to both pass and not cheat, and then acted surprised that so many students cheated.

Any teacher who can fire up R to process the chat group logs, could have figured out a better system for quizzes and tests, so that it wasn't this hard to be competitive without cheating. Also, if he hasn't ever taken a course on game theory, he should; if he has, he shouldn't have passed.
my highschool teacher explained this a long time ago. its interesting things resourface easy.
if you are going to dispense with all morals and ethics, dont even bother with college or a job. Just do crypto livestreams impersonating musk and saylor. ppl making so much $ with those.
This reminds me of the time that I had to drop a class because my ADA code returned a generic "program error" upon compilation and even though none of the professors in the department could figure out why, and even though the algorithm looked perfect to them, the professor for my class refused to hear any of it.
> One of the major challenges will be teaching industry programmers how to write proofs and convincing them that they want to do this.

"Industry programmers" are pretty far from being a monolith. There are a myriad of different approaches to testing, many of which are domain specific, for all kinds of reasons.

Usually the way that a new testing tool gets adapted is that individual programmers or companies that adapt the tool appear to have a competitive advantage over those that don't. The results generally speak for themselves, at least after a time.

Practically everybody that might use formal verification has already chosen to not go to certain lengths to increase reliability. They're already making an economic trade-off -- even with safety critical systems, or in domains where the cost of bugs is extraordinarily high. Why shouldn't formal verification be assessed in the same way?
The amount of programming jobs (out of all possible programming positions available) that require proper statistics or chemistry for that matter are so low that it doesn't make sense to learn those subjects (in the context of computer science) preemptively. Even if people who take and succeed in subjects like Chemistry who do end up in a job that may use it down the line probably won't remember what they learned anyway.
I feel like people who say that "it's so much money, so try and get something out of it" are people who have never had the experience of being a "bad student" and have an immense passion for learning. I really can't say the same.

I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.

I pay a fuckton of money of classes that I'm forced to take on subjects that I learned in the freshman year of my highschool that I really do not care about (and aren't related to my major) and yet I'm supposed to feel incredibly enthralled showing up to class everyday and doing the assignments? No, I'm just going to cheat to save time and effort. I don't care about the subject at all, I just care about the GPA that I get at the end of the semester.

And employers check your GPA now. I often hear (usually from older people who have been in the industry before computerized background checks) that you can just lie on your resume and bullshit your way in, but that doesn't fly anymore as an entry level. They just type in your credentials into a database and have your info, and universities are part of that database. It's true that after your first job no one looks at your GPA, but how are you going to get that first job if your GPA isn't actually good to begin with?
The "burner" container is 100% what I want. There are only a handful of sites for which I want to be able to maintain history.
That's a serious dream come true. Guy is a musical genius. His music(bandmates included) got me through some hard times. At one point I had every cd he ever made and it was almost everything I listened to.
This has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with integrity. You justifying these actions is part of the problem. This is the attitude that these businesses you are accusing take themselves. "Others are doing it so why shouldn't I?" It is a direct lead to societal decay.
As a non-cheater I thought this was hilarious. It could be on tv. I thought the prof handled it very well.
Recently I was invited to a discord for a calculus class. I didn't join. I wonder if cheating was going on.
The new aluminum? Once extremely valuable, now massively commoditized.
The teacher in this case gave them plenty of opportunities for learning engagement and redemption.
>this completely resets all memory

Enabling the user to do what?
It's pretty hard to make a training set which is truly representative of the data.

For instance if you are collecting images of what could be a cancerous organ there is going to be a different prior distribution of cancers if you (1) sampled the population at random, (2) sampled people who had symptoms, (3) sampled people that following one set of guidelines for mass screenings, (4) sampled people that following a different set of guidelines.

It's quite problematic if people train a model based on one of the above and really use it on a different one.

