skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I cannot begin to state how much I love the idea here & how much I wish the world would start to standardize batteries a bit. There's been a number of "alliances" formed over the years, recently a big one with Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, & Yamaha[1], but so far Gogoro feels like the only place in the world where medium-scale battery swapping is possible, has any traction.

Random fact, in 2019 Gogoro upgraded their packs from their classic 18650 architecture to a 21700 battery, going from 1.3kWh to 1.7kWh[2]. To give some idea of their scale, I'll also share this fact from that source (Again, 2019):

> Gogoro has installed 1,200 battery-swap stations throughout Taiwan, including 300 in Taipei, which will rise to 1,500 by the end of this year

Early March 2022, Gogoro followed up & announced they're making some 2.5kWh solid state (Lithium-ceramic) batteries, with a company ProLogium Technology[3]! (This is not yet generally available, much less stocked at various charging stations).

There's probably other good source of info, but it's interesting to quickly cruise through their GoCharger users guide[4], for at home charging. 50.3V output, can charge two batteries at once, and the plus model can output 1050W. Interestingly their new Series 2 charger is much lighter, and single battery, but tops out at 400W. Instead of being a dock, it just plugs into the newer Series 2 scooter. I'm curious what rate their street-side swap stations typically do & are capable of. The new solid-state batteries, for example, hypothetically support very high charge rates. Even if it's "only" 3C (the tech claims 5C charge rate), for these 2.5kWh cells that'd be a 7.5kW charge rate- almost exactly 10HP charge rate!

Also worth noting Gogoro announced plans to go to China back in October[5].

[1] https://www.techradar.com/in/news/honda-kawasaki-suzuki-and-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30874219 (16 points, 58d ago, 4 comments)

[2] https://m.energytrend.com/news/view/13720.html

[3] https://electrek.co/2022/03/08/gogoro-unveils-the-worlds-fir... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30609332 (3 points, 81d ago, 0 comments)

[4] https://support.gogoro.com/en/manual/collections/77362067495...

[5] https://electrek.co/2021/10/10/gogoros-swappable-ev-batterie...
This is interesting. I worked on a threat intelligence platform at HP that shared the same same as a previous threat intelligence platform that ingested twitter a lot but was found to be useless and just a lot of noise.
I taught two courses to undergrad CS students at Stanford. I think about half of students cheated on problem sets and tests. The answers were all way too uniform and done without correction.

In the first course, there was a student who definitely didn’t cheat and was objectively horrible at all tasks assigned, consuming a frustratingly large portion of my grading time. This student ended up with a massively impressive resume including all the best places, and became the founder of a billion dollar cryptocurrency.

In the second course, the worst student also clearly didn’t cheat, and sometimes I gave extra points for answers that were wrong but the only ones in the class that were invented rather than regurgitated. That student founded one of the most influential companies in modern computer science, and also a 10 billion-dollar cryptocurrency.

I’m not sure what the lesson is. I had honest and very good students that didn’t do much of note, but there were only two honest but awful students, and both had superlative success. Just for reference, I was honest and pushed hard to land somewhere in the low middle, and I’ve had my share of ups and downs, but definitely no competition for the lanterne rouges.
You don't have to understand the linux kernel to buffer overlow a linux application; If they do something like "Here's the IP of a running urbit with 100BTC in it, good luck!" and it's still up in a few years, that'd be compelling.

But more generally, if it's true that the only way to make a provably secure app is to design the OS and language around that purpose, then the problem you describe is general too - it will always be a challenge to find auditors.
Get some worms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2-kfbjxKLc (How to make the Ultimate Electric Worm Getter!)
"How does your mother feel about this interview?"
It kinda is a big feature though. I'd imagine people who need a rideshare service are over-represented in people who travel a lot for either business or pleasure, and likely do so to multiple random cities.

I remember traveling to a city in Canada 4-5 years ago when they didn't have Uber or Lyft, and there was a local app that was vexing to try to use if you didn't already live there, and assumed you had a local address. There were a lot of places I just didn't end up going to because I couldn't work out the app, and couldn't find a normal taxi on the street that didn't require cash that I didn't have.

For a lot of people, the times you're calling a cab are a stressful experience already - you're in a new place, maybe with a new language, often under time pressure to get somewhere. There's definite advantage to using a familiar app in that use case.
You should hang out on r/starlink. There’re very happy people, but also lots of upset people, with horrible quality of service, and non existent customer support. Same with my friends - I have few happy ones, and one person who’s screwed and can only scream into void. Comcast support is world class compared to starlink.

Let’s ignore that starlink has tons of competitors (hint, hint - other ISPs). There’re of course areas where they provide much better service than their local competitors, but it’s very questionable if remote areas have enough of wealthy people to pay for starlink, where no other competition will fight them.

