skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These are college students (ie, legal adults), not children. This professor went way too easy on them, he should have failed them, especially the person who plagiarized the “repentance essay”. If I’d had taken the course I’d not be happy knowing I’d done everything the right way and those who cheated still ended up with an A+ (he mentioned this happened). If anything it would make me lose trust in my education.
I see cheating more as a symptom for the inability to plan. People get a week, and start 5 hours before delivery time. At that point, only cheating or cramming is goung to save you. He might have shifted the balance, but the underlying problem is still there.

So there is a failure in at least the rich, western world:. We can't teach enough children to plan for a week or more. Anyone an idea how to deal with this?
I dislike Python too. But I use it because I have to - a lot of the stuff at work is in Python.
Use a question generator- unique questions for everyone, every time.
Ask HN: What are possible images you can think of?
I've been working on things and I started thinking. What are some of the craziest possible things that could exist in the state space of all possible 512x512 bitmaps with 256 colors? I already have some ideas, but I'm curious what other people could imagine or what they would be looking for. Aside from terrible things that could exist -- I wonder could there possibly be a correct proof about P=/!=NP?
> Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.

Finland topped Pisa rankings many years, because we 1) listen teachers and have good academic pedagogical research, and 2) teachers are highly educated and reasonably well paid, meaning that the job is attractive to competent people.

Then politicians started to think big and read all the hype papers from think tanks about digitization and how the young are digital natives. Let's give them computers and they learn by themselves and ... we started slipping. Still OK, but slipping. It turns out that computers are not magic. Having all the information accessible is not a pedagogical solution.

ps. Chinese studied Finnish school system and imported some of the best policies in Shanghai and it worked. Some lessons work across widely different cultures.
Fealty and forelock tugging to the class above you and passive aggressively restricting the freedoms of the class below you is as much a part of British culture as the single digit amendments to the constitution.

Changing it would be like changing the language to French.
I am not familiar with SplinterDB, but I do have a lot of familiarity with RocksDB. These types of k/v storage layers are designed to handle hundreds of thousands of not millions of operations per sec. Especially the way they handle writes (typically with an LSM) is very different from SQLite, and it shows in terms of throughput of e.g. random writes.

I'd say that these low-level storage engines have more in common with filesystems than SQLite, they're just not in the same ballpark at all.
The scary thing is if the mass surveillance is dumping encrypted missives to disk, waiting for future quantum decryption to unlock it all.
QM may be a linear system but QFT is not.
I would guess Annie Lööf.
https://twitter.com/lindbergpolemik/status/14094562255955763...
For Germany, the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics was a turning point. A few days later, the federal anti-terror squadron GSG 9 was formed. Since 1974 the German states established their own special commands (SEK).

The most famous operation of GSG 9 was the storming of the hijacked Lufthansa aircraft "Landshut" at Mogadishu airport (Somalia) in 1977, freeing all 86 passengers. (The crew's captain had been executed by the terrorists before.)[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181
Carbon-Removal Tech Grabs Elon Musk’s Check
This thing is just the absolute worst fucking mess. A stupid idea, which won’t work, proposed by stupid people, to achieve a stupid goal. “Britain” should focus on basically anything except this waste of time.
The Parliament, and specifically the elected Commons, get to make the rules. If Blair didn't have a majority for even that decision to avoid debate he couldn't have done it †

This is why Theresa May couldn't get anything done, she didn't really have a majority for any actual policy. She needed the DUP (barely "allies" in any useful sense, even when substantially bribed to stay on side) and so even small rebellions in her own ranks meant she was constantly in danger of No Confidence.

It's uncomfortable to know that the majority of the people you sent, some of whom may have assured you personally that they agree with you, actually couldn't give a shit and are focused primarily on their own careers. But there it is.

