skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> and why has it been so confusing?

For the same reason, that this post will quickly vanish from the HN front page, be shadow banned or outright flagged - a huge proportion of the well to do E-Mail class can’t stand a debate.

It’s “follow the science” (ie STFU)- even though science inevitably has debate at its footing.
Hah if only managers were that grown up too. I’ve tried those conversations.

Firstly, that Friday deadline likely would have been fine, it was just a power play.

Secondly, when the manager said “yep” to dropping the feature, you’ll still be expected to make progress. (Of course most of the time they try to make you do double the work. A quick “yep” wouldn’t happen IRL)
You are bringing up the racial in a way that is irrelevant to the political. The Kingdom of Dahomey did not profit from the Republic of Haiti via reparations post-independence. They do not have any relation to the continued immiseration of Haiti, unlike France did.
Do you also consider stuff like physics and chemistry engineering and not science? Otherwise I’m not sure how you’d achieve anything as an engineer if 80% of your scientific understanding of how your materials work were wrong, for example.
> how can you argue with “the science”?

Yeah, totally agreed. It doesn’t even make sense to suggest that testing to check whether things work or not is the wrong process. The scientific method is tautologically true, right? This is one of the reasons I cringe at the yard signs in my neighborhood that declare “science is real”, as if it needed an affirmation. Somehow that seems to give more credibility to the idea that science might not be real, whatever that means. Of course science is real. We don’t have modern houses or cars or computers without, sillies.
This is not a particularly thorough article overall and is made worse by the overly ambitious title. It basically starts with "ssh has problems" and moves immediately to "use an arbitrary separate tool" to solve them. But it doesn't really go into depth on or contrast against any alternatives such as built-in facilities like SSH certificates or various third party options like Amazon SSM, Teleport, Tailscale SSH, "normal" bastion hosts, etc.

Truly "Hardening" SSH involves a more robust set of options and bigger toolbox than this article suggests. In particular the bar is very high for new tools in the ecosystem and BastionZero.

I urge readers to know how high the bar should be for deploying solutions to SSH and system access ecosystem and to be skeptical of anything they read as magic solutions or that lacks an established pedigree. If nothing else, a good first step is searching HN for proposed solutions to see if this community has discussed it.
>E.g., addressing a scalability issue might require a bunch of profiling work, then a bunch of experimentation / thinking about developing a lock free algorithm. Or it might turn out that reducing false sharing a bit will give large enough benefit on its own.

so this sounds like my example of my friend that I gave above who would say I will have to do a bunch of profiling work first and then a few days of investigation before I tell you how much it is actually going to take.

I don't say you can't run into uncertainties and be unable to estimate until you have clarified those uncertainties, I also don't say that you can't run into uncertainties in the actual implementation and have your estimate be woefully off, not every estimate needs to be correct.
> educated technocrat class is too tiny

We (the Indian technocrat cohort) need to get into politics.
Well, keep in mind that in this particular case, it was capitalist attitudes that exposed the fraud. From the dailykos article:

> "The suspicion that something was more than a little wrong with the model that is getting almost all Alzheimer’s research funding ($1.6 billion in the last year alone) began with a fight over the drug Simufilam. The drug was being pushed into trials by its manufacturer, Cassava Sciences, but a group of scientists who reviewed the drug maker’s claims about Simufilam believed that it was exaggerating the potential. So they did what any reasonable person would do: They purchased short sell positions in Cassava Sciences stock, filed a letter with the FDA calling for a review before allowing the drug to go to trial, and hired an investigator to provide some support for this position."

However, the desire to gain a profit by pushing a questionable drug through trials was also involved. I'd note however, that in the Soviet Union, the likes of Lysenko also pushed fraudulent research in order to improve their standing in the Soviet heirarchy, which came with various rewards.

People like wealth and power, and some will do anything to get it, regardless of the nature of the society they live in.
I would recommend Bret Fisher tutorials https://www.bretfisher.com/
Forgive me, I don't think the corruption necessarily follows from
"capitalism". Corruption is a thing that stands alone, and it is
multi-faced: Some is greed. Some cowardice. Callousness and lack of
compassion. Self hate, lack of good character and backbone. Then
there's laziness and sloth. We call it "convenience" today. And a
measure of self-importance, egotism, or pride. We can't point the
finger at one political ideology that's only a few hundred years
old. Start with Aristotle, the cardinal virtues, or with Dante or
Cadmus on "sins". Read any religious text. Or as commenter here
reminded me today, dig into anthropology, which is fascinating.
Incredibly late? EV are still tiny % of global sales. And compared to what some EV startups want people to think, building good EV isn’t that hard for traditional OEMs, once company commits to it. F150 and MachE are very good EVs.
Yeah totally agreed with all of this. It’s just a question of what you want to consider the context and what you want to consider the more mutable “subject” of your inquiry. A more expansive view of context will give you more ideal options, but will also get harder and harder to manipulate.
Show me in my comments where I am an ideologue or encourage a specific ideology. Where do I denigrate Europeans? Give me the specific quote of what I wrote. Don't say " you appear to be," give me the actual text and tell me how that is either being an ideologue or denigrating to Europeans.

