skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Judges can also be wrong. That's what appeal courts are for. That case in front of that judge is not the be-all-end-all of what is correct. Do you think OJ Simpson didn't do it because he was found not guilty? There's a reason criminal verdict are phrased as 'not guilty', not 'innocent'.
Anecdotally in my geopolitical region FB is pretty close to abandonware. The only people i know use it are elderly folk who got into it to keep up with grandkids pictures etc and the odd nutter screaming into the void.

Instagram and WhatsApp are still very popular though. WhatsApp requiring a critical mass to make it endlessly compelling for users. Lots of the techy people i know tried to remove themselves from WhatsApp for signal but they've come back lately as its impractical due to poor adoption.

Would be interesting to know how their monetisation share between IG & FB is split in different regions. As much as I hate adverts in general i even find the IG ads useful from time to time; especially the hyperlocal targeting.
Can you elaborate on the blockchain testing environments/CIs thing please?
For Robin Masters, too :)
There is simply no incentive for science to do proper software engineering. It does not directly produce papers or money, so nobody does it. I've seen it several times in my own career in several countries.

PhDs having their own version of the code, incompatible with the one of the Postdoc sitting opposite of them. Each slaving away at their niche project but nobody there to bring it all together. This particular university had really great code and they thought they could sell it. But they did not even use git and when I gave a presentation there about it, I was met with absolute rejection. They don't have an idea on how much effort it takes to maintain a commercial code, unit tests, customer support etc.

I'm now working at a company that produces simulation software spun out from university. Fantastic job and we do all of those things mentioned above. But obviously my paper output has been near zero even though we sometimes do cutting edge research.

I wish I had a solution to the problem as so much grant money is wasted that produces a paper or two and the corresponding software for that just goes to digital nirvana, it's a real shame.
It's clear at this point that they don't want to, and frankly, the car is better for it. UI is fantastic, I don't need Google's UI messing with it.
I consider that a feature. Not supporting monopolies is a good thing.
> Less PhD students

PhD students are the backbone of any research project. They interact with postdocs and with undergrads in the research ecossystem. If anything, they will be required more in the years to come, not less.
My favorite comment of the week. Soooo good haha.
Value equity at zero. Work for cash.

Note: this doesn't apply if you are a founder obviously
This seems like programmer error. Don't put restricted fields into types you're deserializing off the wire. It's like accepting user input and directly inserting it into a database without any validation.
In American culture, appearing to work hard is a virtue. It’s arguably a byproduct of America’s Protestant work ethic[0].

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
SOX for the head of research. There are minimal consequences for producing poor quality software that creates erroneous results and often quite a few incentives for producing inaccurate results that can be blamed on a non-human entity (the software). Even SOX with an escape clause for "good faith effort" would be a game changer since what goes on now would never be considered a good faith effort by any court. SOX hasn't been anywhere near as successful at modifying behavior as it should have been but it still has caused a good bit of change and those at the top setting priorities and incentives for those below them to align with now know there's a possibility of some hefty consequences for reckless or negligent behavior.
Those downvoting please note here why it's OK to ask people to work above 40 hours while also squandering good peoples time doing joke products. Rather than turn the screws on your employees publicly why not simple cut out the non-essential projects and publicly note so? The first approach makes it look like your employees are slacking and need to pick up the slack, the second takes responsibility on himself.
What metrics are you even looking at to make such a statement

The Great Depression happened during the interwar period.
The easy fix is to move software devs into the administration department and pay them administrator salaries.
Have you considered US's national labs if you are in the US?
It’s kind of lame to not be able to make use of the huge catalog of apps that integrate with Android Auto and CarPlay. For example, I use a podcast app that’s on iOS and Android. It has worked seamlessly across multiple phones and cars for me, but it’s not on the Tesla. They’re making the same mistake every other automaker did of building their own boutique infotainment OS. Everyone else has figured out by now that supporting Android Auto/CarPlay is a good way of filling in all the gaps.
I haven't yet fully adjusted to the walrus operator, but to me the choice would depend on what happens _after_ the "if" statement.

In both cases, "foo" continues to exist after the "if" even though the second example makes it look like "foo" is scoped to the "if".

So to my eye, the following would look super weird (assume do_more_stuff can take None):

if foo := one_or_none():
do_stuff(foo)
do_more_stuff(foo)

whereas the following would look fine:

foo = one_or_none()
if foo:
do_stuff(foo)
do_more_stuff(foo)
You seem to attribute certainl motivations to the PIs based on some misconceptions of the incentives and constrains for doing research. It is true that scientific software engineering is undervalued and this is one of the many issues in modern science. However attributing this to PIs wanting to do everything themselves is completely off the mark. One of the biggest issues in science today is that PIs can't do anything themselves, they, after having been trained as scientist for years, become glorified managers and administrators.

