skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It isn't as cringey as I had originally thought. The thing I was recoiling at was basically "the man" HBR, telling folks it was a double edged sword which is true, but it really felt like it was stacking the deck against pay transparency while attempting to sound balanced and nuanced.

I think pay transparency is universally good, and that in orgs where it was introduced that they have other problems that are only brought to light by pay transparency.

I think if folks leave or complain, that is entirely fine. I have done that and see other folks do that when they realized the disparity, this is good. This is the market at work. For anyone that claims to be free-market, but also doesn't believe in pay transparency is a hypocrite and wants to keep employees in the dark while maintaining their window of arbitrage.
Would be nice if there was a tool which automates all this and hardens the Brave in one simple click
I don't think these techniques are often applied to problems in tests - there are other, simpler ways of catching cheaters there.

They are much more likely to be applied to homework assignments, where the opportunity for copying is large, but the chance of two students producing the exact same >500-1000 line program is slim to none. Perhaps once in a while a critical function will be copied and no one will realize or similarities in a trivial function will be unnecessarily flagged, but this will be relatively rare and quickly discovered in manual review.
> Be careful of anything requiring recursion, it’s not super common to use it in practice

Lol be careful not to ask for a loop, nobody uses loops in real programming problems
Yes, ultimately as there is no perfect and never break system. But pushing that is pointless as we need to have a safeguard now. What should it be? We can't wait for the God or Godet to come. We need a human solution.

And that might be faulty. Still, 5k lines are better than ...
> PHP was an earlier era, and certainly continued (to this day even) to be used, but I was thinking more of the Rails era than PHP's peak, which came earlier.

I don't think Rails/Ruby was ever used more than PHP.

IIRC, PHP at its lowest popularity ever is still higher than Rails/Ruby at it's highest popularity ever.

The lowest I can recall PHP being at is +-6% (recently). The highest that Rails/Ruby ever got to was <3% (2004/2005/2006).
college is voluntary like taxes are voluntary
I am lucky to have found this Debian package https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/similarity-tester (source https://dickgrune.com/Programs/similarity_tester/ ) to help me detect plagiarism in my students's C++ code. The tool is perfect as it gives side by side comparison of codes to help see if there's a really an issue. Usually, it is easy to confirm by spotting specific constructions or even the positions of punctuation in code. I have found something for Python though.
Do you know an interactive web app that teaches about multiple threading?
There is an interactive web app that teaches the multiple threading related knowledge, but I forget its URL.
I tried to googling, but there is no good keyword to search.

So, I posted here, maybe someone know it.

Thanks in advance.
They become more intelligent when they receive the admission letter.
That you should leave your cheating until you've left education because there are fewer checks, people are more credulous and the rewards are greater?
Google hit with fresh UK investigation over ad tech dominance
> Isn't Lean HoTT?

No. Lean is good old fashioned Martin-Löf type theory. HoTT is that type theory + univalence + higher inductive types. Lean actually has proof irrelevance, which is incompatible with HoTT.

But the good news is you don't need HoTT to verify software. Type theory is already quite capable of it, despite what others in this thread would like you to believe.
It is still alive, it has just moved to github! It is a big language and it can prove useful programs. Apparently, part of the Ethereum 2 specification was verified using it. https://github.com/dafny-lang/dafny

I have been learning it and the syntax is close to most C style programming languages. As a software developer this makes it much more approachable than Coq. The proof statements also feel more like the math I learned in college rather than the weird magic keywords of Coq.
Mind sharing the solid researching on that hiring by the team comment? My company is switching to pooled hiring and it irks me, so I’d love to read up…
> If you want to refactor, it's up to you to delete the types.

The fact that

f(g(x))

and

{ let y = g(x); f(y) }

are equally robust to changes in g(x)'s type is an advantage of type inference. It doesn't seem reasonable to place an additional burden on the person who chose to assign a name to the subexpression value.

> Personally I really like the spot readability of explicit types.

You can use an IDE that displays inferred types as type inlays (for variables) and as sidebar info (for expressions). But I've often wanted a way to export such sideband data (including subexpression types and cross-reference links) so you could display it for code reviews, etc, without teaching those tools about your language specifically, so I'm sympathetic to the general goal.

Regarding explicitness and readability, I like Rust's idea of letting you partially specify types by using _ as a placeholder to say "infer this part". For example, you can specify that something is a Vec without specifying its item type:

let v: Vec<_> = iter.collect();
It's only an approximation that cameras do point sampling, as the sensors are obviously not points.

That camera sensors mean a different thing for a pixel than what's typical for an image or an electronic display is a matter of convention.

