skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Welp, that feature is basically going to kill this company then.
Is this what inspires LinkedIn engagement hackers?
200km/h is "lower speeds"? That's the nominal speed of IC trains between Swiss population centers.
Yes, quite often.

https://www.haynesboone.com/-/media/project/haynesboone/hayn...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/02/02/ex...
The three primary ways I communicate with friends and family are FB Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Facebook could decide it doesn't like me at any time.
I’ve been using telegram since 2013 every single day. I don’t want my chat app to drain my battery, I don’t want it to waste bandwidth and I want to be able to have so little latency that I feels real-time no matter where I am.

Telegram feels like that group of people they warned you about. Sexual and political freedom. Be whatever you want others to see you like. Easy bot API, deep event based td-lib SDK, censorship bypass through MTProto proxies. Delete messages you sent before your crush sees them because you changed your mind. Send messages anonymously in a group if you have multiple admins. Forbid people from clicking your profile when your messages are forwarded. See the people who saw your messages in a group.

Telegram feels like the last place where as a European I’m not dealing with US-identity ideology, where I’m not dealing with copyright censorship, where everyone can speak up no matter how normal or insane.

In this moment I have 17 bots keeping me up to date with all the things happening, and telegram has essentially become the single stream of news and online social interactions for me.
why, you’d just go and throw your money at them if they didn’t?
Usually the ticket fee are very, very small part of it.
The heavy weight is public founding, taxes.

I gladly play my tax here in Swiz because the system works. There are "big" delays ever here, yesterday something like 30 minutes, but is like 1 time out of 100.
> ...apparently people these days have an entire month to dedicate on writing a "review" with a "Rules of engagement" section, but do not have 5 minutes to submit a github issue...

You would think that someone taking that long to do an evaluation of claims would reach out to the V developers in some way. Like via bug report, e-mail, discord, or discussion... If a person doesn't want to give the appearance of doing an attack or "hit piece", you would think they would at least create some plausible deniability for themselves, by taking in account the perspective or response of the language developers.

I'm glad you are taking the time to do counter points and add issues on GitHub (https://github.com/vlang/v/issues), as this situation can be turned to being helpful for V. Whatever is in the evaluation that has some validity, can then be corrected or V developers can point how the evaluation was in error or mistaken.
The correct answer from the manager’s perspective here is: Ok, how much exploration time do you need? Can you give me a reasonable estimate after an hour, a day, a week?
The Most Taboo Legal Case
My father went to Brazil in the early 2000s several times over a few years and was astounded at how many PCs he saw in homes. Places with no utilities, refrigerators in the 1970s had PCs 25 years later.
"the ubiquity of mouse wheels for easy up/down navigation"

I have maybe used a mouse once in the last decade (I use a trackpad)...and that mouse didn't have a mousewheel. And before that I used trackballs for a decade (again, no mousewheel). And before that, my laptop had a nubbin.

I recently set up a keyboard with mousekeys (on that computer, I have no mouse-ish-thing at all), and since I saw there was mouse wheel emulation, I attached that to a couple of keys out of curiosity, but I had literally no idea what those would do when pressed in any program since a mouse wheel is completely foreign to me.

Not saying you're wrong, just that the assertion of ubiquity struck me as strange.
There are so many places here in the USA we could do something similar to this, but it would be politicized to death in microseconds.
is that any different than function overloading?
While true to a point... there's also just lots of things that might work for a minority of people but are major risks for most. Someone who has actually studied the risks around exposure therapy is probably in a better position to discuss the risks of exposure therapy; and how to manage those risks. The person initially recommending it made no discussion of this whatsoever, and implied it was perfectly safe.

We all see people advising stupid things every day, because it's worked for them so far. There's the lichtenberg wood burning people who explain how to pull out a microwave transformer and use it to burn patterns into wood... and fail to acknowledge just how likely it is to kill you.
I think I might be missing your point. Instead of calling super().foo() why not use explicit super(self.__class__, self).foo()? Afaik super uses some runtime binding to set the parameters so if one's skipping that execution due to monkey patching then one has to use explicit form.
Same here. My first printer was made by Roland and it was a fantastic piece of hardware. Really beautiful. My second was an Okidata and it was an amazing printer.

I was thinking about them the other day and got nostalgic for the tractor feed fan fold paper and dot matrix printers. Then I checked Amazon and saw how expensive they are now and the nostalgia faded quickly.
> that it is unique and special to humans

I agree that this is a poor premise. The Turing Test is obviously racist. I am sure that my dog and cat are conscious. And I believe there are forms of consciousness in the universe that are as different from us as we are from an amoeba. Consider a large star or even the Sun. It has very complex oscillatory modes that we don't understand. Fifteen years ago my then young daughter and I had a philosophical conversation about stars as potentially conscious entities.
I seem to remember hearing some explanation like it was about maximizing the amount of time that the rainwater gets exposed to the limestone on the roof? For purification/pH balance purposes?