The reason why they can't and don't want to hire software engineers to build well designed software is because they don't have any money for it and it is very mismatched with their incentives. If a PI gets a grant for a project, they typically get a constrained budget to achieve the scientific goals of the project. There is usually no money (and it would not be approved) to engineer well designed software, because that doesn't produce scientific outcomes.

Now in the situations when there is budget for this, which are the super large institutional research initiatives, like e.g. CERN, they build incredibly well designed software. The SKA for example will have the largest storage cloud in the world.

If one wants better designed scientific software one needs to seriously overhaul the scientific funding process and quite significantly increase funding.
sitting with a headset on for 8hrs a day seems worse than being in a cube
This looks great, and I would have loved to see this when I was in the lab.

When the software industry says to you: "We will nearly triple your salary, you don't have to work weekends, and you also don't have to feed the mice on a Sunday night."

You will 100% take this deal.

I was a 10yr+ academic tool maker in biochemistry, built cutting edge microscopes, hardware, and image analysis software. My lab was successful in our field. I got some papers out of the deal. I also saw things that no human had seen before in a microscope. I worked with very interesting people from around the world. The work in academia is great. You're moving the needle, new data, new failures. These are the perks. It is also highly possible that you have complete creative control of your project. I did, and it was amazing. Custom designed UIs to streamline our experiments, derived from watching students use the system to do their work. A decathalon of software design.

Some reality: Your PI and organization will never compensate you the way the software industry will. In pay, expectations, and benefits. When you're over 30, and you don't technically have a real 401k, you are still paying your student loans that you needed to get into this field, and you're still in the same shitty apartment, something has to give.

Comparison is the thief of joy, and when you see your cohort of computer science graduates your joy will be stolen :). It's good, honest work. A short tour of duty would be useful, and can teach you the difference between splitting the atom and splitting the check.

Academia, at least in bioscience, is still very much an ivory tower. You don't have enough letters after your name to matter, and you will likely be a pet instead of a peer.

Don't stay underwater for too long. Life is short. :D
The text is divided between two pages - make sure to click "next" at the bottom to read it in full. It's not a link to next post.
You want a rubbish forecast? Just the other week, I got "no rain in your future" (24hr outlook) . I live in Seattle. It's spring. Of course there was rain.
Giving someone a bad deal isn't fraud if they willingly sign up for it and it doesn't violate securities laws. I wouldn't defend SPAC runners as good people but they aren't criminals (at least as it pertains directly to their SPACs)
being on the top 30 annual revenue list does not necessarily tell you anything about productivity or presence culture of the companies in question. it could also entail those companies having more customers and better marketing budget, which can result in good network effect(along with good enough product of course)
It's not ad hominem, it's an observation about senior FANG engineering
It is not them though, they clearly just follow rules here that they have to obey. But I think it is a great idea to compare it with the watch market - independent repair shops there have neven seen like a bad idea, and the schematics are pretty much always open - in that the movement is just there, accessible - and the watches are copyable. Which happens a lot though - might not be the most convincing argument if that were the fear.
I think that part is fair enough.

But reading between the lines, factory workers are expected to do more than 40 hours a week? That's less fair.
I wish there was a better middle ground. Your enjoyment of in office work and related career advancement seems to require others to work in a way that they don't feel is necessary or productive. If only part of the company decides to work from the office, you might not get the same benefit that you had before.

You shouldn't have to work from home because others want to do so. Other people shouldn't have to work from the office because that's what's best for you. Ultimately I see this working itself out with people changing jobs, perhaps for a period of years, until things have sorted into a "work from where is best for you" equilibrium. That could be a chaotic and disruptive time for many people and businesses :(
With masks though people wearing masks didn't at all affect the people not wearing them. Remote work is tough because either:

* You want to be in-person: If everyone is remote there's no point in going in.

* You want to be remote: If everyone is in-person, you're at a career disadvantage.
Sounds like a different Europe than the one I’m in
C2 Backup for Business now can protect OneDrive for your Microsoft 365
I understand. I'd rather not be required to go into an office again, ever, but Tesla has a culture that remote could hurt. Don't appreciate the "pretend to work" comment. I work harder and better from home.
I believe this is directing his staff to bring all the employees back. The exceptional individual part is him saying if they are a really good ic I’ll consider it.
I was gonna say the same thing. If she didn't use her domain for her email address and used e.g. Gmail, this problem wouldn't have occurred.
Good post on the subject.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30146245
Of course this should be expected. The models are trained on internet data of natural language, where people are making typos, use abbreviations, some are not native speakers of english, others are talking in greeklish, or arabenglishy or whatever.

