skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If we value intelligence, in and of itself, we’ll eventually face a crisis of sorts.

Related, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water —

> […] pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

> Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out.
The difference from now is that back then there was an army of dedicated tech oriented people that _knew_ MS and IE were a problem that needed to be resisted.
Leave politics at home is the same as saying capitalism above all else.
No results. First two results are "Jack'd" and "Grindr", followed by many more dating apps.
Worse, thier advocating for the SEC to somehow be experts in ux design and impose ui restrictions. No thanks.
It’s one of the reasons I don’t look forward to upgrading my Linux install at all.

Arc menu, emoji picker, Dock extensions were something I used a lot and had to wait a while before they were compatible with certain Gnome versions. Emoji picker still isn’t, had to switch to Smile the flatpak package to make it work.
Just as importantly they are very toxic to a set of political viewpoints. In some industries (O&G) that is liberal ones. In some industries (tech) that is conservative ones. In some industries (finance) that is most things outside centrist (Romney Republican, Manchin Democrat).

When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers. Maybe I am cynical here but I have seen careers be seriously damaged this way.
The article itself concerns online discussion spaces, but what constitutes an “open channel”? Should employees expect to be reprimanded or potentially punished for talking about abortion rights in a company hallway, because an uninvolved coworker might happen to walk by?

The baseline position here (“don’t create political distractions in large channels”) is reasonable on face value. But I have difficultly believing that it’s not pretextual, and that the real goal isn’t to generally chill political discussion between colleagues.
What about the beneficial bacteria? Does it kill that also?
eating cereals is eating the seed, not the grass

ruminants are able to digest cellulose, it's basically what they have extra stomachs for, so they can have different chemistries that are livable for the cellulose digesting bacteria
Were you alive before the Internet?

Life used to be, if anything, more political.

Earlier in the 20th century, there were a lot more (local) newspapers and they all had very pointed points of view. Radio stations tended to be independent and if they had news broadcasts, it would be hyper-local and often political. Hell, thriving union membership gave us the greatest prosperity this country has seen and unions are very political.

In the first half of the 20th century we even had such a healthy, political society that more than two parties were often deemed viable.

In the 19th century the arguments for papers still hold. And voter turnout was much higher[1], albeit more male and more white.

[1] https://historyincharts.com/the-history-of-voter-turnout-in-...
I understand; the hope is to achieve a pool of sources that have minimal bias individually AND whose overall biases cancel each other out. I.E. ideally we can find 50% of sources that are slightly right of center and 50% that are slightly left of center so they balance out. Does this seem more tractible?
Waiting for your rebuttal. Worth nothing the problem isn't theoretical. We actually run into this 'we can't compute it fast enough' problem in practice.

- When we tried to solve chess we couldn't, the branching factor was too much.

- Go, it was horrendous there too.

- Poker, terrible there too.

But you want to dismiss me on the basis of jargon right? So here you go. Bellman coined the term curse of dimensionality. Combinatorial explosions happen because of branching factors in game graphs. Computational complexity for algorithms are defined with respect to this graph in both time and space for many learning algorithms. Because the games get so big the curse of dimensionality forces problem relaxation. I used ~words~. I must be an idiot. Feel free to dismiss me, I guess. I heard you heard someone else use words once and they were ~wrong~.

Hey wait a second. You're using words too. Does that mean everything you say is wrong?
Julia was always gonna be the RC Cola of data science languages. Python and R were too far ahead and had too much mind share
It's not the place. Don't shit where you eat. When you have these discussions at work people are forced to listen to your view, not only are they not getting paid for that, their response will have consequences. Are you looking for coworkers to reaffirm your belief or an actual discussion? Because if it is the latter the Janet from accounting might feel strongly about capital punishment for women who abort, now should Janet get fired for her political views then (which are protected)? Would this affect your ability to work with Janet reducing her value to the business? Is it fair to forcibly shove your views on others with the threat of harming their career and livelihood otherwise?

The workplace is not a social club. You can still socialize with willing coworkers after work where everyone is free to leave with no repurcursions.
> Sometimes this effect is interpreted as "a system cannot change while you are watching it"

So it _is_ true that the water won't boil if you look at it!
Oh I was thinking of namedtuples as the one that has been around for a while prior to dataclasses.
This is a solution without a problem? The global recycling industry has collapsed. It never broke 10% btw, and is currently at 4%. China doesn’t want our trash anymore. No one is buying, regardless of marginal cost.
Related: https://swizec.com/blog/how-i-reverseengineered-hacker-news/
Actually, it's not fine then either.