† The Government controls the Crown powers, but Parliament's confidence in the Government is needed, any majority against the Government can get rid of it, with a single motion, "That This House Has No Confidence In Her Majesty's Government". This was not a realistic threat against Blair, or, sadly Boris, because for all the pantomimed outrage they're actually annoyingly popular - but it is why May couldn't get anything done.
I don't have an answer to this but more like a thing to take into consideration:

I think when deciding to create this kind of architecture we should put in balance:

On one side:

- What do we gain from this: probably marketing/sales/UX and how much value this kind of architecture will create

On another side:

- The cost to implement this

+

- The cost to manage the complexity created by implementing this architecture

+

- The reduction of development speed due to coupling
But it is not available in the night and energy storage is still unsolved mystery.

It is like planning a project and ignoring half of issues which will make or break your project.
> The threshold is mathematicians opting to use these tools themselves for their work. There are not many mathematicians using them so far.

The kinds of theorems that we need to prove in software are much more elementary than what mathematicians are proving. I think software engineering can benefit from it long before mathematicians start doing cutting-edge math in it.
I think the primary goal of a teacher is for their students to learn. The teacher understood this and look for way to discourage the cheating as a second priority and went on the “engaging material” creation first.
Removing the behavior by removing the incentive.

As my HS profesor used to say.. “Locks were created to prevent honest people from stealing, thieves will just break whatever lock they find.”

The goal is not to discourage cheating by punishment but rather to understand the incentives and address them.
> So what’s the solution then? Well, maybe we should start by rolling back this common conception that when it comes to schools, everyone’s opinion matters an equal amount, and then listen to the teachers and academics.

Well, yes, but at some point we look at the system, see human beings spend over a decade of very precious years doing just that, and not really getting over a decade's worth of benefits.

If we just want to incrementally improve things then definitely we should let specialists have the most weight. But listening to educators will absolutely never lead to major reforms or (god forbid!) reducing the years spent in the system.
Also there is a transformation on js before handing diffs to Morphdom. There was no "replace the whole thing" without having to perform recursive diffs back then, not sure if it has now.
The style you propose probably has a high correlation with intelligence and adaptability without requiring too much upfront knowledge / experience. It's open enough to allow for mistakes or answers which show intelligence without requiring perfection. Comparatively, LC-style interviews and "do you know the compiler of this language"-style questions are looking more for knowledge than figuring things out on the spot.

Knowledge generally isn't a great indicator of future job performance, intelligence is. There might be some correlation between the two (you probably need a level of intelligence to acquire the knowledge for LC-style questions), but most jobs are layering proxy upon proxy to test something that has little to do with job performance. Being able to fuddle syntax or search basic solutions and mutate, is leagues different from what LC in an isolated environment is.

Then you add onto that the alternatives tend to be even worse. Personality testing works when done right, but the vast majority of interviewers play pretend-psychiatrist and make the entire thing way too subjective to be effective beyond filtering obvious red flags. Take-homes work, but most companies won't compensate for time and there's no framework to show which take-homes individuals have succeeded (kind of like a certification process), making them an incredible time sink.

And then there are always the cases who have little experience yet manage to pick everything up in 2-3 months and become anywhere from average to top performers.
Only one ? All politicians i know are patologic liars and they will twist as the wind changes direction.
That's not possible because of regulation. For occupations that don't relate to other people's life or death situations, or security in general, it's reasonable to assume if someone has a skill, they should be able to use it professionally regardless of how they achieved it.
> She controls the majority of British wealth

No, she doesn’t.
>And your first job determines your second one

what. the. hell.

I hate that mindset with passion.

Folks, just skew the odds.
> I asked them to create a library (...) I showed them a two-line solution with a single function (...) and nobody liked it. I was ridiculed right there, for not solving the problem "properly".

And did you solved the problem "properly"?

Odds are you did not.

I mean, it's terribly easy to come up with all sorts of two-liners if you just ignore all requirements and constraints, and don't pay attention to usecases.

This is a major problem plaguing software development. Plenty of people act like they have to carry the burden of being the only competent and smart individual in a sea of fools, and proceed to criticize everything that everyone around them does, for the sin of not doing something that exactly matches your personal opinions and tastes.
One of the teachers at my University realized that people were cheating just by looking at the graph of marks. Because the marks did not follow a gaussian distribution, it was pretty clear that cheating was implied. No need to spy on Whatsapp and run scripts for months.

