skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So, essentially, ADHD meds help kids remain focused in the classroom and do more homework, but don't improve the acquisition or retention of knowledge as represented by test scores.

There are several possible conclusions (in no particular order):

Classroom focus and homework aren't really instrumental to learning in the first place (merely correlated with it), and ADHD meds are only targeting an inconvenient set of symptoms.

Or focus and homework are instrumental to learning (in a "necessary but insufficient" sense), but ADHD meds also inadvertently disrupt (or fail to fix) the formation and/or retention of longer term memory, skills, and knowledge that is necessary for later successful test-taking.

As above, but instead of disrupting the formation of skills and memories, ADHD meds disrupt (or fail to fix) their retrieval and use during tests.

Or possibly something in between, more subtle, like disrupting the establishment of connections between new and existing knowledge, such that knowledge in isolation (eg. bare facts and even sequential skills) can be both stored and explicitly retrieved, but insights are never gained; what's sometimes called understanding as opposed to knowledge.

A deeper dive into the results of tests may help disambiguate between these, by looking at differences in performance based on types of tests (or test questions), such as pop-quizzes, word problems, essays, and various sorts of multiple choice.
https://github.com/pop-os/shell for the unaware!
Sure, that's true. I haven't taken one in over 25 years. I don't remember enough of the fine details off the top of my head to solve these well. But I can count on one hand the number of times it's held me back in real life.

Instead in my day to day I'm able to recognize when a problem needs something beyond the braindead solution and a sense of roughly where the solution lies, and am able to then go do a bit of research on the topic.

Solving leetcode hard style problems in ~45 mins off the top of one's head is just not a problem many developers face in their jobs. I agree that these tests demonstrate some information, but the ability for that person to be a good developer is not among that signal.
I suspect you're being downvoted because there are people who are too young/don't remember that there were a number of games available for the iPod from big gaming companies. Yes, the clickwheel iPod.

The 17-year-old iPod Video cranking out tunes on my desk right now has a really good version of Tetris on it, and one of the best ports of Ms. Pac-Man ever. Once you get used to navigating the maze with the wheel, it's a great game.
There are more ways to arrange a deck of cards than there are atoms on Earth
It may be that Privacy Badger is more likely to break the Web than manual list-based blockers, just due to the nature of automated learning.

Regarding having to see dangerous content multiple times:

- Privacy Badger gets remote learning at this point from Badger Sett, so most common trackers should be accounted for.

- Privacy Badger isn't so much a security tool as a privacy tool. Yes, blocking trackers is good for security, but it's not the primary objective. The primary objective is to stop non-consensual pervasive tracking. In this light, having to see tracking a few times before deciding to block it is a reasonable approach.
That's my opinion as well. Since Regan, the Republicans have done everything they can to diminish government capability, and increase corporate power. The Democrats have been unable to stop them, unwilling to stop them, or actively helping them accomplish this.

The why and how is far more then can be adequately explained in an internet comment. But broadly, the US government is capable of doing things to help people, but a lot of time and money has been spent to make sure they're not allowed to help people.
That's one way to get rid of Canadians on HN.
That is normal. Even one of the best recent Presidents can "struggle" with interviews. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4bDuFJuriw This is the best speaker on the planet. On the planet. His bread and butter is pro-speaking actually. "Struggle" in quotes, because he's not struggling really, it's just how normal human beings speak as they are constructing answers in their brains.

But why on most of his others interviews he was going so smoothly and effortlessly? Because those were scripted and everything was predictable and prepared for in advance by a huge staff in the background. He already has all the answers in the brain and is merely giving a mental reading.

So ground yourself. You're not giving speeches and your interview is NOT going by a script you've been given prior. Relax, answer questions to the best of your ability and KNOW THAT you'll be judged most likely by people with skills inferior to yours.

Looking at other answers asking you to prepare for interview as if you're running for president. Sure thing. Do that. But only if you're actually running for president and there are millions on the table for the taking.
> is that the original Monty Hall problem has him opening one door out of 2

The better way of thinking about it is that he is leaving one door closed
It is dishonest to mention

> proof-of-time-and-space construction used by Chia

as reason to reduce importance of induced waste. Chia just wastes something different and is not improvement in any form.
Literally the only MacBook you can take home today from Apple is the M1 Air. Every other one says late July delivery minimum. Crazy. Best Buy has a version I want, so I'm going to grab one there. But wow.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac
I feel like it's a bit backwards. The software complexity increases because people lack the patience to tackle the existing complexity, or learn why things are complex, and prefer to believe that it can be simple, or get job done somehow, and in order to do that, they (somewhat egoistically) go their own way, which actually - barring occasional good insight - mostly increases the total complexity.