People have rights. And they have needs and desires. And companies that are driven primarily to make profit will ignore those things.
I meant more in the political sense but yes, maybe not the best word choice. I agree with your position a lot more. I have had political discussions with my coworkers, just like I have had discussions on sports even though work is not a place for sports. And sometimes I have changed my mind based on what they said.

The concerning part is more that some workplaces have people or cultures that push politics very hard. Where you either agree with prevailing sentiment or are penalized in your career. In O&G you can not easily be a Democrat (or you had better be a Manchin Democrat). In tech you can not easily be a Republican (or you had better be a Romney Republican). I have seen people's careers fucked up by somebody who hated their politics. In other words it sounds like you are approaching this in good faith. But not everybody does. Or sometimes people do but they get mad and stop thinking so much. And that is hard to manage, and can make workplaces bad and hostile.

And of course there is always the problem that it is harder to maintain civility at scale like Facebook.
Aldi seems to have figured out packaging the best out of ANY store I have been to. And the empty boxes for your groceries are always useful if you forget to grab a basket beforehand.
Bald men need to get in line, then. Middle aged men are among the least discriminated against demographic.
> Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all?

Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost.

Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, snippy, and too rapid, you can't reply to it for a while" mechanism.

But short, snippy, and angry is good for engagement. So it remains.
This all depends on the home. I've lived in homes where the number of bathrooms equalled bedrooms + 1/2. So each bedroom had their own bathroom, and there was a half bath (or two) in more common areas. The nicer the home, the more likely each room will get its own bathroom. It also seems more likely with newer construction.

Often as the number of bedrooms increase there is an assumption that they won't all be used. So having a full bathroom for a guest room is a cost people usually don't want to incur while building. Or the house is built with the idea of parents (who get their own bathroom) and kids, who share and then move out when they're 18. Now that kids are living at home into their 30s, that becomes more awkward.

If you won't be using the extra bathroom, they become kind of annoying. I lived alone in a house with 3 bathrooms for a while. I felt like I had to keep a schedule to remind myself to use the out of the way one, otherwise the water would evaporate in the traps.
Sorting has always been our worst enemy. We can’t recycle everything but can recycle a lot of materials really, really well.
But then they also say no.
> They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers.

This leads to some people actively avoiding working with and for any kind of activist, or anyone related to activists. If you can see middle ground in any non extreme argument, one must be a bigot.
Wouldn't the normal course of action to start with asking which board I'm running? Certainly not all mobos are created equal.
It’s a non sequitor.
I think the language has amassed a nearly unassailable lead in differential equations, scientific machine learning, and (to a lesser degree) optimization. That lead hinges on advantages of the language, so I think others are unlikely to catch up. The story for working with GPUs is also really good compared to e.g. Python. I think those things alone are enough to keep the language around for a while.
Don't blink.
Why? Make the investment at centralized locations. No human should have to do a mind numbing job like that. Can’t even relax, it will be stressful too.
I dislike meta but as a principle, you should not discuss politics or other conteoversial topics when your audience is forced to listen to you and disagreeing would cause them harm. It isn't just unkind but harmful to the stability and wellbeing of a free society. If you want to discuss it with them, hang out with them after work and have a chat. It is common to have a text/signal/whatsapp group chat among friendly colleagues these days where it is safe to discuss these things.
Deter House Sparrows from your hanging feeder with a Magic Halo (2017)
It’s a meaningless distinction. Ruminants aren’t eating the full plant either, the roots stay in place.

And of course it’s a moot discussion. Directly eating the seeds is vastly more efficient than cattle eating both especially when their primarily eating seeds in the US.
You could argue all those things. The pre-existing policy that they are enforcing suggests that they came up with this ban at some point in the past. Perhaps during Trump-era nonsense. Which side were the execs on?

I don't actually think it matters--if you have100,000 Facebookers, you keep them from squabbling over politics in groups larger than 20 because it's good for productivity and retention. You don't fret about which employee side is winning.
Life after Google: Ex-employees keep speaking out as they move on
> In the past, the power to set policy was in the hands of the few aristocrats, whose full time job was to discuss and fight over policy, while the lay people worked their fields.

