skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've always wondered about that lol. Surely there are people who do this? If you dedicate your life to becoming very good at interviewing and bullshitting, you can almost certainly get high paying jobs that you are entirely unqualified for and cannot perform even the basic duties of. Despite this, you should be able to anyways since getting fired from a large company for "gross incompetence" is a long process, especially when you're a new hire and they're liable to assume you're just adjusting to new tools. Pocket those 3-6 months of pay, keep interviewing, and just keep hopping jobs and finding new places to scam without ever actually doing anything useful at all.
What do you mean by "confers above average intelligence?"
If you rewrite everything you steal (e.g. never copy/paste), it’s no different from using an especially well written source.
> No doubt there are situations where hugely optimized code is necessary. An interview isn't one of them unless you're hiring someone to write exactly that code. Most companies aren't.

knowing the difference, and consciously deciding that it doesn't matter for a given task is often a strong positive signal. hopefully a good interviewer will not actually ask you this question if it doesnt matter for the given task.
Cops Handcuffed, Arrested a Uvalde Mom for Trying to Rescue Her Kids
Smalltalk Tutorial
Those sites have always been broken for a lot of people, so this would only break them for a different group of people…
StarCraft as Statecraft
But that can be done at a scale where legal and financial regulations do not change.

For most of Europe that means country level, for the US and other federal states, that probably means at the state level.
> Have you been asked to vote for/against zoning changes, or for special approvals for variances for developments?

Also, if there are cities where this level of question does go on the ballot, it's the same ballot for everyone. So both homeowners and renters in that city get to vote on that, so it's not like there is any special influence power in being in one group or the other.
That’s a high quality study!

“It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.”

That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
When Income Was Taxed at 94%
Besides Oracle, is there any other cloud provider that I offeres Ampere CPUs?
By "this particular lifestyle" he largely means not designing residential streets like highways where thousands are killed and the response is simply "Oh well, accidents happen"
Oh. Well that makes a bit less sense than “parallel”, honestly. Haha
Ok, given its flying just the core, and not the fan, why doesn't it fit in the cargo hold? I mean they wouldn't have to worry about the extra drag/etc in the hold.

It also seems odd that they would do this on a plane carrying commercial passengers since it seems more of an "experimental" modification even if the manufacture has approved it.
I think that curves discourage cooperation and encourage zero-sum thinking. Curves are only really necessary when the professor is out of touch with the class and/or prerequisites.

I don't think that people would typically go to the lengths of trying to sabotage someone else, in practice it could just look like a bunch of people working separately and not cooperating at all

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any curves and the coursework would be tailored sufficiently for every cohort of students for every semester
The problem is that accessibility is not a common high priority requirement for most software, making people with accessibility experience rare.
> Is it ethical to wrangle students through inane, dull exercises that seem practically designed to kill their curiosity and desire to explore knowledge?

You mean like what they are going to have to do when they actually start working?

You can always discuss the fact that the exercises are bone chillingly boring with the professor, and potentially you don’t even have to do them because all your score comes from the test.

But at the end of the day, if your professor/boss tells you to do the boring stuff, you either do it, quit, or get fired.
How's the saying go? If you find 10 cheaters, that's their problem. If you find 100 cheaters, that's your problem.

Or the California driver thinking of "if we're all speeding, they can't ticket all of us."

Also some interesting practical game theory lessons in here.
At least some of his issues were from other individual P.E.s filing complaints against him. That's the sort of thing that can happen in any organization, governmental or not.
Isn't count slow on most databases? Either it ends up in table scan or index scan. But if the index is huge, then that will also take a lot of time.

I wonder how do Big Co solve this counting problem.
Could you elaborate on boilerplate and indirect thinking? Those are the exact opposite things I think of when I thinking of model-view-update, so I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Assuming that the software detects a similarity between two or more student’s submissions, how do you know which students cheated? What if one of the students (the one that actually did the work) had their program stolen/copied somehow (eg left screen open in lab or print out of code)?
What makes me sad isn't any of the mechanics around cheating, it's that such a vast percentage of people aren't honest. What is the point in doing any kind of learning at all - in fact, anything at all - if you're just going to fake it?
What happens when VC money stops flowing in? Do all these unprofitable companies collapse?
As sad as it is, Python 2.7 is still relevant :P
Ah but there's still a huge inefficiency here! Why bother with the offer? Just let them include their four years of tuition to $65 application fee and make the rest of the application optional. You wouldn't want them to waste all that time writing bullshit essays about their passion for their major if they're not going to study it anyways :)

Supporting a "benign neglect" model of cheating is how you get a very expensive degree mill. The perception of others that your institution is a degree mill both degrades the value of those who already graduated with a degree from there and it devalues the research put out by the staff ("oh, look at this paper that came out of that sham university down the road").
Just use a webfont. This is main reason people still buy webfont licenses for Arial (not cheap). They need consistency.