The same goes for societies. If people have more autonomy (like, not have external pressure to be productive), they might be more willing to contribute to the society as a whole, to fix it, and also take a more long-term view of the future. IME, in established open source software, there is less churn and accidental complexity.

Complexity is also often the result of in-fighting, which again, is the symptom of a society where the trust is low.

Though I am not sure, honestly, if there is a reliable way to increase the trust inside society rather than the actual collapse. That paradoxically often leads to increased cooperation.
Yee wwas thinking about monthyl recurring models not sure yet though how I can "lock them in" the issue is I can't "delete" the code :(
For me, there's an element of jealousy here. I have probably 20k+ hours of programming experience, and I don't make anywhere close to 320k. It is hard to read comments like yours against the backdrop of my experience, despite the fact it was very privileged. I try to take it as understanding that I haven't dipped my toes in that side of the industry yet.

Hope that adds some perspective to things. (I'm not trying to justify the extent of some responses, just let you know my take.)
The part about never having a prize behind it was not explained to me.

It was just "you pick a door, host opens a door without prize". That doesn't imply that there's never a prize behind the door that the host opens.
A legacy system exists: it’s big, it’s complex, and no one fully understands how it works. Architects are brought in to “fix” the system. They might wheel out a big whiteboard showing a lot of boxes and arrows pointing at other boxes, and inevitably, their solution is… to add more boxes and arrows. Nobody can subtract from the system; everyone just adds.

In my experience this is the only safe thing to do when you don't fully understand the system and cannot reason about it in a precise way. You create well defined abstractions over the messy parts, verify the abstractions, and write lots of tests. Eventually you can start deleting code. Although nobody ever ends up deleting code because they skip the "well defined" part and end up adding more indirection, afraid to delete code.

The only real way to tame complexity is to reason about it with precise, mathematically-defined abstractions. You can't invent Paxos using boxes and arrows on a white-board and prove the minimum quorum required without showing your work. Fortunately we have languages and systems that can automate a lot of the effort in checking our work as long as we can express it in formal language.

The other problem with this is that learning how to use these tools and techniques requires a lot of effort that isn't highly valued or rewarded in industry. Most businesses are fine with the trade off of errors and mistakes down the line if they're first to market. Ship it now, fix it later. We do a reasonably good job of preventing enough obvious errors with our tooling and processes. We can have software that obviously has no errors or software that has no obvious errors. Time and again we chose the latter because the former is too difficult and doesn't reward us with money now.
The way I understood this was that if you pick a door, the chances are you didn't pick the prize, given that you probably didn't pick the prize and the host shows you the other non prize door, it makes sense that switching will probably give you the prize more than it doesn't.
I'm saying that the entire original comment was misleading since it was based on a false assumption which lead to a false conclusion. The government has said No to this twice already! I do not believe the person who made the comments is malicious, it's just a simple error and I hold nothing against the person. But then another commenter jumped on board and continued on that false premise.

At this point, we are going off topic.
I have been thinking about this exact issue, with regards to the way clinical research is conducted.
if you want an example of feudal property relations, look at facebook, twitter, or hn -- the landlord owns everything, we just borrow an account that they ultimately control. urbit allows you to own an identity that can never be taken from you.

>(with 2^32 stars)

the point of finite identities is to create cost and deter spam/bad actors, it's not in anybody's interest to artificially prevent some set of humans from using the network. see here https://urbit.org/faq#more-planets
Hmmm I was thinking of maybe "So, do you currently have a budget?" then chat away
Uh, except it wasn't proven to be fake. The Mueller Report substantiated all of it.

Please cite any substantive sources about it being "proven to be fake". That's a Fox News line, not an argument. None of it was proven fake. At all.
Yeah, imagine you pick one door, and Monty says, "You can have what's behind that door, or what's behind these other two doors" - you'd always switch because you're getting two chances (and hey, free goat).
India probably uses a lot of foreign expertise. It’s either the French or the Russians that supply the reactor. That would change in the future I suppose and cost would drop. Also, corruption.
There’s an article about Boris Johnson’s bumbling talking style, and how it’s all a schtick.

Before he was even London Mayor, so had fewer repeat listeners, a journalist went to three of his speeches in the same year. In each one, Boris arrived and apparently didn’t know where he was. He then made a brilliant speech with the same “ad-lib” jokes, mixed up his reading notes at the same point.

Making public speaking look effortless takes a lot of effort.
He did basic troubleshooting with task manager, on an obfuscated executable, with a disassembler and a memory dump, without knowing anything about the code base, and fixed it with in-memory patching. So while I agree introspection can be a godsend, this specific case is not a tooling problem.