Btw, I have nothing against modern day Europeans. All of my ancestors came from Europe. I do think a lot ( not all ) of Europeans in the 18th century behaved immorally when it came to their colonies. If you don't think that, you need to study some actual history. (I also think that a lot of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders behaved immorally too, but that doesn't seem to offend you for some reason)
The framework can be extended for new types of object.
Based on your other post, you're in an industry that values relationships and trust. Sounds like the first strategy is a nonstarter. You'll need relationships to break in, which makes the latter your only choice, and probably means you continue to be a value added commodity. You won't own the relationship, at least, not without a LOT of work to learn the industry and its people.

Total speculation, but do you have a strong understanding of what needs to happen when something goes wrong with the process you are automating? It's sometimes too easy to automate 99%, and think you've got it solved, when the last 1% is the actual hard part.
Yes, but it's mostly cuts in actual wages/base pay that are sticky. People obviously aren't happy if fairly predictable bonuses and RSUs get cut but most understand at some level those are variable and tied to company performance. And if the same thing is happening at most places they have little choice but to just deal with it.
Air Flow, Air Systems, Pressure, and Fan Performance
There's some selection bias there, though. "I had a nice conversation with some distant friends and discovered an interesting person" isn't newsworthy.
It's absolutely jumping to conclusions, but so is blindly believing the people saying that the impact of it is low, when those very people are the authors which would be impacted. I'd say we'll have to wait and see.
“Independent” if we pretend China doesn’t exist.
What a shocking final sentence!!

"Current-day Ford Motor having to go begging to China - for a major, iron-based component needed to produce more cars - that is laughable, and beyond pathetic. In a dark, miserable sort of way, if you care about America or its future."

I could not have summarized it more differently. Vertical integration and monopolies are absolutely terrible in many ways. Globalization and inter-reliance are very good in many ways! The ideal system for everyone (workers, buyers, the business itself, the society it resides in, and the world itself) is probably a healthy middle point.

I'll go so far as to say this: if the US did not inter-rely on China over the past 30 years since they opened up their markets, with multi-national US corporations beginning to rely on various Chinese resources or products, then the US would be at a hot or cold war with China right now, just like they were with the USSR a generation ago.
>ICSS isn't that expensive BTW. Vattenfall cited the cost of adding ICSS to their 5 reactors to about 3 billion SEK in 2020. That's about 300 million US dollars with today's exchange rate.

$300m seems pretty expensive to me as a cost to add to what is already the safest energy source in the world by terawatt-hour produced[0]. One-fifth the death rate of rooftop solar. 0.025% as dangerous as oil. Every terawatt-hour of energy a coal power plant produces results in as many deaths as one hundred Fukushima "situations."

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
> Sending out company newsletters seems like a nice way to let everyone know what the company is up to. Not sure how you go from that to reminding lowly engineers of their "insignificance".

Speaking as someone working in a small company that was acquired by a much larger corporation that shows all the signs being discussed here, it's not just newsletters. Those are useful. It's being sent dozens of spammy emails a week about initiatives that are clearly some VP's ego project and have no relevance you other than clogging your inbox and taking away some of your time and attention.

One recent example I got was three days of emails telling me to 'get ready' for an internal initiative but mentioning nothing else except a name. No links to click, no calls to action, no useful information at all. Only for the final email to reveal it was about a non-strategic initiative that applied to some other site only, despite all the emails being sent to the global company. All attempts at getting that sort of thing off the all-hands mailing list have been rejected.

A place that thinks that's okay does not respect the time or attention of its employees, and it does tend to make you feel reminded of your insignificance.
I cannot subscribe, pay and view anything with a noscript/basic (x)html browser.

Where is my bittorrent client?

Omega Rant.
Fascinating. I haven’t played or thought about poker in 15 years. Can you elaborate more on the current strategy of poker? A real example would be helpful.
Maybe it's because I've always straddled the line between IC, EM and leadership roles, but in my mind engineers are managers. They are managers of software systems. The software systems are producing some economic output just as human or animal labor does in other domains or historical contexts. When you write code and deploy it to a production system, you are responsible for the behavior, cost and other implications of doing so.