The machine is always trying to associate the words with other words semantically close together. E.g. when taken as input strong_man, or strng_man or srong_man these are all mean the same because that combination of letters are usually used with the word man, and there is no other competitor word to replace the srong except strong.

Now why that should be considered a secret language, it is beyond me. The input language for the machine is a natural human language, and that means it is very poor defined language for the machine to recognize. That is going always to produce a lot of gibberish.
> In my case, they didn't change my password as they didn't have it, instead they were simply able to log in and add a secondary 2fa (a hardware key) which effectively locked me out so I couldn't declare something was wrong. Pretty smart.

That doesn't really checks out to me because to make any changes to 2fa in FB, you must provide your password first.
And I've happily made that trade in the past as well. The point I'm making is it doesn't sound like they have the option to say no to the extra time and pay. It's not a choice at that point, and it stops being a good thing too. If it's like overtime or a bonus where folks that choose (operative word is choose) to do that they can get more pay in return. If they choose not to, not. That's not this. He's literally saying of you want to stay at tesla this is it, you must work the extra hours. That's not good and it's not how you maximize your workforce. It's how you churn through talent and spit it out.
> Is there some way to make human respect feel like it's not a zero sum game?

Respect is non zero sum but status is definitionally a positional good. If you’re number 1 someone else isn’t. There can be uncertainty about status but ambiguity always collapses eventually. Everyone can be treated with respect but there will be a prestige or dominance hierarchy in any group of humans, subtle as it may be.
"From laptop to lambda"[0] from a couple of years ago is an interesting step in this direction.

[0]https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3358807.3358848
> I'm not sure who they is in this context

Same "they" as the parent-- "for some subset of users you will never be good enough, and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option." Not implying that it's the channel's stance.

On any criterion: ease of repair, privacy, security, good citizenship, etc: there's some subset of critics who treat the best behaved companies and individuals worse than the worst. These are the people who e.g. give Apple a much harder time on privacy than Meta.
Assuming that works, I don't see the need for Javascript when a meta refresh achieves the same with just HTML.
> @spec line in Elixir is just not DRY and inconvenient.

This. So many times this. If specs could be inlined it would be so much less hassle (but might hurt readability because of pattern matching)
Never thought I would agree, but recently started a new job in a fully remote company. I was super excited. I thought it would be a dream.

Instead, I have found that it's basically impossible to stand out in the ways I have in the past, via charisma, camaraderie, being inquisitive, etc. Remote work has basically devolved aptitude into a series of scores & metrics. It feels like working at an Amazon factory. Slack is a nightmare to keep up with.
Use Bluetooth?
You know how YC investors pick teams, not products? Apple at the time bought a team, not the technology. They also bought credibility by bringing a founder back on-board.

Apple's biggest problem at the time was bad management, followed by credibility.

They solved both problems and got some technology (ObjC, what would become Darwin, etc) as a free bonus.

The complete NeXT takeover of management made it more like a reverse acquisition in any case and the results speak for themselves.
Some of the detailed design info is hard to find: those who have done it like to get paid a lot to do it again, so ... they don't write it down.

The best way to work this out is to get a job at a trading firm, broker, exchange, bank, etc. Plenty to learn, and well paid.

But try "matching engine" as a search term.
Hey @atentaten! YouTube doesn't provide a way to search across all of YouTube based on transcriptions/spoken words, unfortunately. That's why specifying a channel is required. Once the user provides a channel URL, then VideoMentions Search can perform an on-the-fly search of the videos on that channel to identify matches.

Thanks for checking out my project!
I think you're confusing yourself. Watch something like Naom Brown's NIPS 2017 lecture on subgame solving in imperfect information games and you'll realize you should be very wary of someone who is trying to play around with solutions to imperfect information games which use state based reasoning - not information set based reasoning.

If you have a tree:

0.5
/ \
A 2A

In a perfect information game you can do this thing where your like "assume a" and think ahead and then "assume 2a" and think ahead. But in the the imperfect information game world you don't know whether you have a or 2a. So you have to "assume a 2a" and you have to deal with your solution space using counterfactual reasoning. Picture a chain coming out from the A to the 2A. They are married. They cannot be parted.