The same kind of steps were used even for catchment areas that weren't on houses. I remember passing (on the bus) an area that had a whole hill set up with the same kind of stepped/terraced limestone that fed down into some sort of reservoir.
I used to get my dental work done at a student clinic, so it was often dental students doing minor procedures supervised by much more experienced faculty. I remember overhearing one explain to a student that different people and mouths have a different standard of what's acceptable. Someone who meticulously brushes and flosses and spends top dollar fixing every problem as soon as it comes up is likely to want a procedure like you described. Someone else who barely has any dental hygiene and a mouth full of fillings and gingivitis would be given all necessary care, but not necessarily given an exhaustive touch-up if the dentist feels they'll just be back for the same thing in a few years and not get any substantive lasting benefit from it.

I don't know whether this is a generally-held attitude in the profession.
Knowing what you're doing doesn't mean you're omniscient. In an unbounded domain it might mean you have very good intuition for what to do and you're often directionally correct. There's still a lot of room for learning there.
Yes, a consciousness solely for the purposes of post-rationalisation seems quite redundant and to me raises more questions that it solves.

I don’t subscribe to physicalism since it strikes me as clumsy and inelegant. A consciousness arguing for physicalism is denying the existence of the only thing it has direct access to and granting objective reality to something it may have well conjured up.
Wow, how many criminal crooks have you personally dealt with? How much anecdata are we talking?
I'll borrow from Justice Potter Stewart and say that "I'll know it when I am it"
You need to compare Self against CLOS or Smalltalk. Python object system is a poor thought hybrid between prototypes and classes.
Uber and Facebook are not HTML apps in a wrapper.
If your "asshole" is a psychopath, find others that have been under his or her path before, collect evidence.
If your "asshole" is unable to cope with stress, ask peers how they are doing, ask for advice on specific occurrences of issues in a non-confrontational way.
If your "asshole" is just a mean bad-manager, just says "Yes Yes" and move on before he blows something important up.
It's a digital representation, theoretically if we simulate all facets of weather and all facets of consciousness, the simulated consciousness could experience all facets of rain

We are not digital, to simulate it for our conscious experience we can simulate weather in a closed biodome type of structure where we control the water cycles
First thing I thought of too.
> developed by a Russian company

Yeah. And WhatsApp/FB/MSNMessenger/GChat by US companies. Both are detrimental for your privacy.
the problem with this is also that given dentist has huge motivation to replace as much as he can and make big fuss over little. I mean it pays his bills/rooftop, some mortgages and few vacations on top of other costs... did I mention costs?

they are not more or less moral than rest of population, spread is the same as in all other professions, so experience vary
SemBr author here. I chose SHOULD NOT for this rule for a couple reasons: First, as an affordance for text with ambiguous or unknown meaning. Second, as a hedge against introducing new meaning unintentionally.

Adding a semantic line break inherently changes the relationship between words, and we can't always be sure about the intended meaning of text. If this were MUST NOT, then any modification would risk violating the spec.

Then again, this may be my own, idiosyncratic reading of RFC 2119. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to open an issue on the GitHub repo here: https://github.com/sembr/specification/issues
I Hurt Myself in a Bike Ride
"1.2 Related work

Whereas we use zero to solve humanity’s problems, other researchers have only used zero to attack crypto­
graphic protocols [Qua21a; Qua21b] (ZeroStableCoin is provably immune to such attacks)."

ZeroStableCoin is not safe. We can create 1 and hence arbitrary number from 0 :)
To reproduce: type 0^0 in https://sagecell.sagemath.org or 0**0 in python, the result will be 1.
The "right" solution vs "right now" is a lifelong dilemma for developers. If you don't expect your project will have a long shelf life, it might be easier to accept parts in the stack that aren't going to scale. But if your project has prospects for the future, putting in the time to create a solid foundation will pay dividends when the moment comes to scale up.

For some annoying reason though, we can't really predict the future and a lot of small, never-meant-for-greatness projects due pick up momentum and need to grow. Then you're in a world of pain. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, I guess.
> If you have Kubernetes, a complex SPA frameowrk on the front end, and a maze of microservices on the backend, it's unrealistic to expect any one developer to have mastery over all that.

Why?
Moving from Restaurants to the Tech Industry? You Have a Valuable Skill Set
Gnome mode is replacing work with play.