Although I believe managing people is generally the harder of the two overall, managing software systems is uniquely demanding of being able to zoom into deep technical details and then back out to understand the big-picture implications and where different layers of abstraction may have failed. To call oneself a senior software engineer I believe you need both the technical understanding as well as the big picture view of what business value your code produces.

Many software engineers don't want to think that way; they look to the Product Manager to tell them what to build, the QA Analyst to sign off on releases, the Ops Engineer to tell them what broke, and the Engineering Manager to prioritize their time. And of course those asks do align with the job descriptions and are not wrong per se. The problem is that the SWE is in a much better position to foresee the majority of problems, and can save the company as well as their team a tremendous amount of pain by trying on different hats and thinking at a higher level. Not all company cultures make this possible, but IMHO it is the key to the highest performing teams.
15 seconds before the comment.
Building a haptic input knob from scratch [video]
similar to the field of dreams but motivated by money instead of altruism
Why British youth are turning off alcohol
I would not give up hope in science. In the short term, fraud is a problem, but science is a process and in the long term it will (eventually) self-correct, though the time scales for that process may be quite long indeed.

To that end, does anyone know of any list of techniques for spotting or identifying fraud in scientific works? This is a subject that I wish somebody would write a book on, so I am curious as to what techniques people use for this purpose.
how do we check what accounts has been exposed?
I can give you the answer: it depends.

I'm hosting at a colocation for X bucks a month. Solely the RAM I have on my servers costs X bucks a month at AWS/Azure. Maintenance overhead is small, maybe a couple hours a month.
When I was a believer, I always thought the best answer to this is that suffering is brief & temporary when considered against eternal paradise.

Looking deeper, suffering is also necessary to allow for the gift of immortality to be a choice, and to be 'fair'-- those who cannot resist the desire to cause misery for others must be given the chance to demonstrate for everyone else why they should not be granted immortality. If God just snuffed them out at the first sign of trouble everyone would start to wonder if God was really being just. [Oh, I also didn't believe in eternal hell, just a final judgment where the 'bad guys' are all destroyed so the rest of us can actually start enjoying life without any more misery.]

You will find thousands of other quite different responses to this question because it is the most common question asked about God.

I don't really believe any of that stuff any more, but the beliefs I described brought me comfort for a long time in a dark place and I still think they make more sense than any other irrational, unprovable belief system I've looked into.
I agree. It's a technical question at this point, and with all the attention now on it, there seem to be favorable conditions for a thorough investigation.
is there a USB host controller able to handle that many?
Because modern hybrid seeds give much more productivity, but do not breed true.

Corn variety 1 + Corn variety 2 -> Hybrid with high productivity, disease-resistance, or some other desirable trait (or a combination of desirable traits).

However, the seeds from the hybrid will not be the same as the hybrid. Classically, you'll get some seeds that are more like CV1, some seeds that are like CV2, and some that are like the hybrid (in practice the genetics can be more complicated than that, but that's basically what's going to happen).

If CV1 is resistant to devastating disease D1, and CV2 is resistant to devastating disease D2, the hybrid might be resistant to both D1 and D2. Great! But the seeds from the hybrid are different. 1/4 the seeds from the hybrid will be susceptible to D#1 and 1/4 will be susceptible to D#2, and 1/2 will still be resistant to both. That means that "saving your seeds" = 50% crop loss to disease, if both diseases are present.
This sounds like a variation of Brooks's Law - adding people to a late software project makes it later. In this case, now you need to take time to help the new resources ramp up, and the new resources themselves can't make meaningful contributions right away. So the pressure isn't alleviated for a while, and in fact goes up.
All you need exists on kubernetes.io.

Start with https://kubernetes.io/docs/tutorials/hello-minikube/ and proceed.

Read reference documentation on the same site whenever you need to dig somewhere.

It's awesome. You don't need any other websites. I was able to build a kubernetes cluster and right now deploying multi-service application and I have had enough technical information on this website alone.

As to answer your questions:

You can start with DB as an ordinary container in a statefulset deployment. It's similar to docker. You configure it with environment variables. Advanced approach is operators, but you don't need those for simple start.

Connection to DB is the same like docker. You use Kubernetes secrets instead of docker secrets and that's about it.

My message assumes that you're proficient with docker. If you're not, I suggest to first learning docker. May be you don't need Kubernetes for your scale at all. And if you do, most docker concepts make sense in Kubernetes anyway.
What's the trick to implement a zoom like this in software? I remember many years ago implementing a trivial program to display the mandelbrot fractal, but as you zoomed in you quickly ran out of precision even if you used 64bit double floats.

Is it just using "bignums" behind the scenes or is there a trick to "reset" the exponent due to the fractal nature of the display? I always wondered if, thanks to the self-similar nature of fractals, one could convert a set of coordinates to another at a different scale and yield the same results.