Something this blatant is what happens if nobody takes a look. I can imagine they got tons of complaints, but 'it is slow' is nebulous enough to consider it basically unsolvable/normal. Maybe it never got a real bug report, maybe the report never made it past the service desk, maybe management thought it would cause a wild goose chase without resolving anything. But no developer looked into this, as just hitting a breakpoint in the 4 minute pause would insta-fix this.
I don't think the host's knowledge is important. Consider the alternative where:

1. You pick a door.

2. The host reveals a different door at random. The host has no knowledge.

3. The door the host revealed is a goat.

Should you switch or stay?
I'll defs watch them!! Thanks!!

Hmm I just need to learn to be "smooth" in the transition from project chatting to talking about fees
> Source for this misinformation?

It spent half of 2021 in the 10 dollar range.

> Remember that for bitcoin value transaction size is not a factor in the transaction fee. So if you want to transmit a billion dollars worth of bitcoin around the world, it is the same exact fee.

You don't use a credit card to send huge amounts in the first place.

Personally I need to do ten and hundred dollar transactions. One or two dollars for bitcoin would not be terrible for the latter, but it's still a lot more than a debit card ($0.21 + 0.05%), with no advantage to me over debit. I think that's a better comparison than the complex situation credit cards are in.
A big variable too is the price development of batteries, which is trending in the right direction due to more and more production capacity coming on-line but once grid storage and EVs start to compete for those batteries the price could well be going up.
ntalk is for me the most pleasant non-in-person way to communicate.

Let's please go back to ntalk!
I blame Steam for shifting the market's expectations about early access.

In the years before Steam got in on early access, I bought a few early access games, and the attitude was "Keep at it! Hopefully this will pan out," not "Now you owe me a finished game."

For example, I blew $50 on a starter ship in Star Citizen in 2015, when I already felt it was extremely likely Roberts would burn out before his vision could be realized. I saw the purchase as a charitable contribution toward people putting effort toward a niche I wanted to support.

If the project collapsed, there were dozens or hundreds of developers who had spent years honing their skill at crafting a MMO space sim. If they have to move on to the next thing, certainly many of them are going to take on similar projects with a narrower, more deliverable scope.

Also I felt it was useful to signal to the industry that there was unmet demand for this sort of intricate space simulation.

When Steam got into EA, expectations shifted from charitable encouragement to placing a pre-order and getting a partially playable demo to tide you over.
You are probably being sarcastic, or cynical about current corporate business world where nobody cares.

But user experience is important. With faster lpad timea they probably could get more players. More players probably means more money, since there are more chances to convert someone from a player to a paying customer.

Perhaps if someone can endure a 6 minute load time they are more likely to buy something in the game (a fan of the series?), but we could say that those who like fast load times also use their wallets fast. But it is pure speculation - we dont have the data. Also obviously Rockstar doesnt have this data - they couldnt A/B test if load time converts to more sales - their game only had bad load times.
My question is fairly open and allows me to continue asking significantly more complicated questions. So far, nobody has (for example) asked enough clarifying questions to determine that a bloom counting filter could potentially solve the problem- most people just store ASCII string keys in a hash table, which wastes tons of memory and requires a lookup for every string.

So usually I end up after 45 minutes finding that the candidate has more or less tapped themselves out at "make a hash table of string keys, use it to store counts" (OK for a very junior programmer) or "make a perfect minimal hash" (I help them get there if they don't know what those are) or "use a probabilistic counting filter". This is about all I need to make a determination.
A language with a function-color-agnostic effect system, generic over asynchronicity?
A decade ago the simple thing we were missing about threaded concurrency was Rust's ownership and borrowing model and Send/Sync. Before that, the simple thing was to use early Java, which had a mandatory garbage collector and monitor objects. If you didn't have or use those, then you were subject to memory safety problems. And moving from heap-scanning GC to ownership and borrowing gave a genuine performance advantage.

Now, we want to remove threading from the concurrency story, in the hopes of getting another performance boost. This itself is the problem, because threads were giving us automatic preemption, akin to how GCs were giving us automatic memory safety. Now we have to statically determine a "good time" for the program to yield. I/O yielding is the easy part, and the reason why people are flocking to async; but we also need to support yielding for fairness reasons. Kernels can do this because they have interrupt timers; but there's no lower-overhead equivalent for userspace code that I'm aware of.

The other problems mentioned with async Rust are particular to Rust itself. The language has a policy that heap allocations only ever happen in `std`, because they want to support embedding Rust into applications where heaps don't exist. This means that futures need to be structs. Rust does support structs of indeterminate size, but barely; and there's no support for structs that can grow. Such a thing is likely unsound without a way for the compiler to check growth limits, and the memory is pinned, so we can't grow beyond a preset limit set at the start of the future[0].