Since cancers are rare compared to non-cancers you might want to enrich the data with more cancers to get a really good representation of cancers, but then that throws the prior distribution out of whack. It would be great to have a way to tune the prior distribution separate from the conditional probabilities as in Bayesian modeling but most ML approaches don't really do that.
My intro courses had me building an HC11 out of logic gates. The next semester we wrote code to run on it.
The price of tuition, the necessity of loans, large student/teacher ratios …

Increase the price, decrease the cost, and also the balance of power is against the student.

That looks rigged to me.
I don't rely on pre-installed sans-serif fonts, because many of them suffer from a fundamental defect: no crossbars on the capital I.

All fonts should clearly distinguish between a capital I and lower-case L.
$44M * 12 * 4 = $2112M (revenue).

The supposed cost to launch these was only $200M according to GP.

So I'm wondering - why do they need to make 4x as much money ($8B) to make a profit in a $200M investment?

Obviously R&D. But is it that much?!
You show me a "great" man who died with endowments and charities named after him, and I'll show you a man who spent his life cheating the system.
You can definitely ignore them if you think that ignoring them and putting work elsewhere is a net benefit to everyone. Not every action merits a response.
I agree. I hated bad professors all throughout my college career. They were the bane of my existence. Especially for the same courses you list and even more for the ones my degree focused on.

These bad professors would take forever to grade, if not that then they would do what you describe and give us irrelevant information and odd spiels about whatever thing was bugging them in the politics world, or maybe even something their dog or cat did the week before that totally delayed them getting us our grades or assignments. I remember in my statistics course the guy spilled coffee all over our written mid terms! How careless.

I, not much unlike yourself would try and find any easy way to get ahead of the curve. Now, a common theme among these bad professors is definitely giving irrelevant information, being lazy, or even completely disorganized to no hope. With all these mistakes, they end up making huge mistakes in their own syllabus. You have no idea how many terrible things these people would do in their own work!

A neat little thing I found that nearly all bad professors do is list the exact material they would cover throughout the course, maybe not always week by week but an overview of the material we would touch on. How silly of them.

That's not even the kicker, these bad professors would even list the exact place where they took things from. Hilarious indeed. It was usually under some strange section called 'Required Course Materials' or 'Recommended for Review'. These suckers couldn't be any worse at their job, practically giving us the answers.

When I figured this out, I started going all in with the cheating. After getting the syllabus I would get this thing and read it from the beginning to the end, trying to cover as much material going topic by topic to be covered in the schedule. I could finish the course in practically 2 weeks, didn't even have to wait for these lectures that were pretty much a waste of time after going through it. By the 3rd bi-weekly lecture, I would have learned the entire course. Those fools never knew what hit them either, I would ace their assignments and finish exams before anyone else. I would even stop showing up to class with how adept I was at cheating. No one even suspected that I was cheating.

I would try and get others to follow my path. They would always ask how I did it, how did I, who really wasn't all that special, or smart, get so many A's. Even in spite of the quality of instruction.

The answer was always the same - read the textbook!
Really enjoyed reading this. Well written.
If you look at the 2014 ARC paper, you will discover that 60% of the mass of the reactor is the stainless steel structure for resisting the JxB forces on the magnets.
And employers check your GPA now. I often hear (usually from older people who have been in the industry before computerized background checks) that you can just lie on your resume and bullshit your way in, but that doesn't fly anymore as an entry level. They just type in your credentials into a database and have your info, and universities are part of that database. It's true that after your first job no one looks at your GPA, but how are you going to get that first job if your GPA isn't actually good to begin with?

Yup...this is not the 80s or the 90s. Employers got burned enough times, and now check that shit closely..lot's of screening.

I'm currently in undergrad for electrical engineering, and I do not give a single fuck about the classes I'm in. I have no passion for electrical engineering - I don't wake up excited to make schematics or lay out a PCB. I do it because it's a good job and I want money, and I know that I need to get a good GPA to get a good job. I don't really care about how I got that GPA or if I learned anything from college, I just want money.