Most great things in human creation emerged from play, not work. Work is what's done to refine the output of play.
Most of the IT workplaces in Sweden (Spotify included) aren't unionised even though many are part of unions. In those cases what the unions can do is provide legal support to you if you needed.
This is a very leading question. Are you trying to invoke Cunningham's Law on purpose? Or just in a very pro-lisp environment that HN is known for? A better question might be to "compare & contrast Python OOP vs Lisp CLOS" I certainly don't think Python's OOP is superior.
Yes, it also degrades the possibility of getting higher confidence from practice and training.

I can recommend Kathy Sierra's book "Badass - Making your users awesome" on a refreshing perspective on learning, teaching and communication https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24737268-badass
Absolutely. There is a massive spectrum between knowing what you are doing and knowing everything there is to know about a subject. We are all constantly adding to our knowledge base… no matter our starting point.

In addition to the base knowledge is the ability to do something well. I know how to do a lot of home maintenance tasks. Due to a lack of practice, I don’t have the skill to do them all very well.
So does Searle actually. He thinks there is something special about biological systems. In fact I think he basically considers himself a materialist, but I think that's part of where he gets tangled up in his own arguments.
> Do you want to own product X? It's the team's decision.

> Maybe the intern can learn the ropes

This is what I hate about work environments that pretend to be all caring and non-hierarchical. Like the author, I worked in Sweden and I've seen examples of it. They avoid specifying clear rules for where one's responsibilities end, and who gives orders to whom, because that would be oppressive — and oh, we're too nice for that and we don't want people to feel bad. But the hierarchies and oppression don't go away if you pretend they don't exist. They're still there, they just take a new, less explicit form and give freedom for abusers to play around the grey areas.

What I see the manager doing here is trying to push for some decisions without making it explicit and taking responsibility for it. I find it cowardly and harmful. People who are not interested or are unable to play with this niceness game are the ones who will lose in it.

In a healthy system, a manager could just say, “we use product X, that's my decision” or “no, I decided we're not spending money on that” — optionally, motivating the decision. And later be held accountable for it. In a system too focused on being nice and not making people feel bad, a manager does not want to look oppressive and will have to make it look like this was everyone's idea, or choose a phrasing that will not directly say what the quotes say, but kind of imply that (“What do you think? Should we use product X? It's team's decision”. “Maybe we can go without spending money on that”).

> it is also the Spotify convention of the right way to do things

Another thing people of this sort do is insisting on their opinion by saying things with a tone of a convincing argument but with words that don't really address the point (“Didn't we agree on this already?”). If the other side is less experienced in fiddling with politeness, they may feel like they are being too persistent and mean objecting for 5th time. Telling this sort of abusive manager they are talking nonsense would sound mean (sometimes this would be the right thing to say though), and playing on their level is doomed to lose.

Direct confrontation is normal, giving orders is normal, telling people they are/were wrong is normal. These should be acknowledged and regulated, not ignored.
"Whereas I fall into the "I could, but why should I?" category"

Same here.

I've three Samsung TVs of various age none of which has been connected to the internet (in fact, only one has that capability). Knowing what I know now I would never
connect a Samsung TV to the internet - in fact I'd never buy another Samsung TV set, phone or other appliance again.

The people behind Samsung who authorized the spying as well as those who've attempted to fool testers into believing the specs are better than they actually are have shit ethics - there's no other way of putting it more politely (as this is a public forum, I've toned down my language considerably).

I've been around in tech and engineering quite some time and I am alarmed at how the ethics of engineering people have waned over recent decades. In recent decades, we've regularly seen unethical engineering practices introduced into products in ways that in the past would never have even been considered let alone that would have ever made their way to market. Samsung is not alone, remember the Volkswagen fiasco; now it's commonplace - Microsoft et al.

In this laissez faire environment sans ethics it seems that almost any behavior is acceptable. I often wonder why those in my profession who are responsible for the introduction of such products no longer object to designing them in unethical ways. (If engineers objected on mass to such practices, management would have difficulties enforcing such policies.)

As I see it, two approaches are needed: the first is the need for proper legislation that would outlaw such practices with the aim of protecting consumers, and the second is publicly exposing those who are responsible for them (legislation should ensure violators cannot hide behind a corporate façade). Engineers would object to designing unethical products if they knew their names were associated with them and that they were being held responsible.

Moreover, professional bodies such as ACM and IEEE, etc. should be proactive in this by expelling members found guilty of unethical practices associated with their profession. This would go a long way to stopping such practices, I reckon.

Incidentally, for some decades I was a member of both the IEEE and
ACM and I withdrew from their membership because they failed to uphold their own ethics. Especially the IEEE, it rarely, if ever, questioned unethical and questionable engineering practices. It seems to me these organizations should be embarrassed into actively doing something to stop the slide in ethics amongst their members.