But even ignoring all of that - none of what you said means they’re successful business. It means they’re business, and as of today, they’re like Uber rides for $5 across whole San Francisco in 2015. They’re selling 1 dollar for 90 cents.
how many employers req. 'critical thinking' instead of a degree.
I disagree that most interesting programs don't need things that are Hard to Verify. For instance, approximately every C program would benefit from correct pointer analysis, yet this remains an open research question.

For a personal example, I had a recent lunch interaction with our security team about some work I wanted to do formally verifying bits of a bootloader we have. Halfway through the conversation, one of them pulls up a report they made about how susceptible our specific CPU is to power-glitching. This is something the system design ought to be resistant to, so now my "straightforward idea" has a bunch of thesis-sized holes in it unless I either cut that out of the proof (what will probably happen) or I can make it someone else's problem.

Formal methods are just hard, and open research questions lurk in every slightly dark corner.
but he became the most powerful man in the world because of that skill.
> The term cost of revenue refers to the total cost of manufacturing and delivering a product or service to consumers. [0]

It sounds like "developing the core product" falls entirely under this bucket, so with what others are saying about what falls under other buckets is right, then the one that looks most cuttable to me is actually "Research and Development". That sounds like the "experimental new stuff that may go nowhere" bucket, and if it's eliminated it would also put them just above break-even. Maybe they could focus on improving profits for their core product for a while before bringing that back.

Maybe there is necessary stuff included in it though, which I guess means that wouldn't be an option.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-of-revenue.asp
I don't think your interpretation is supported: it's not that the course was "too hard" without cheating, the cheating began at the outset.
Green energy policies are making the nation’s power grid increasingly unstable
https://archive.ph/8Y1qV#selection-3879.0-3879.88

Another WSJ op-ed piece on the same day:

Why Electricity Blackouts Are Coming to Michigan: The shutdown of a nuclear power plant makes the state vulnerable to cloudy, windless days.
https://archive.ph/5ahQQ
I did, I just can't think of any concrete scenario where hackability would be needed. It sounds like the kind of thing that would be useful in theory, but in the non-collapsed world Linux seems to be able to do everything people need.

I'm sure there's a reason for the simplicity, but it's not immediately obvious to people who haven't put a lot of thought into life without full access to modern tech.
I am strongly inclined toward verifying my software to the extent possible but there are many practical challenges. I think academic formal verification methods look elegant, which appeals to me, but are extremely human intensive when what I really want to do is throw machines at the problem to the extent possible. There are also some important types of software correctness that are still difficult to capture with these methods, though the state-of-the-art has improved with time.

I've toyed with many methods, tools, techniques, and approaches to get a sense of where the ROI maxima is for my own purposes. In practice, I've found that sophisticated and comprehensive application of less elegant methods amenable to throwing hardware at them, like exhaustive functional testing, thorough fuzzing infrastructure, systematic fault injection coverage, various types of longevity testing, etc when done well often found all the same design flaws as a tractable level of more academic formal verification. Also easier to maintain as code evolves. Furthermore, these less elegant approaches also found the occasional compiler and hardware bug that more elegant formal verification methods typically do not.

I have wondered if developing and standardizing this less elegant tooling to a high level, so that it is easier to be lazy and throw hardware at the problem, would have at least as much impact on software quality as trying to get everyone to apply very academic formal verification methods, with their current limitations and theoretical constraints. As much as I like the concept of very pure formal verification, I lean toward whatever makes maximizing software quality practical and economic.
Super cool. Thanks for sharing. I would it be possible to hash the content in such a way that is addressable by a memorable phrase?
Are there still University Club living quarters, even dreadful ones?
It's my opinion that Jack Welch was extremely bad for America. He did everything Deming pointed out didn't work long term and focused on profit above all, and got extremely lucky in the financial sector. As soon as the economy soured, his vaunted techniques failed miserably. Worst of all, he trained hundreds of future leaders to follow that model.
Thanks for sharing your experience sir

I probably should have clarified in the submission that it’s SaaS focussed and more specifically websites or web apps and I personally build no-code.

Rich
Better yet, move the matrix in the normal axis to put your pixels in 3D space.

https://www.google.com/search?q=swept+volume+display

For something less cutting edge, you can spin a bar with individual LEDs instead of a disk full of holes. Also makes for a good DIY project now that we have the microcontrollers to do it without specialized slip rings. But contrary to popular use, neither of these is a 'holographic display' as they don't use holography!
From the article:

"Claims that the title “Professional Engineer” and the initials “PE” are a trade name, the very use of which constitutes commercial speech in any circumstance, is inconsistent with how I understand my vocation. I suspect most of my fellow licensees similarly consider themselves public servants, not commercial entities whose competitive privilege is protected by a state cartel."