Async infects everything it touches because it's a total pain to write networking library code that's preemption-agnostic. Monad<T> would fix that, but higher-kinded traits aren't a thing in Rust yet and we would need lots of language tooling (akin to `?`) to make this ergonomic to use.

There's also just the possibility that we've been engineering the wrong fix, and we should be trying to get OS threads to be as lightweight as possible rather than trying to move the entire threading system into userspace. There's no particular reason why we need 8MB stacks, other than the fact that compilers don't check stack growth themselves. (Which, BTW, is also a soundness hole in Rust as far as I know.)

[0] Go gets around this with a linked list of stacks, which adds its own overhead.
This is me. I work in IT(Not Coding) but we still get fairly technical questions etc all day. I have no issue going into a tirade about issues I faced recently at work, the way PMs work with the team bla bla bla. I am a naturally good conversationalist. My fiancee on the other hand is the polar opposite to me and has to prepare when speaking in front of people. She is very shy. Some people are lucky, many are not. It's totally normal to prepare for that sort of thing from what I've read. I'm just lucky
To be honest a lot of what I posted back then I'm happy has been lost to the sands of time.

I will say one thing I've found strange is how spotty old posts are. Even within the same newsgroup. I can easily track down old posts of mine but sometimes stuff is spotty within a single thread. I've not seen any true rhyme or reason to what's gone and what remains.
People can already showcase and get credit for their contributions on GitHub. Badges are noise.

What do you think happens after GitHub earns a reputation for alienating OSS project leaders by incentivizing low-quality contributions?

This is yet another short-sighted and stupid decision towards making GitHub into the next SourceForge.
ffmpeg has an entire page in their wiki devoted to slideshows: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Slideshow
> We further believe that local learning can offer benefits that outweigh the risk of additional fingerprinting,

Nice. I thought the local learning (which was kinda the main appeal of PB) was dead after reading that post. Glad that isn't the case.
> Maybe I'm asking too much/projecting here, but I just don't understand how people put up with fairly obvious semi-breakage as much as they do.

> I have this at my current job, I seem to be the only one (not really, but seems like it sometimes) interested in finding out why things are slow/broken and investing the time to fix it.

You will quickly shed yourself of this philosophy if you become a business owner. You can test those waters by releasing a non-trivial open source project that gains a non-trivial amount of users.

There will always be at least 100 things that are broken in some way but not impacting the core business. You'll have to pick only 1 to work on. And, if you're unlucky, some frustrated customer may write a blog post about issue #65. An issue that you're fully aware of but haven't prioritized.

Guess what you'll do as a business owner? You'll prioritize that issue since it's now very visible and maybe even throw $10,000 at the customer who took time to do their research; as is what happened here.

> This is like when people used to say "we're too busy to write tests". Well, maybe you need to get better at communicating the trade-offs to the broader business, and be a bit more assertive about non-functional aspects that are still important to address.

Or perhaps the need for tests was communicated and the business made the decision to not prioritize it.

You may not like that decision.

Mind that the decision to "not write tests" is never explicitly stated so simply. No one wants to look bad. Instead that decision is expressed through minimizing its level of priority compared to other things.

Still don't like the decision? Well you have three options:

1) Ignore the stated goals of the company and do what you think is right instead. In which case you're acting against the interests of the company that's paying you.

2) Sacrifice your own free time in order to provide your idea of value to the company (that may actually be valuable! but that the company doesn't value enough to prioritize)

3) Do what the company asks with plausible deniability. Also known as kicking the can. Also known as not my problem.

Sometimes doing #1 or #2 could greatly benefit you. Perhaps that thing you're doing (eg: writing tests) will somehow measurably improve the business in the future WITH PROOF so that you'll get get recognized. Or perhaps there's management shake-up and the new leadership perfectly aligns with your philosophy, etc, etc.

But that's rare.

More often than not your attempt at fixing the company's problems behind the scenes will go unnoticed and unrewarded. And if you do get rewarded, often times it's a pittance compared to the amount of time you invested.

My personal philosophy is I simply do not work for companies that don't align with what I value. For example, to me, it's exhausting and unrewarding to work at a company that doesn't appreciate a GREAT user experience.
Ask HN: How to keep a lookout for the next hot field in CS?
Since I've always been amazed by cutting-edge tech (for example, autonomous driving or deep learning), I figured I should be on the lookout for the next hot topic in computer science and software engineering. Obviously, the two fields mentioned above are hardly novel these days.

How do you stay up-to-date with the current trends in computing?