I'm also of the opinion that we need some deep research into exactly what has happened to the engineering ethos over past decades. Laws and sanctions as mentioned above may provide a partial solution but finding the underlying cause and rectifying it is clearly the ideal one.
>Are you saying that “working as advertised” means that a crypto blockchain is adjustable by a centralized authority?

It's changeable by anyone/group that has 1% of the votes. Calling that "centralized" seems like a reach.
I think the problem is that people will optimize for a task they are incentivized for. Many people are just incentivized to appear competent enough to get a promotion or some sort of reward: votes for a politician, sales for a salesperson, a promotion for a manager. This means they don't actually have to be competent, they just have to have the appearance of competence to who ever is doling out those awards. These also happen to be the most visible professions. These things combined create the impression that no one knows what they are doing, and everyone is faking it.
One core issue that the author struggles with (like almost all of these theories) is a crisp definition of consciousness, that allows you to create a falsifiable hypothesis of what is "*not* consciousness". Till you cannot crisply define consciousness crisply, you cannot create a scientific falsifiable hypothesis to test it, and hence all you are debating and persuading around is philosophy or semantics.
So, I've been playing with this a little bit now and here are some comments:

- it is very fast and scales quite nicely on CPU with 4 threads (~ twice the speed), but not further (I tried it on a 64 cores box). Not sure why since they seem to be using torch's native threading support.

- surprisingly, it is not that much faster when run on a GPU

- the quality (as in: what I'm hearing, not a formally measured metric) is good but (YMMV) not as good as turtle.

- it breaks with strange error messages if the text you feed it is too long

- there is mention of "a model for text repunctuation and recapitalization", which I wonder if it could be used to break a very long text (eg a book) into pieces that can be digested by the tts engine (link: https://habr.com/ru/post/581960/)

- as mentioned in another post, if you want a simple 'convert_this_text_file' CLI utility, you'll have to roll your own or use https://github.com/Grumbel/silero-test/blob/master/silero-te...

Altogether very nice work, especially the speed.
That's at least partially true, but there are serious issues with that explanation if you want to explain all of the effect. In particular, there really does appear to be something different going on in the last 2-4 decades or so affecting people's internal set points. When you compare to other recent historical times where there was also an abundance of food, people were self-regulating better than they are now.
I think these HR systems also use "bad culture fit" to encode red flags they can't legally record: health issues, political disagreements. This already dubious mechanism can get further abused by badmouthing.
The tweets / medium article are a bit incomplete. But they mean at least:
- Authors didn't make decent efforts to build a robust baseline. Worse it seems that they have purposefully built a bad baseline to make their solution look better.
- Authors didn't really disclose full performance. Statistical performance is one thing but time complexity is another. Hopular needs 10 mins on a 500 rows datasets. That's a NO NO for any serious application.
- Authors didn't provide an easy to use interface. You can't really claim SoTA on small tabular data with something that isn't testable by everyone.
Consciousness is an emergent property that comes from a complex system, if we can simulate all of the mechanisms then the emergent property will follow. I don't know if its "data" but rather consciousness is the experience of processing data from the perspective of the entity doing the processing. We have the ability to communicate our internal experience which is why humans only attribute conscious awareness to other humans, which is honestly kinda dumb
They meant Solana. Solana in this context is a coin/cryptocurrency like USD. Solend is an app/project.
It’s an unfortunate example of the strange priorities that seem to plague our industry.

I’ve also been doing this development thing for a while now, and at this point I’m fairly sure the actual order of what matters looks something like this (most important first):

1. Solid fundamentals in development and/or infrastructure as appropriate

2. Soft skills, particularly different styles of communication and organisation

3. Domain knowledge relevant to the role/product

4. Knowledge of any specific language, tool, process or technique

We could debate the order of the top two. Domain knowledge is new to almost everyone when they first start a new role, unless they happen to have worked for someone else in the same field before. The specific technologies are rarely going to be an exact match, but that doesn’t matter as long as someone has good general knowledge and the motivation to quickly learn new tech when they need to.

I can’t help feeling that a lot of problems in a lot of development groups would vanish if hiring was based on looking for good fundamentals and a professional approach rather than strict buzzword compliance, and if the day-to-day working environment then supported good people doing deep work. It’s not really surprising that some people think every new technology will take weeks to learn and capable full-stack developers are mythical creatures when you look at the environments and hiring processes they are stuck with, but it doesn’t have to be that way and of course the better developers are drawn to the places that aren’t, which continues the cycle.
Triassic revolution: Animals grew back faster and smarter after mass extinction