My intuition tells me that it wouldn't work for all fractals though, and probably not for Mandelbrot because while it's self-similar it never seems to look exactly the same at different scales.
The conclusion of this study is that in the long term the sweeteners are not safe for adult people, because they increase the risk of diabetes and of various cardio-vascular problems, even if they do not cause any cancer risk.

The same is true for added sugar, so the sweeteners are not better than sugar.
True, but there is a difference between being able to afford something and actually wanting to pay for it.
USA _and_ russia always justify civilian bombings claiming they aimed at military targets first. Do you think USA or russia will ever admit they happily roasted babies alive on purpose ?
Even better: we replace those millions of SLOC with something new and 100 times simpler.
> Turns out hard evidence of tax evasion actually causes action.

Only in some countries. In others they are using the privacy laws to operate further.
When my wife and kids are happy, I’m happy. When my microbiome is happy, I’m happy. Certainly when my microbiome is unhappy, I’m unhappy.
Fair enough. I did share some of those expectations too tbh and it was indeed surprising that the solution was that simple. But to be fair it does not promise any of that and it does what it sets out to.
> serves everyone's needs

I’ve seen enough people failing to achieve what they want with LaTeX, and people making significant compromises in presentation because they either don’t know how to achieve something or can’t be bothered figuring it out or doing it. There are a great many things that it is capable of, but doesn’t make practical. LaTeX does not serve everyone’s needs. Not by a long shot.
As someone who has been in industry for over 20 years, I have been spending a lot of time thinking about and living thru this. For me, my manager and my relationship with him/her is probably the most important aspect of a job. A few things that I have learned:

* Manager maturity. Young managers tend to be very hands on, they will naturally micro manage. More times than not they were previously an engineer, possibly in the role your currently in, so they continue that role, but with manager power and authority. Young managers work best with younger employees. Young engineers need hands on managers to explain things and mentor them, and that plays well into a young managers need to manage things.
Older, experienced, and more mature managers tend to learn what their value is and where they are important. Usually that means listening, coaching, and communicating. Technology has literally changed under their feet, so they tend to be hands off. They also rely on their team more to make decisions and drive towards success. They depend on you. These managers tend to work well with senior engineers (a senior engineer is someone with decade(s) of experience).

* Conflict. A few years ago I did a handful of manager interviews with some top tier tech companies. I was a bit dismayed that these companies were not looking for nice guy managers who values things like compassion and supporting their employees, and possibly even be friends with them. Rather, they want managers who are hard, can wield power, and comfortable with conflict. Conflict here means that management and employees are in constant dispute over literally everything. This means that managers are constantly squeezing work out of you and will have no problem introducing politics and other authority techniques into their day to day managing.

* Communication. Open communication is extremely important. What I find is that when you have many layers of management, decisions are made using information which needs to be withheld from lower levels (or decisions are made based on no information!). When it reaches the lower level, it seemingly makes no sense and can be confusing. Good management communicates everything and does so transparently. This way everyone understands the what and the why. If you don't agree, given you know the why, then you are at least better prepared to pitch an alternative or make the needed changes. If the why is something contentious like you or the team is underperforming, then again, its best that is communicated so everyone has the power to make corrective action, if they choose.

I think a lot of this comes down to culture. A good culture values engineers and adapts to making them happy, as that is how you get the most productive engineers.
Agree re the article, disagree re labor vs management. This mentality in an org is almost always a result of mismanagement. The reason is obvious: it's a people issue and dealing with people issues is a managerial responsibility.

Thinking that managers are bad in general is only a sign of inexperience because it implies someone has never worked in a place with good management before. I've seen plenty of "fuck management" types completely chill out after moving to a better workplace.
Maybe that is the business case ?
Making science accessable and in return get ppl that care or help with funding ?

Neither solutions are perfect as most things in life, I guess the question is, will it be better enough compared to what we have now ?
Yep, janky needs to look janky and be slow and break. Otherwise they'll think it already works :D

That's also why you always keep the UI on par with the backend as far as completion goes. If the UI looks complete -> people think the backend is complete too.

Only Coder GUIs until the backend is done :)
How do you justify prison sentences for crimes in the past in this framework mental framework?
What even are "nutrients"? It seems such a nebulous term. Do we really have a vitamin problem with a modern diet? I sure as heck don't know anyone getting rickets or scurvy or beri-beri.
So that we can reinstate the old order of eminence-based science? I think the funding system should be rather be more anonymous, more global, more detached from local elites ... like universities, organization close to government/administration etc.

You mustn't forget that universities are only one player of many in the science system. And the main task of some universities rather is education and not research.
Phosphor Iconset
I just watched his vid the other day on Big Think; very interesting for sure! I can see how that would apply here too.