While I understand his complaint here, I'm afraid his implicit factual claim is false: any profession that depends on the government to license its members is in fact a "commercial entity whose competitive privilege is protected by a state cartel". If Professional Engineers really want to be "public servants", the best way for them to do that, ironically, is to have their own private licensing body that applies its own independent, objective standards and cannot be used by governments as political tools.
>if you care about not wasting money, you would do everything, including even cheating, to pass.

If you care about not wasting money, why risk everything you've spent and not even gain the education that you've purchased while you're at it?

>or maybe they do know and just see 4 years of college as a waste of time to get there.

If they truly already have the skills they need to skip to their life of choice - why cheat? If they don't have this capability, their feeling that they should just be able to skip over education is wrong.
And that justifies cheating how?
Yes. It is absolutely needed for high performance computing. Carefully controlling memory layouts down to the bit level is key to making code run fast on modern CPUs. There is a reason why C++ absolutely dominates the AAA game industry for example: every millisecond counts.
> Serious question: do you really believe that?

I mean it's a fact, so yes. You can prove programs are correct. The only possible flaw they can have is the specification is wrong.

> The fact that it hasn't had very much impact in the real world is all the more evidence of the world being full of wicked people.

That's very much not what I said. There may be many reasons. Assuming some conclusion without actual research is braindead. Cost-benefit analysis is not the only reason things do/don't happen in businesses and we have no idea whether that's the reason here. It's an empirical question that requires actual research, not a priori jacking off.
It would make more sense IMO if you were distributing the runtime as open source(GPL?) so we can actually self host our "micro" web pages, if needed, and so they're much easier to replicate in another instance. Also to benefit from user patches to improve it further. Now there's a dependency on meml.ink being online and serving it, which makes it unusable for most people.
In my day at Caltech, it operated on the honor system, meaning it was trivial to cheat and get away with it.

An interesting consequence of the honor system is since the students liked it, they hated cheaters. Any student who was cheating was well advised to not tell anyone about it. Wanna be ostracized? Brag about cheating.

I remember one Physics midterm which most of the class failed. Not what you'd expect if there was significant cheating.
I usually give a data structure coding interview:

Here's some data models, and here's how you can reference eachother by properties. Cool. Let's do 3 levels of nested loops to extract the relationships and map them. That's like 99% of what they'll be doing.

The signals I'd look for are "do they start the entire thing by looking at structures or not", etc.

But unfortunately this breaks down when you're interviewing 10-year+ candidates. It doesn't yield anything useful. So sticking for those positions with a really really basic problem and pseudocoding it, and using the remaining time to instead have them map out solutions they did in the past seems to be useful.

Most things leet code interviews screen is "does this person know how to cram" because I tell you, everyone I know who aced leet code interviews crammed for 3 months and literally knew any one you can think of, and every variation. Juniors tend to do better in those, ironically enough.
I did. I didn't graduate with a great GPA but I learned a heck of a lot and got that same degree, unlocking job postings.
Spheromak
Give it a couple hundred years. That can be said about all of the phenomena.

(And on top of that, most of what's called "understanding" is just citation of somebody else's understanding.)
It’s a sad reflection of our societies failures to provide higher education as a right. Either way, that doesn’t justify cheating.
> Like much of Christian thought, this is lazy to the extreme.

> But it nonetheless fits this idiotic definition.

Your personal bias is showing, to the point of going against the site guidelines; both 'When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."' and, y'know, literal religious flame warring.

Also, you're either wrong or at least not correct;

> Is ice cream that has thawed evil? No, rather obviously.

You are of course welcome to argue that it's not, but yes, there are Christians who would/do make this exact argument; they might not claim that ice cream has the capacity to be willfully evil, but they would absolutely argue that ice cream melting is Wrong and a symptom of a Fallen world (in the sense of "fallen creation"), and that in a Good world ice cream would not melt.
But many senior candidates actually can’t code anymore.

Also, typically the point of these questions is to see if the candidate can solve a novel problem not if they can use a hash table.
This was aggravating to read. The immaturity of these students is astounding. There are too many universities and too many university students.
Integrity suffers when you know what's right and still do otherwise. If you dismiss the institution entirely, integrity doesn't suffer. Not giving money to the Church is a sin, but if you aren't taking the Church seriously, your integrity is fine. Ignoring a beggar who is obviously an imposter is fine, but ignoring a beggar who seems legit corrupts integrity, even if the legit beggar is in fact fake.
Coding questions are a waste of time. A better interview technique is asking about a problem they solved and drill down on it. This actually is better and allows for a conversation and discussion. I know you can program so don't need to trick you up on it. If you can't then you'll quickly be found out on the job.
I went to university to get the mandatory piece of paper. Sometimes I had enough time between courses to actually learn how to program, amid the UML and ethics in CS.