True that interpolation is possible, but that's no reason to use different conventions as noted above.

I have seen a display manufacturer manipulate the same to artificially boost their resolution specifications.
I was referring to fixed rate bonds. Alternatively charge 1% on each transaction for security.
1. Only JS is already in the browsers.
2. JS is simple.

These are the big killer features and selling points for it's crazy adoption.

But fortunately with the raise of TypeScript, which solved many of JS original traumas and made it team-scalable, it's not that of a big deal.

In the end it's not about "trying-to-be-innovation", it's about money.

Yes, it may be much faster and more appropriate to run some code on Go or Java. But often the difference in salaries and time to market (see selling points above) can't justify that decision.

I personally witnessed the benefits of migrating from Scala to Nodejs in a big company, and I'll definitely vote for Nodejs next time in similar conditions.
Well for example, in my school, basically nobody would get 90% on an exam. Very good people would get 80% but the average is more around 60%. So you stuff that into the grade conversion for foreign universities and ... well lots of people get C!
When I did Physics in the UK, all of my non-labs modules were 100% exam
The Ups and Downs of Automated Code Checking Software
You don't say how much you already know.

Your first stop would be Khan Academy and knowing your gaps.

Fill your gaps.

Learn HS level Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Statistics.

You will need more Calculus and Linear Algebra later. But not now.

Then try studying "Machine Learning for Absolute Beginners" book. It not very mathy.

Then just keep going through ML courses. Learn what you need on the way.

The "way" of math needed in Machine Learning is not the same "way" that brings you scores in school/college exam.

You need absolutely crystal clear concepts in Linear Algebra, Multivariable Calculus, and in some areas of ML, Statistics.

Corporate "Data Science" and Machine Learning research/projects are wildly different beasts. Learn what you will pursue, and decide your path based on that.

And most importantly, you have to be patient. Machine Learning and Math for it takes time- not days or weeks, but months and years.
> 10 years later some of those folks that did really well in the exams are not doing as well in their careers because real life requires innovation and deep understanding, not just rapid application of past solutions.

I know many highly successful people didn’t go to university and this why is doesn’t matter.
I recently saw this one https://youtu.be/pTnEG_WGd2Q , but I'm not sure it is a good one
> For an array of 5-10 items the performance hit of foreach is worth it for readability

As always it depends, maybe that component is being called 500 times on the page making it actually 5,000 invocations.

I'd FULLY expect a candidate to understand the difference and would ask in a whiteboard session. There is a lot of bloated slow javascript libraries out there and they almost always stem from the fact that most devs don't realize how much overhead function calls introduce.

For the interview, there is no discussion necessary, the correct answer is simply:

"I used a foreach for readability, because performance doesn't matter in this case because X."

or

"I used a for because performance matters in this case because Y"

End of story.
Anki – Powerful, Intelligent Flashcards
what's the ethical dilemma of a grade curve? your grade reflects how well you learned.
Advances in probabilistic and signal processing algorithms for metagenomics
The game logic doesn't have to be single threaded but it should be deterministic I guess.

But anyway, this is like the most basic insight and doesn't touch what I said at all. It does not explain how games stay in sync, unless you go back to shitty 90's lockstep netcode.

As I said in my first comment.
As a Spanish professor, it's interesting to read this because it highlights various cultural differences.

- Here, it is always assumed that many students (maybe 50%?) will cheat if they believe they can do so without being caught. When the pandemic hit and we moved to online testing, basic anti-cheat measures like shuffling the order of questions in a test or not allowing going back to previous questions were taken from the get go, it's considered obvious here that you need to do that (just like, in an on-site multiple-choice test, you have to either have several shuffled versions of the test, or enough distance between students that they can't see each other's test, or really good surveillance). It's shocking to me that this professor is surprised that cheating happened under these conditions.

- On the other hand, while cheating students are failed and/or otherwise penalized when caught, we would never penalize, or even scold, a student for not snitching. Snitching on your classmates is almost universally considered a bad thing to do here, and we would never demand that students do that, not only due to the fear of retaliation mentioned in the post, because... it's just not right, they're your classmates!

- When I myself was a student (also here in Spain), I had a professor who spent some time in an American university and used to talk enthusiastically about how in America they had a very strict academic integrity culture and cheating just didn't happen at all. No students would even think about it, because it would be a dishonor, they would be deeply ashamed if they got caught and no one would want to talk to them anymore, or something like that. While this professor was a good guy and I'm sure he really believed what he was saying, I never really believed it. Accounts like this confirm I was right. I think he probably saw there this attitude of not accepting as a given that cheating will just happen when possible, similarly to the post author, and confused his American colleagues' thoughts with reality. I often wonder how many professors in America live in this bubble where cheating does not exist if you don't see it, and whether it's just naiveté or hypocrisy.
> I'm fairly certain there is a fair bit of 3rd parties basically doing assignments/taking tests these days for students.