It´s admirable to try to have look of a native platform but nobody thinks this way about websites. Plus only very small % of people would even realize difference between those sans serifs if they werent looking for it side by side.
> Worse things have been carried under wings.[1]

this one [1] was way scarier, imo D:

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
You should read up on Nash equilibriums. In general, the equilibrium only holds with information sharing. In the real world, winning due to a lack of information sharing is called things like "good business." Academia, and cheating in general, is rotted to the core because of ranked grading and curves. They fundamentally incentivize cheating, because of the game theoretical gain therein.
Agreeing to follow specific rules and then silently not following them is lying. Do you consider that to be okay too?
Yes, cheating nowadays is almost inevitable, because of changed society principles to life, easy access to information, easy access to cheating smart devices, etc.

The solution? Let's finally evolve from schooling and let's forget that schools and universities exist. Let's open source degrees and make them much more compelling. Let's do everything online. Let's create collaborative labs in VR.
I think regulating against unsafe languages like C might be one of the few agreeable rules. But I'd be concerned it would end up regulating in a mountain of useless design patterns and bloat which could freeze the state of software development.

If these laws came out 20 years ago I'd imagine we'd still all be using Java with UML diagrams legally required.
Ansible, despite its declarative syntax, is actually just running actions imperatively from top to bottom. Each tiny action itself may be idempotent but removing one action will not undo it on the server. Even within single modules, modifications only add and don’t remove. Consider apt install module, this just keeps installing listed packages but never removes any unlisted, unless you set parameters like apt autoclean, which nobody dares to do.

Terraform defines and end-state and uses dependencies between resources to reach that state. Removing a resource from a tf file will remove it from the infra.
I saw an article about someone literally just tying an air filter to the front of a construction fan, and apparently it worked well to improve the air quality in the room it was in (it was bad to begin with, of course).

It’s a very simple concept hidden behind a lot of unnecessary technology.
The problem with cheating is not just "it's not fair". In fact, it takes a whole lot of cheating before that becomes a problem (through diploma inflation). The problem with cheating is that students aren't learning. This sets them up for failure on further classes that build on the current one.
The classes being online is a major factor. Those classes are engagement hell. Also research has shown video conferencing is much more fatiguing than a real meeting. Even if you start engaging one bad week can put you off the course for the semester.
>the plane wings are modular enough to actually do stuff like this

Not really. The 5th pylon is an original design item and is only on the the left wing. When the 747 first started operating, IIRC there were no cargo aircraft big enough to transport fully assembled 747 engines so there was a real logistical concern about transporting spare and faulty engines to and from far flung destinations. It's kind of a relic of a certain age between the dawn of large turbofan engines but before the growth of the modern aviation industry.

The presence of that 5th pylon does mean some 747 get used for some interesting things. Virgin Orbit launches their rocket from a heavily upgraded 5th pylon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Girl_(aircraft)
Yup, I say with bad ideas poorly implemented it could be worse.

It could be the same bad ideas more thoroughly imposed.
Which will absolutely suck later in life, when you’ll have to go grocery shopping by yourself for the first time.
It’s unrealistic to expect this level of optimization in a generalist whiteboard session. For a specialist, maybe. I’m not specialized in this area.

For an array of 5-10 items the performance hit of foreach is worth it for readability. Maybe an interesting discussion could occur about when to sacrifice readability for performance but you won’t get that by grilling people about minutiae.
Then you're using cloudformation wrong.

Unless you're arguing semantics to which I'm not interested.
Not speaking to how to address cheating, but I found this interesting:

> The content can be things like my old exams that someone uploaded without my permission

But later...

> And, sometimes as a professor who has access to online plagiarism tools like turnitin or safe-assign, you just want better tools.

So students submitting "your" content (it was produced as part of employment, so it's almost certainly not actually his, and it was arguably licensed to students by the university) is bad, but submitting their content to a service that retains a copy and profits off it isn't?
Of course there’s a rational argument to using the distribution of scores to set the grades: If everyone in the class gets half the questions wrong on the final exam, you shouldn’t just fail the whole class! The test was probably just harder than expected

But in that same example, if many of the students get close to 100% on the final by cheating, then the remainder of the class will suffer
Software - or computer systems - are regulated in cases where it matters. Airplane stuff is regulated by the FAA. Medical devices are regulated by the FDA. One of those "sudden acceleration" suits went against the mfg partly because they hadn't followed proper coding standards. Credit card stuff is regulated by the industry rather than government under the pci-dss standard. Cloud providers advertise as being hipaa compliant, so that set of rules must have a technical component.
Not juxtaposition, transposition. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/juxtaposition
I think of helping each other as part of the reason we put students in the same room to begin with. So when a student asks another for help with understanding a concept and the other refuses that request, that's working against the purposes of group education, i.e. sabotage.