Agree..ppl just want that certificate which acts as a ticket to the middle class lifestyle. they don't care about knowledge for its own sake. Those who care more go on to get a masters or doctorate.
Agreed, I would add a synthetic only feature that they can patent and trademark. I would make it a super luxury item. Once their diamond becomes a brand name then they own the synthetic diamond business. They have the money and the prestige to do it. They are making a mistake making synthetics less expensive.

But they are the experts, they've dominated the industry for over 100 yrs. They know what they are doing. I think long term they will dominate the synthetic diamond business too. My suspicion is that they will underprice the competition and slowly acquire them while making the market harder for competition to enter the business by making it harder for them to sell their product to distributors thru exclusive contracts. Debeers is a monopoly. They don't have to act fair since they are based outside the U.S. so they can get away with tactics that would be illegal for U.S. companies.
I found several phishing crypto exchange sites that sent wallet recovery codes to a Telegram channel, currently having some fun spamming it :). Wonder if I should create a script that generates plausibly real wallet codes because it seems these scammers are getting these responses in a chat and are checking them by hand!
I would pay money to have a "open rules" olympics kind of event. Drugs? Cybernetics? Let's do it.
Fantasy of becoming a hacker made me google things up. Probably, my father also motivated me a lot, who himself is an engineer.

There were a lot of things that made me curious, and alas, I learned things myselves. I would give not all but a significant credit to academia as well.
I had a situation recently where I saved a bunch of time on resolution during install of Python packages by breaking it up into smaller groups of packages to install in separate steps. We have some packages in a private devpi server and some dependencies that can come from any pypi mirror. By forcing the private packages to be in their own install step it drastically cut down the time to resolve and start downloading packages. Does anyone know of comparisons of resolution metrics? I spent several hours of my week waiting on Python packages installation and would love to improve the situation.

On a related note: our NPM install times are even worse: any tips to help there would be welcome.
That's what is wrong! It's like starting an English degree as an illiterate person and expecting the intro courses to make you literate; worse, the programs are designed with this expectation in mind.
> I think curves are in general unethical due to cheating, and feel they’re a sign that a professor hasn’t done the hard work to really zero in on exactly what knowledge the student is expected to master.

I disagree; there's no objective criteria for what students should be "expected to master" in a particular course. it's inherently relative to what the typical student at that institution is capable of. a class where everyone gets an A is probably a waste of time for everyone involved. it strongly implies that more material could have been covered.

if a whole institution is like this, it gets back to the original problem. when everyone else is graduating with a 4.0, a 3.8 looks a lot like a 2.0 from a more rigorous school.

ideally, the material itself would be designed to get a good distribution of As, Bs, and Cs with a few Ds and Fs for people who didn't try or understand at all. but it's pretty hard to get this exactly right. better to err on the side of making things a little too hard. then the occasional bright student will really shine, and you have enough signal to compress the range into the expected letters at the end.
It gets ignored because it combines the bad features of fission with the bad features of fusion.
Maybe they aren't paying for those courses. They're almost always spending someone else's money (loans feel like free money to kids). So they do not value it.

I bet if someone compared cheaters to students who were working and their wages went into tuition, there'd not be a strong correlation.

Nobody ever asked my GPA after I graduated. My diploma is somewhere in the basement, I've never displayed it and nobody ever asked about it. I attended graduation only to please my parents, who came out for the occasion. I didn't want to buy the class ring, so my dad gave it to me as a gift.