I can confirm this.

Personally, I have seen as high as 10 %, but those numbers were heavily skewed towards students who could only speak Chinese. Not sure what was up with them.

I do not teach anymore, but I have heard that the situation became much worse in the last few years.
What is the pricing rule of thumb for your industry?
There are native worms. The red wigglers are introduced to the north but the natives would have migrated there eventually.
A History of Infant Feeding
She mentions correlation. What could she mean by correlation? Please, I'd prefer the most detailed and mathematically precise and advanced view.
The fundamental performance complaint you can make about a developer is that their PRs are bad… whether that’s too little/too late, too many problems, or too unwieldy to reasonably review.

You don’t fire someone over one incident. But if someone declines to internalize the feedback and continues to make PRs that are very far from acceptable or even reviewable, yes that is grounds for termination.
I think this is the right move, but only if you can do it without being known (at least, by the group).
I don’t like type inference myself. Code is read more than written. You really should be optimizing for better intent understanding than for easy typing. Types can usually be auto completed if they can be inferred.

I especially love the Java case with Idea. You infer the types, than IDE puts them back in as type hints (taking exactly the same amount of space). You end up with the same amount of code.

Also the example in the post is pretty bad. Your functions have an interface. You create them with some specific input and output in mind. With inferred types they can fit in many unexpected places. And they will be used in cases you have not anticipated. This has ripple effect. You end up with very generic type inferred as input for your functions (because it worked) and then you’re blocked from changing internals of the function as you cannot narrow the type.
I know a unicorn startup who did this, 20% paycuts for everyone. They gave people more stock as a counterbalance. Eventually they gave everyone the 20% back.
The ABC’s level of content is not in the same league as the BBC, broadcast or online. (Aus resident)

BBC is world renowned, mention the BBC and most people know it due to its reach. I’m not so sure the same can be said for the ABC.

The BBC may be able to adapt if they loosing the license fee but it’ll be a shell of its former self.

The BBC had some technical innovations in Broadcast due to its funding model. Working there nearly ten years ago the underlying tech may of changed today but they where doing back then what is popular today. There online architecture could be described as micro services back then, micro-front ends, home-built PaaS which I think was way ahead of its time and the two unicorns I worked at since and countless tier one companies can only envy. I credit a lot of what I know due to my experiences at the BBC.
Yes, I think you're right. And in many parts of Europe, there still isn't much sophisticated discussion about race and racism. (That's my observation as an outsider though; I'm not European.)

But pro-BLM is not the same thing as anti-racism, as I noted.

If you want to write down your values and plaster them at the top of every page of your tech documentation, I'll think that's a bit weird but I guess I'll mostly be fine with it?

But if you distill your advertised values into a single message of support for a political group that is virtually unknown in most of the world, that's more complicated. It makes it harder to understand the message, and it gives it an air of exclusivity, as the real meaning of the message is only understood to a subset of the people who see it.
That's not what Rice's theorem states. Rice's theorem states that interesting properties are undecidable, not that they can't be proven. Undecidability is not relevant when you are providing the proofs to the computer.
i do sort of pair programming with candidates specifically to evaluate the interaction. i let them drive and navigate, acting more like a passenger with the occasional input. that way i can see coding skills and ability to communicate.

of course i interview for my specific situation. the candidate will be working with me directly, so they should at least be able to interact with me. if i don't like them then that's almost a showstopper, but if the candidate otherwise qualifies i should try to figure out what my problem is, and see if i can get over it.
Invitation: New York K-Startup Pitch Competition
Something about this rubs me the wrong way. I think the argument that code quality matters less in the tail doesn't account for the fact that you are working on the code right now. By construction, the code you are writing at any point is the most recent code in the code base, so likely in an area that will be touched again soon.

I modulate my code quality a little bit, but for the most part I have one gear (write what I consider "high quality" code) and it has served me well. I find cutting corners tends to lead to bugs or other regrets the next time I have to work in the code.

At a very minimum, writing quality code helps my thought process while I'm working on it and respects the time of my code reviewers who will have to read it.
> 5 hours is about the floor so I will pay for more comfort/relaxation

I've got miles with both OneWorld and Star Alliance so can redeem on quite a lot of different airlines. At present, having a seat booked is not much of a guarantee of getting to your destination on time - or indeed at all.