I don't think the French, for example, applied guillotines to solve the problem of "aristocrats talking too much policy."
This design, while interesting, is probably more vulnerable to bump keys, jigglers, vibrators, and other such attacks than a normal lock.
Where’s the force? Nobody is required to have lunch with me; nobody is required to respond to random off-topic messages on chat applications.

We’re taking about the thing that each of us spends 1/3 of our weekdays doing. The majority of our waking hours. It’s one of the largest aspects of all our lives, and is fundamentally derived from the outcomes of very recent political battles over the roles of individual laborers.

I believe that we owe it to ourselves and, as a basic matter of respect, to our coworkers, to have important discussions. If you don’t want that for yourself, then you can stick to sports and weather. That’s fine too!
The problem is more that the Swiss Plateau (where most of these tunnels would be built) is very densely populated. There's just not enough room for a whole new road network to be built on the surface.
Unpickable Locks from Stuff Made Here (1299) [video]
Unsustainable irrigation is just cheaper than sustainable irrigation. It doesn’t mean unsustainable irrigation is the only option.
This makes sense. Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that even if this is technically feasible (i.e. the software could be designed to facilitate healthier discourse), the reality is that the money would never allow it to happen as you rightly point out. So given that, is it actually possible? I don't think so.
I thought it was interesting that it’s apparently a mystery why hanging lines deters sparrows (see the papers linked at the end of the first paragraph).
Seems interesting, congrats on the launch! Though it shows as not available for my country. Any reason for this? (I'm in LATAM)
Microsoft has their own x86 emulator.
> IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human.

This is incorrect. Humans are capable of creating. Copilot is merely capable of regurgitating.

> If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine.

It's actually not totally fine and there have been many many many court cases over this sort of thing, both with non-commercial and commercial licenses. The whole concept of clean-room implementation exists as a defense to this.

> When I write a quicksort algorithm, I don't give any attribute to the code I saw for the algorithm in some random library.

If it's substantially similar to the library's, it's entirely possible you're violating their license terms and/or copyright.

> Basically, there's no difference between Copilot and Dall-E and it's pretty clear that Dall-E has no licensing issues, thus Copilot should also be in the clear.

I'm not sure this is correct. If DALL-E began outputting verbatim copies of other people's works, they could very well be sued over it. Similarly, if it produced trademarked symbols like the Nike swoosh, the Golden Arches, or the Starbucks logo, it's not like those aren't going to get you sued.

Infringement is about the produced thing (code block or image or whatever else) and its use, not the method of generating it.
Code is itself data, so a full decoupling is logically impossible.

Data is going to have an implicit schema regardless because that is just how data works. And once there is a schema, it may as well be expressed explicitly independently of the code because then you get the whole basket of standard schema operations for free (validate the data against a schema, provide a schema to an external consumer when moving data around, talking/operating more generally on schema to manipulate data, generating glue code or APIs programmatically).

Your description sounds like you are using your objects as schema references which is fine, but if there is a 1:1 correspondence with schema then you are already doing data oriented programming, and if there isn't then you can't have 3rd party libraries that support schema-based operations. And losing those schema-based operations hasn't gained anything because the data still has a schema, it just isn't well organised.

TLDR; Data oriented programming isn't essential. But if you plan on passing data around between systems schema should be mandatory, and if you pass data around within a system schema are recommended.

> Why would I write a separate schema when the object itself knows what it will accept, what is optional, and what range the values should be in?

In practice, I have seen a fair number of complex objects where that information is obscure. If there isn't an explicit schema there is a chance of bugs where the object doesn't understand the data it is ingesting and that it won't share its knowledge that there is a problem until it fails in some obscure way in runtime. It wastes a lot of time fixing those bugs because the easiest way to clean that up is to tease out an explicit schema & start thoroughly validating inputs.
Fortunately the reverse also works*: if the employer doesn't follow the rules the employees agreed on, they will no longer want to sell their time.

*but less often because it's harder for employees to coordinate
>Why do they have to be directly named?

OP said:

>Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg ... are partly responsible for the reversal [of Roe v Wade].

I would wager that it's fair to say that Kaplan would've pushed for Kavanaugh whether he was employed by FB or someone else. Unless someone can show me where he did this with the instruction and/or support of Zuckerberg/Sandberg, I am reluctant to hold them "partly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, despite my pre-existing misgivings towards both of them. Kaplan, on the other hand? Sure.