They were pretty severe at the institution level about cheating. All Batchelor and Masters thesis are run through multiple fraud detecting software.

People were forced to do a mandatory Academic Integrity course for one semester and they had to sign legal papers in which they assumed the obligation to respect certain rules.
>If as you say those trivial functions were buggy and nobody saw the red flags while copying so many times by so many engineers, then you have an organizational problem.

If all potential problems with code could be noticed on spot, we wouldn't have the concept of "bugs". Yes, I mentioned minimalism in my post, but I was specifically referring to the idea of copying "trivial" code as opposed to using a dependency.
In my experience I prefer grouping by domain over grouping by abstraction

An ISaveable interface would need to be generic but "save" functions might take different numbers of arguments, and of different types.

I've found the advantage of interfaces to be dependency injection, where i can inject a different implementation of an interface without breakijg anything (eg save to s3, to google cloud storage, to filesystem, to memory), or a test version of the function/class.

Abstractions like ISaveable on the service interface just make the code more fragile in my experience in an attempt to save some extra but simple lines of code. Granted it may make sense on active record model classes though.
and if that is the people's will, then it must be done. isn't that what democracies are supposed to do?
I disagree with much of these stacks. I would scrap at least Avenir Next, Avenir, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Ubuntu, Roboto, Noto, Arial, Apple Garamond, Times New Roman, Droid Serif, Times, Source Serif Pro, Apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol, Monaco, Liberation Mono and Lucida Console, and probably a couple more, for one of three reasons: that the family is superfluous, for an obsolete platform, or inferior.

—⁂—

But as a consumer of the web, I personally don’t actually need to worry about these things any more, because I have my browser set to use my chosen sans-serif, serif and monospace faces (Equity, Concourse, Triplicate), and you can too! ① Use Firefox. Other browsers may have something similar; dunno; but Firefox is good anyway. ② Settings (about:preferences) → Fonts → Advanced → untick “Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above”.

I started doing this a few months back as a week-long experiment, and found it so significantly improved the web that I’m not going back. (It did feel a little strange for a few days, as Concourse is a somewhat narrower sans-serif than the likes of Arial, but that’s about the specific fonts that I chose. Now it’s just perfectly natural.)

I have experienced a very few icon-font related breakages, about which I wrote yesterday at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31540234, but it’s surprisingly few given how popular the technique was for a few years. I also get a fair bit of bonus unintended serif from people that have neglected to add a generic font family fallback, or misspelled it (e.g. sans or "sans-serif" (quoted) instead of sans-serif), so that it falls back to the global default, which I have left as a serif.
> So, that is a pretty good solution, too. Remove diplomas altogether, and let employers measure knowledge in a way they seem fit.

It's not a "pretty good solution", which shows if you start breaking down how you would attempt to achieve this. How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"? Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?

A "diploma", "certification" or whatever you want to call it, can be issued by many different entities: a collection of nation-states, a state itself, non- and for-profit organizations, even individuals. These all have varying degrees of value depending on the trust placed in the issuing body, from a certificate of having completed Bob's Weekend Sales Course to a state-issued certificate to perform a specific type of surgery.

First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?

Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?

Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
My view is that a coding interview is not an interview of whether you can code.

It is an interview about your communication, whether the code you write can be maintained, whether you can inspire/build trust (can you explain what you're doing? does that feel reasonable to the other person?).

Where people fail is to think that it's a test of experience, or a "heads down I must make every test case pass", that the outcome matters more than the process.

It's all about communication.
Look, I’ll absolutely be first to back scrapping the monarchy - but “she controls the majority of British wealth” is just objectively not true. We don’t have to make shit up in order to object to hereditary wealth and power.
Is it possible there was a resume filtering stage before you saw them?
Why is Bitcoin losing the dark-net markets?
From the receiving end it doesn't matter whether they're unique machines, instances packed on one machine, containers on a machine or serverless nodes, it's still receiving updates from 50k processess though!