But I admit I might be a bit radical here compared to most people. (Who I am sure will argue that utilising teacher time to the maximum is the only reason to gather students in one room.)
I don't get it, don't curves limit the number of people who get an A each semester? But potentially everyone in a class that isn't curved could get an A (or F)
I do a lot of interviews with potential candidates, and worked with plenty of those we hired (and unfortunately some we fired afterwards).

If you have a better way on how to assess a software developer, I would love to hear it.
> how do I know they didn't cheat in previous classes

You can safely assume many did, because every time teachers check for cheating and plagiarism, they find a lot, and they rarely look for it.

> Who wants to get a degree from a university that knowingly and willingly passes students who cheat

Anyone who considers it a necessary step in life, and doesn't care about the consequences.

It's totally shitty, and it's the consequence of letting so many people in, while at the same time incentivizing schools for throughput and making life hard for the staff. Then you get at a point where nobody cares anymore, and everything gets smothered under a layer of understanding.

The article demonstrates it. The author of the article is also making the right noises: "I learn more from my students than they learn from me", and similar bullshit. He also doesn't teach a hard course: it seems to be a cogsci intro. Yet he's under pressure not to flunk everyone, and offers some of the easiest ways out: writing a single multiple choice question. And since that didn't make them pass either, they had to rewrite some blathering statement about academic integrity. It's really about letting them pass, under the guise of caring for students, and teaching.
> Right now when software kills people, they chock it up to a system or hardware failure.

Where do you see this happening?

99.99% of software engineers don’t touch safety critical code. There is no reason to regulate them. It’s much better to regulate the safety critical products.
I'm sure same thing happens (or at least happened) in every other course. I'll go as far as to say that any assignment performed not in controlled environment will mean that student work all available sources, including other students.

One solution is make HW an evidence of effort, not knowledge. That's what happens in many courses in my uni: HW are some 10-30% of final grade and average is very high. Students share their solutions with each other and we are ok with it (well TAs are definitely aware) as soon as it is not copy-paste. It is so common that it is called "reference" solution.

Then there are courses that are hard to evaluate during the exam (e.g., programming ones). It seems that my uni solution is to give assignment so hard it will require understanding even when cheating (unless someone solves it for you of course). There are assignments taking north of 40 hours for top students (from scratch).

My point is that cheating is of course bad. But trying to catch cheaters beyond very obvious ones is just waste of time. Just design your course as cheat-proof as possible: ideally, the student who didn't learn won't pass given all possible external resources at home.
The professor surely knows that cheating is near universal because the incentive structure of modern life makes cheating optimal in expectation. Nothing he can do will change this fundamental fact. So why bother?
They are students attending a university to learn new material from a professor who is an expert in the material and has taken the course themselves. The “inane, dull exercises” may be what is expected in the career path chosen.

Cheating only kicks the can down the road to a failed career and possibly even criminal behavior. Best path for a student with that attitude is to drop the course or push through it and reevaluate their educational choices.
We'll probably get a "dark mode" DOM event at some point, if there isn't already.
2014 thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7729357
Code coverage tells you code was executed, not tested. What a worthless metric.
Wow, "Canadian Sikh terrorists" was not something I was expecting to read about today.
How? Do you have any realistic proposal how to achieve this? Or would it require a minor revolution?
It takes a lot of cheating to harm honest students (unless graded on a curve). The real problem with cheating is that you don't learn.

Cheating is a symptom of something worse. Viewing studies as a means to get a diploma, rather than a means to get an education.
This is a deep issue, that stems from things like using the threat of failing a test to get people to engage.

The educational system presents itself as a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a successful life. Parents tend to see it the same way. Society often does aswell.
This ruins a lot of the intrinsic value of education.
For me it wouldn't be about performance but about readability.
Maybe not a literal curve, but tons of instructors will compensate if an exam ends up being too hard (or too easy). Except the main way they tell whether the test difficulty was off is by looking at the grade distribution which obviously ends up skewed if some people cheat
Just look at the title. The peg had to break anyways, as it was a bad idea, so I support its breakdown as soon as possible before people really start to trust it.