>One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers.

Yup! On this we agree. But again, that's Kaplan we're talking about, not Zuckerberg/Sandberg.

>You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong.

Just because I am reluctant to toss blame around with abandon doesn't mean that I don't share this viewpoint.
Yes. I do think it’s important to point out that folks using these “in my experience, people like this tend to be bad” type of hiring metrics probably aren’t deliberately discriminating and often change their approach after realizing it’s problematic. Obviously grown adults are accountable for their own actions, but not training, supporting, or monitoring folks making hiring decisions is more of an institutional failure than a personal failure.
Though your link doesn't quite say that, there are strong advocates of GOFROC (Doherty, Subbarao and others) at the Peter Doherty Institute, Melbourne. Moreover, one of the leading Australian virologists, Eddie Holmes, is a long-term collaborator of WIV and other Chinese institutes. But these facts by themselves are not indicative of guilt or complicity.
What has been missing is an independent investigation of both possibilities (lab related and zoonotic spillover).
The baffling reluctance of the US and China to call for such an investigation is very disturbing. However, to talk about guilt is premature at this stage.
You are right. Limiting discussion groups to 20 people.

Has anyone here organized a political discussion at work involving more than 20 people?
Human Sacrifice in Aztec Culture
If I'm at work doing a job, then I'm paid to get the job done. And how I manage my time and what I'm allowed to think or discuss are my concern.

There is no such monster as "politically neutral." That is synonymous with "supporting the status quo," which is a political stance. It's the trolley problem - not deciding is still opting into a bad option.
I would imagine that they are the least protected, but there definitely ARE situations that they are clearly a factor of discrimination, if you can't see it, step outside.
I can't agree with this. I've never found disagreement between co-workers to have near the effect on moral as having some executive take the opportunity to lecture people about it in an all hands or make their personal opinion the official position of the company.
You’re right, it’s incredibly hard. It’s also easy for me, the outsider, to have a just-so story for a massive corporation :-)

In reality, who knows? But I’ll continue to be optimistic, at least until that’s banned at work too.
Read this in seventh grade, and it really did move me as well. There are many events that happen in life (and stories) that remind me of this book.

Agree with the premise of make the best of what you have.
Refactoring those services sucks though if the data model changes. :(
One person’s terror is another person’s Appeal to the Stone.
The about page [1] seems to explain the system, it’s an interesting concept but it sounds like this would be not suited for controversial posts - just because people don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad content.

[1] https://stakedy.com/long/how-staking-on-stakedy-works.html
No, they are not. It just outlines potential things they could examine. None of which are practical, and none of which are likely to move forward.

Payment for order flow isn't actually the problem, large institutions not having, or willing ,to part with the margin collateral was. PFOF is just the gas they put in front to hide the real issue, and it's a real good one because removing it also hurts retail investors, making it unlikely to change much.

In the end, They will likely just put some rules in requiring these apps to more 'carefully educate thier customers on the risk of PFOF', basically continuing to protect the institution while insulting little retail investors as being too stupid for not reading the TOS carefully enough.

You don't have to agree with me, time will tell.
Kinda funny to say seeing as C# actually has a dynamic type.

Even if you don't use that, you could certainly orient your data as "structs of arrays instead" of "arrays of structs" (so to speak). It's fairly common in games.
Ex CapIq employee here. CapIQ has a massive 3000+ team in India to clean data when I was there.
Everyone interested in lock picking has considered breaking the window. I promise, you're not the first person to think of that, and it doesn't bear repeating in these kinds of conversations.
I’m not in any way shape or form equipped to evaluate the lock itself, but I’ve seen enough “uncrackable” security measures being cracked to know better than to believe in flawless security. So… “Unpickable”, “invulnerable”? That’s the sort of language that makes me very grumpy indeed when talking to a security professional.
You WILL live in a pod, you WILL eat bugs, you WILL never touch a woman, you WILL cope and seethe on 4chan.
Lazy evaluation for one. Organization for another.
Yeah, just abandon all your friends and family (and don't worry about them, they're on their own), whatever life you've got set up and just move! it's easy!
Was this Twilight Imperium? :)
I meant, what is the webpage referencing?
This is an important point I'd never considered.