I still don't appreciate the value of a good education. You could have replaced mine with pre-recorded Stanford lectures, set coursework, work placements, and Saturday morning coffee with a senior engineer to go over the week with our laptops out. It would have been 10% of the cost or less and it would have taught me more.
You are unintentionally correct, most engineers don't really know their programming language, standard libraries or basic APIs. They find _some_ solution on the internet that's good enough and run with it. Sometimes that is fine, sometimes it is not.
Perhaps, but I'd say urban areas are the norm here. 80% of Canada lives along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor.
>If you take away the aspect of college as “a place to get a credential” you’ll see the cheating stop.

No, you won't. People will cheat because it is perceived to be easier than doing the work generally, even if they don't have the external incentive of the score meaning something.

People cheat at casual games of "Call of Duty;" not even ranked.
This write up explains a lot, and is pertinent to this particular issue.

http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html

There's also an article around here somewhere on signaling theory that I don't have on hand.
The guiding principle behind B evaporated. People don't go to university for higher universal meaning anymore. They go to get knowledge they can trade for a better living.

A goal directed attitude has taken over, as described by Erwin Chargaff.

https://mobile.twitter.com/blamlab/status/129727005174625894...
2022 Darknet Opsec Bible – Telegraph
Employers are setting GPA cutoffs and checking transcripts for some of the competitive jobs for fresh grads and interns. Not unusual to see a hard GPA cutoff of 3.7, and the employer wants a copy of your transcript sent directly from the university.

As always, when an arbitrary metric becomes a goal, it will be gamed. Especially with the path dependency nowadays where your first job sets the course of your early career. Just as your academics/leadership in high school can make or break whether you get into the prestigious universities, which will quite literally pay dividends ten or twenty years down the line.

Sometimes, the most driven students are the ones cheating because the stakes are too high. If an employer has two viable candidates, one from MIT and one from a state school, they’ll go with the MIT grad as a heuristic. Or similarly if FAANG is inundated with resumes for entry-level jobs, they’ll use school/GPA as an easy first-pass filter.

I don’t see cheating changing until the incentives are minimized. Lower GPA cutoffs + casting a wider net for the entry-level roles and setting a fair skills-based bar.
I'd be hesitant to consume this in a firewall or DNS RPZ. What if someone reported google.com as malicious?
If I'm not mistaken, Google has a paper on this, in which there is a statistical confirmation of coding interviews being a predictor of success.
Don't worry, I'm sure the state will find some way to bail them out :)
So you've introduced the context of large scale mission critical software. Not all software is large scale and not all software is mission critical.

Sometimes a crappy script that saves an administrator 2 hours a day can be a Huge win.

Sometimes lives are on the line and bugs are not acceptable. Other times the cost of a bug is some internal user has to deal with a little frustration.

All investments are about weighing the cost with the potential benefits. Developing software is an investment.
You're describing outsourcing game design to a Monte Carlo community search.

It's not without its problems.

Imagine a book publishing business that releases random word salads until a particular one sells well. A funny idea on paper but in practice very few repeat customers.
I've read the entire article. The cheating was rampant. This part, however, jumped out at me:

> At my most mystified, I proceeded to release a class announcement warning students not to plagiarize the academic integrity assignment.

To cheat on the very assignment that is giving you a second chance is ... stupid and/or brazen and/or pitiful.

So, why warn the students again? This was their second chance, right?

I'm open to many reasonable definitions of justice, ethics, and fairness. However, at that point, given the context, reporting the offending students seems the most just thing to do.
I don't bother reading articles by people who can't form a complete sentence. In my experience, there's a strong correlation between bad writing and having nothing perceptive to say.
Yeah, I mean that's the idealistic view of what college is. I think this is an outdated view as we have the internet now and knowledge is incredibly easy to find if you can be bothered. Can't be bothered? The world needs ditch diggers too. If you can make it through college, you're cut out for non-ditch digging jobs.
How could you reasonably prove this? “All other things being equal” seems harder to evaluate than a coding interview.

Drive, experience, intelligence, communication skills, teamwork, emotional intelligence, grit, curiosity, physical health, mental stamina, family/home situation, and dozens of other factors play into job performance, many of which you can’t even ask about to generate your test dataset. Many of these traits are what you’re trying to measure the effects of in the interview.
My school had an endless stream of Saudi students only there for government cash and they'd cheat nonstop.
I'm sorry to hear that. Care to share a bit of your story?
> not having a enough empathy for these students

Are you fucking kidding me? After the absurd lengths he went to to give them chance after chance after they kept cheating, lied to his face about it, possibly threatened each other with violence, and repeatedly plagiarized their apologies for plagiarizing? After all this, you have the gall to claim he doesn't have enough empathy? What does it take, in your view?