I'm a Bitcoin only person for a reason: the devs prioritize system security over adding new features.
But those are people you've actually worked with day to day, right? They've had the long form of the interview with you and passed.

I know a bunch of people like that, but I've only worked with so many people. A startup would exhaust their friends pretty fast and be back to interviewing strangers.
The process you are discussing is better summarized as: "a Nash equilibrium is not necessarily Pareto optimal, and vice versa." That's the issue with making it about ethics versus success: most successful people just aren't ethical. Entire companies are built around "cheating", and it is often seen as a good business strategy (e.g., Walmart running a store at a deficit to put competitors out of business).

Want people to stop cheating? Fix the incentives. Stop using a points evaluation system, and curves. The professor in this article managed to redesign his assignments to more or less make cheating difficult, and suddenly it was less of a problem. Imagine that!
These are tools for teachers to catch plagiarism. He is saying he wants better tools to detect plagiarism because these don’t handle similarity matches well.
wow...certainly explains why I was failing to find the 'upscale' logic in the source!
The Good Times Are over for Startups
It's not a knock-off of Helvetica, but a different font that was designed/modified to have the same metrics.
The other side of the argument is that online classes have horrible engagement. Orders of magnitude worse than a normal class.

Virtual meetings also induce more fatigue in the participants than normal meetings (researched).

One or two off weeks can derail a whole semester. And professors themselves seem lost in absence of live feedback.

The schedules for live classes are rigid. While at college it is easy to follow them as you're in the same place, but schedules of individual homes vary widely and many students don't have the means to change them to suit the class timings.
option B, report the cheating
I am also baffled that people were so brazen as to openly cheat in a group of 70+ people. Did they honestly believe that 70 people would all keep your secret and not try and get you failed out of spite? Like, I don't condone cheating but that's just shit ops.
Smart. I’ve adopted the same stance - I aggressively use whatever app/service offers me steep discounts and cashbacks with no intention of ever being a long term customer once the discounts dry up.
It's a design feature dating back to when there were no easy ways to transport the engines. It's a perfectly cromulent way to transport a 747 engine, just uncommon these days because there are many large air freighters now (like the 747 itself). The idea was that in the early days of the 747, airlines could be self sufficient in transporting engines and their new expensive planes wouldn't get stranded.
Though interesting, this is completely OT to this discussion.
It isn't experimental or unique even if it's rare. It has been done before. I'm not sure why this instance alone got such attention.

Regarding the cargo hold problem, the aircraft wasn't carrying just the engine core. The 'pod' is most likely the engine nacelle itself. I wonder if the entire thing would fit through the cargo door (mere speculation). While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier, most of it was meant to be loaded through the nose of the aircraft. The nose could be opened for this purpose and the cockpit was above the cargo area to accommodate this.
Great to hear it. And I'm glad that the concept has been re-invented, because I really liked the blinkots when they were still around.
Curious would you go to a surgeon who said he has his friend do all his brain surgeries? His friend might be out of town when yours is scheduled.

Of course we rely on others for stuff. But you don’t take a math class to simply say “I’ll just skip the classes and have my neighbor take my tests. My goal is to learn as little as possible.” Why even take the class then?
Lots of people can bullshit their way out of this. They just repeat stuff they heard their teammates say.

Talking about higher level stuff doesn't mean you can comprehend certain development problems.
You have to actually read all of _Applied Cryptography_ before it becomes obvious what the central theme is. Its a big book, but unlike other may big computer books over the years it isn't padded. It's literally a compendium of crypto.

Including all the failed crypto. By the end of it, you've got used to reading the (usually very impressive) credentials of the researchers, and through explanation of what they did, and then how it all fell apart after a few years of attacks. If read about how people far clever than you got it wrong over and over again, it is near impossible to come away without the impression "here be dragons - really big and mean ones", and the corollary "don't even think of trying to do this stuff yourself - just stuff on the shelf that has been proven over time".
That risk can be greatly reduced by coming out when it's dark. I see lots of worms on the sidewalk at night after a rainy day...
Perhaps because these aren't equivalent environments. In school you are expected to learn, not copy answers...
Same famous problem for any kind of make-based build system, removing targets usually leave old files in your build directory. IIRC Bazel can avoid it but don’t know how, either it must keep a list of old files or compare the entirety of build directory to the build-graph.
Why would homeowners vote tax cuts for landlords as well? I wish that the politicians listened to the citizens. You have a very naive take on politicians and how they are motivated. Think campaign donations and hobnobbing for a cushy job when they leave office —- that’s what motivates politicians.