I didn't care about the diploma. I only cared about the education. If I only wanted a diploma, I'd have gone to a much easier university.
Right? it’s like no matter your race or ethnicity - black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Latin American, middle eastern, Indian - the white left expects you to vote and be culturally aligned with the Laptop Class.
People have been waking up to this. Especially immigrants. The irony is that if this continues in 10 years the Democratic Party will end up consisting entirely of white westerners and woke corporations.
I'm curious what you call it when, say a car company programs their vehicles to notice when they are on an emission test stand and will operate differently to get the best test result possible. Because regulators call it cheating and society as a whole suffers from it.
People who cheat in university deserve consequences.
NSA Memorial – 178 cryptologists who have made the ultimate sacrifice
MagicPrefs: End of Line (2017)
> Yet it seems to be a popularity contest people care about for some reason

Before you incorporate someone's Github library into your own project, you want to know some things. Is it secure? Is it well-maintained? Is there an active userbase to help with support? Stars are one indicator of this.
None of them are trustworthy, but so far I've made a habit of buying different brands and they've all worked and worked fine. They're all ruggedly built, all nicely jacketed cables, and all seem to do 5A just fine.
Who is going to organize said organization and deal with all the BS (petty and not) to make a livable wage, if they can do simpler and get the same, or do the same and get paid more?

A few will, but most won’t. The amount of risk to develop and the type of skills required are non trivial.
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service Cryptologic Memorial honors and remembers those who gave their lives, "serving in silence," in the line of duty. It serves as an important reminder of the crucial role that cryptology plays in keeping the United States secure and of the courage of these individuals to carry out their mission at such a dear price.

The wall dedicated in 1996 lists 178 names of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and civilian cryptologists who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The black granite memorial stands eight feet tall by 12 feet wide with the words "They Served In Silence" etched into the polished stone at the cap of a triangle. The NSA seal is carved below followed by the names of those cryptologists who have given their lives in service to their country. The names are at the base of the triangle because these cryptologists and their ideals - dedication to mission dedication to workmate and dedication to country - form the foundation for cryptologic service. The structure was designed by an NSA employee and the memorial is housed in the NSA headquarters complex.

On Memorial Day 2001, NSA began a tradition of declassifying and sharing the stories behind the names on the wall. Listed below are the names and date of loss of the cryptologists who paid the ultimate price in service to our country."
It's clear to me from the writing that empathy was abundant.

Even if you find it demoralizing, the cheating behavior was to basically half-ass the entire course and not try at all. We already have an intellectually lay and pervasive culture of "just tell me the answer."
The honest students actually value being told if they understood correctly. I guess the most inveterate cheaters wouldn't care, but most students are at least somewhat hopeful they've actually learned, and the summative assessment process is feedback for those students.

It so happens that looking after the mechanics of (computer based) university examination is part of my current role. We do have some mechanisms in place that are intended to make it harder to cheat, but ultimately some students will cheat and one of the interesting things is watching the reaction of a young colleague who went from those exams (a year ago) to his current job, at this same university.

For example there are signs outside every exam room prominently warning students that the university owns video cameras and they are being watched while doing exams. It's true, but of course the main reason we're watching isn't to catch cheaters but to anticipate problems the room's invigilators are about to call us about. Are we watching to see if that girl is wearing a short skirt because she's written notes on her own thighs? Are we watching to see if the Fitbit on that guy's wrist has been modified to display relayed multiple choice answers? No, we're watching because the room has 85 green "OK for this exam: BIOL1024 Genetics" screens and one orange "Pre-check failed. DO NOT USE" screen and in a minute the retired administrator herding students into the room is going to remember that we said Orange = Bad during training and call us about it, by the time they do we want to know why it has an orange screen, whether that room is actually booked for 86 students so that they can't just leave the machine unused, and where else on campus we can put one extra student if we need to move them pronto. We aren't trying to actually fix it, because that's likely to take hours, and we have minutes or sometimes seconds.

One of the most valuable uses of those cameras doesn't actually involve seeing anybody, cheater or not, student or not, at the end of the day if there's one PC which stubbornly claims to still be doing an exam, is it really? If the room is empty, maybe even dark, then the answer is that despite instructions to students and invigilators they left a machine logged in, running an exam, and just walked out of the room. On the other hand, if there's still people stood in the room looking at the PC, well, radios work both ways, lets find out why the hell they aren't finished.