It is really counterintuitive, but the way I think about it is "you are playing every game at once" and "you are playing a game over information sets and strategy choices" not "state space and actions" so since you are playing every game at once already when they come in with that other game - well, you were already playing another game. They're overwriting that part of your solutions memory. Which in math terms declares an equality. In that case that equality is 2=1 because they say A = A/2 or that 2A=A depending on which framing you use to build the real game tree.

The actual recurrence relationship is obviously

R(KEEP) = {0.5: A, 0.5: 2A} = 3/2A.

R(SWITCH) = P(KEEP)*R(KEEP) + P(SWITCH)*R(SWITCH)

Solving the game from there is really trivial - you're only allowed one strategy selection per information set and you only one set the null set. You literally get to make only one decision as to a scalar between 0 and 1 to define P(KEEP) and P(SWITCH) which is going to be 1-P(KEEP).

`R(SWITCH)` becomes `R(KEEP)` because of the way the markov chain drains into it. Literally the only thing you can't pick is `P(SWITCH)=1`. Everything else is an equivalent EV solution. P(SWITCH) <= P(KEEP) because there exists one P(SWITCH=1) is undefined or else 0 (in practice we take the limit after a horizon by multiplying by some term like 0.9999999 to avoid the infinite regress).

And since the problem didn't make this clear, your policy __influences your expected value__ and so their reasoning process is just so broken at a fundamental level. They literally declared 2=1 and therefore undefined solution is the best answer despite infinite solutions that aren't undefined. Its... really bad reasoning. Don't listen to the idea that switching is better. It can't be. Look at the actual relationship. Look at the actual graph. They skip some really important steps, like using the same gametree for the entire calculation.
Choosing scale over service was a conscious choice your employer made. They didn’t have to make that choice.
Here's the open letter criticising our entire profession for producing something as terrible as C++ and allowing scientists to get into trouble with it -

http://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/05/18/an-open-letter-to-s...

There are links back to other parts of the story in the text there.
Effectively, they built a model that predicted some real worst-case stuff, and used that as the basis for advice they sent out to try and affect government policy in a bunch of places. When the code was finally released and examined, it was in a bad state - 15k lines in one source file, race conditions, single name globals reused all over the place. The results were trash. Then the blame started to fly.
There's nothing about Epochs which cares about software licensing.

Yes, you will need the source code to C++ software to actually compile it but the relationship to licensing is at most coincidental.

Much of the time when you really can't negotiate source code, it's because it's a "pig in a poke" IP sale, what you're buying was actually either worthless or the seller never really owned it anyway. The video games industry is certainly rife with this.
If the economy goes into the crapper expect more of this.

It’s easy for companies to bend to every ask by employees when the money is rolling in - protest against our customers, bring your pets in, work remote 100% on your terms.

But when revenue is falling and it’s crunch time all that goes out the window.
Samsung Android tablet, content consumption, with the detachable keyboard a lightweight laptop on the go for, and with the pen a sort of digital paper for drawing stuff (technical diagrams or plain drawings).
Can I get your 808 in exchange for a set of 808 samples? I am asking, because I spent hours, trying to make 808 samples sound like an 808.
https://stackshare.io/coinbase/coinbase

https://stackshare.io/robinhood/robinhood
You just name dropped web3 as a solution without having any explanation about how and why exactly would it help and now you are complaining I'm not being helpful? You serious?
Good craftsmen care for their "just tools", this is delinquency.
There is (slowly) becoming a concept of a "tour of duty" from industry into working in dot-gov (like UK digital service).

Is there room for something similar in academia - to bolster the profile of the RSE idea, to get some support funding etc?
>> In the old world of humans and paper, as wasteful as it was, it was easy for exceptions to be made if the clerk was willing,

One of my first jobs out of college was an account manager at a big corporation. It was an easy job. Half customer service and half sales. The guy in the cube next to me was always chided for being a dinosaur because his desk (in his words) "looked like a tree just puked on his desk" because of all the paper copies he had floating around - but damn if he couldn't find a contract six months old or an email with some promise he had made a client a year earlier.

It was his file system and it worked magically. You'd ask him a question and he'd look around and then dive to a stack of copies of contracts, come up with the right contract and let the customer know the details so quickly. Customer's loved him because he could reference things so quickly and was so sharp with conversations and notes he had taken. No problem if his laptop crashed - he already had a paper copy. He always referenced himself as a go-between the paper world and the digital world that was quickly consuming his talents.

I heard he retired a few years back - but he was the guy you're talking about to a tee. He was around during the transition to email from everything being paper. Dude still made it work, even when he knew his time had come and gone.
Nice, it seems like a generic version of grape-entity https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape-entity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
Seems like a win.
And why are Asian cultures even more hard working? Protestantism too?