You also need to manage the complexity of packing those game instances onto the same machine for your game which is a whole other fish.
> I hear a lot about comic book movies and those are getting extremely samey (or maybe they already were)

They weren't. Compare Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Batman Begins (2005). Compare X-Men (2000).

All of those had a story to tell. Recent superhero movies... not so much.
Objects are a poor man's closures. And closures are a poor man's objects: http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...
> how someone can overengineer a solution

If his solution doesn't work with arbitrary number-like objects (matrices at the very least), doesn't support voice input, can't send results via email and can't seamlessy resume the calculations after a hardware failure, it's far from overengineered.
What helped me get a grip on learning mathematics was learning to prove theorems.

Working through Daniel Velleman's book "How to Prove It" (the only pre requisite is that you can understand boolean logic, which programmers have no problem with), and then a Set Theory book (I used Enderton) set me up to tackle (proof based) Linear Algebra, Analysis etc.

Just my personal experience. Hope this helps.
The office she holds exists under the same rules as Peel’s constabulary: they have power only because the people consent to it.

The moment the monarch overdoes it they’ll get their head chopped off (trad.)
What type of questions were there?
So how do you know they did it on their own? Spouse is a developer, helps them out, explains everything. Then on the job there is no spouse, and it all goes to shit. Not saying this would be every time, but you might come across one of these.

We have an initial Hacker Rank 'filter', that if you don't pass that, we don't even do an interview. A few weeks ago we interviewed someone who passed that filter very well. But in the interview, it was really below par. Not even the basics were understood. So I'm very skeptical about these kinds of homework where they could get help.

What I currently do is go through a very simple coding example that I wrote (very generic). Then we go through the code and I ask questions like "can you explain what this line is doing", or "If I move this line over here, is the behavior still the same", etc. Some bugs are in there and I ask what is going wrong and how to solve them.

Not ideal, but the problem is that nothing really is :(.
I would say err on the side of too easy to begin with. Start with textbooks for high school (that you skipped). And master that before moving on.
> When people cheat in school, we just kind of go "well, yeah, kids do that, I guess we'll give you a few warnings first."

I guess it differs. Here a student caught cheating is expelled for 6 months and have their student grants withdrawn.
> not using unneeded classes makes your code harder to read for many colleagues. E.g. if I have a python module universe my colleagues hate it if I import the module and call a function like universe.create() [instead of Universe().create()]

This sounds like a bit of a weird argument to me. Of course convoluted or strange solutions should be avoided, but `import universe; universe.create()` doesn't sound particularly strange in Python, and it's hard to see how there could be a problem reading it unless it's simply due to being used to a different style. People being used to a particular style could be seen as an argument for that style if that style is indeed a common convention in the language, but if `Universe().create()` is the style they're used to, that sounds more idiosyncratic than idiomatic in Python to me. Do your colleagues perhaps have a background in a different language?

Local conventions at a particular organization may of course also be valuable to follow even if they're not global conventions for the language. But that doesn't really change what is and isn't a good style more generally.

(`from universe import Universe; Universe.create()` would sound like a typical style to me if a class for universes were warranted in the first place, but in that case the class isn't unneeded.)
Rumor: Nvidia RTX 4090, RTX 4080, RTX 4070, and RTX 4060 specs leak
And what is SYCL if not marketing? It's a conference which sells the idea that we can make better software for the end user which is marketing just without the freedom aspect of a user being able to modify and study software.

What should the FSF have done to do a better job? It's easy to say that some entity hasn't done enough without being in the same position and without providing an alternative solution.
> if someone has a skill, they should be able to use it professionally

Sure, but why would you hire an unlicensed electrician, or surgeon, or car mechanic, or builder, or elevator mechanic, or really anything that matters?

The only areas where this point becomes moot are in areas where certifications already are not an issue, i.e. in jobs that almost anyone can do.
Ask HN: What does a developer need to know to build their own Lisp from scratch?
Assuming the developer is competent in their language of choice and want to implement lisp in that language. What's at the heart of lisp that makes it so simple and elegant?