On the one hand you've got legacy carriers struggling to operate their published schedules[0][1][2] and on the other major European hubs are also struggling, AMS halted ticket sales in order to avoid complete meltdown[3][4] due to lack of trained staff, and FRA is also chaotic due to staffing issues and strikes[5][6]

Low cost carriers such as Easyjet are also having to cancel hundreds of flights.[7][8]

To be frank, air travel in Europe is a total mess, it's seems like it's going to take a while for the operators to get a grip.

[0] https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/05/21/is-it-time-to-giv...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/08a94781-42e7-4d0c-9e54-dc899c597...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/cancell...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-26/klm-caps-...
[4] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/25/f...

[5] https://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/frankfurter-flugh...
[6] https://simpleflying.com/frankfurt-airport-closed-departures...

[7] https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/05/29/more-easyjet-canc...
[8] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857739/EasyJet-le...
> develop skills independently ... bring something to the table

this assumes that those skills are somehow unique and others cannot learn it.
I think $200M was just the launches this month, not all launches to date or all needed to compete the constellation.

If it really costs SpaceX $40-50M per launch, the 47 launches to date cost $1880-2350 billion. I don’t know how many now launches they need before they switch to just replacements.
I am very aware of all of the challenges. It was an oversimplification of my thoughts.

I feel that working on that kind of AI that emulates animals with true autonomy etc. in the short term is a very bad idea, and totally unnecessary to get most of the benefits of general purpose AI.

However, realistically, most people do not recognize this, and even the ones that do, many will pursue this dangerous type of ultra humanlike autonomous AGI. So it's going to happen.

In the long run it will be better for the evolution of intelligent life. In the short run it will probably be a disaster for humans.
In the best case, you get nothing. Most probably half of the students turn against you. And possibly the teacher himself takes revenge on you for snitching. Some teachers are of the opinion that “snitches get stitches”, often as a way to cope with their own lack of teaching, and sometimes they see it as a good life lesson for the student.
> I think this sharply discounts the value of the step before the proof which is writing the specification in a formal language/logic.

If that was at all achievable, we'd have a compiler that took the "specification in a formal language/logic" and emitted native code/applications/programs. We'd then call the "specification in a formal language/logic" a programming language.

Sure, there are a lot of formal languages for specifying logic with checkers that ensure no bugs in the input specification exist, but AFAIK none of them are useful enough to emit programs.

Needing a human to translate one formal language (the formal spec) into another formal language is pointless and useless, because then the human may as well just translate human language specification into formal language.
I had to stop in the middle of the article due to all the annoying animations.

But something that stood out to me is this:

> For consequences, I came up with a three strikes and you are out rule.

and then

> I wasn’t ready to inform them about what was going on until I had processed all of the facts, so I just pressed on with the lectures. My goal was to have all of the forms filled out and emailed before the next midterm. I tried as hard as I could. But, I couldn’t get it done. I had to give the next midterm, and I knew that probably meant a bunch more cheating.

So basically, this professor know about "low-impact cheating" (cheating in quizzes, where "[t]he quizzes were low stakes"), but instead of saying anything just kept pushing forward.

I wonder if anyone even told those students up front in clear terms that sharing answers on the quizzes was not allowed. In school we're often told to co-operate in assignment. Where is the line between an assignment and a quiz?

Just letting the whole group slide gradually into cheating territory is a lose-lose strategy.
I don't think the problem is that complicated - you just can't measure knowledge with a process (or a machine). Only a human can approximate another human's level of understanding.

Trying to create a knowledge factory seems to me a pipe dream. All cheating comes from trying to force learning into a rigid mechanical box.

Solution? My opinion - remove colleges, bring back guilds.

Of course, this is an oversimplification, but the moment you remove the need to print out diplomas, everything does become simpler. The "measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is the hardest problem.
> I don't believe random cells are humans. Please stop (deliberately?) straw-manning millions of people's beliefs.

What makes a pluripotent stem cell not a human? If implanted, it would basically grow into one. With more research it could probably be implanted into an artificial womb instead.

There is no difference between a clump of cloned cells and a clump of cells originating from a fertilized egg, except some incidental details like methylation that aren't essential and can be reset as needed.

Growing cloned organs and tissues for transplanting isn't all that far away. Pretty soon the ultra wealthy will pay to grow entire bodies to transplant their brain into. They may not wait for the additional research necessary to grow clones without a neocortex.

So personally, I am worrying a lot more about regulating the things we allow cells to be grown into than about giving the clumps of cells rights depending on the exact methodology of their origin. And that's still just considering cells that are sourced solely from humans.