skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Leaderless models work very well in cases where tasks are stable, tasks can be assigned 1:1 to team members, team members more-or-less understand which tasks are for them, and any major changes to tasks can be coordinated on timeframes of months or years.

The classic example is the traditional academic department at a non-research university.

1. The main deliverable are courses.

2. Each professor has some assigned courses. Once assigned, the professor can teach the course mostly in isolation. Additionally, the department tends to hire faculty in a way that makes sense for their curriculum; ie, the one Systems professor in a small CS department is probably going to be teaching the Systems electives.

3. The courses offered are mostly stable. When the curriculum changes, the changes can be managed in a distributed fashion because the change will take at least 6 months to 18 months before rollout.

Therefore, a traditional academic department can run in a mostly leaderless fashion, with a department chair who plays a supporting role and perhaps a bit of a coaching role for newer hires.

This doesn't work as well when tasks require close collaboration or when tasks evolve rapidly. It's not impossible. Just much harder. In those cases you tend to end up with a recognizable leadership vacuum, leading to sub-optimal outcomes mentioned in other comments.

Anyways, that's all a bit of an aside and not directly germane to the article. But I do wonder if selecting leaders via leaderless teams exercises selects for leaders who work well in well-defined tasks with teams that are already partitioned into quite specific roles, but flail in environments with more dynamic tasks/goals.
The closest example I can think of is Trevor Milton of Nikola. He was convicted of almost exactly the same thing as Elizabeth Holmes: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/1129248846/nikola-founder-ele...

The people that invested in and defend Holmes know nothing about biotech. The people that do know avoided Theranos/Holmes: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/03/she-saw-through-eliza....

> I’m not the only person. A lot of the people in the Valley were skeptics. The venture capitalists didn’t believe her for a second. She’d wave her arms and they’d say, “We have to know how this works.” And she’d say, “It’s a trade secret.” And they’d say, “Get out of here.”

> No. I just thought everybody was crazy. I mean, look at the board, that’s insane. That’s not corporate feasance, that’s malfeasance to have a board that knows nothing about any of this.
That’s basically the plot of Three Body Problem.

Is suspect Netflix PR is somewhere lurking around.
Highly not recommended for men! Prazosin decreases luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and ultimately testosterone levels.
I still default to thinking "SATA" when I think drive connector; took me decades to forget what PATA looked like!
Juniper (GraphQL-rust) helped us implement a GraphQL/RDF bridge in two weeks
I need this for dealing with undocumented Win32 APIs
Whenever my boss was out on vacation and the subject came up, I just told anyone who asked that the team was in autonomous collective mode.
I've yet to find a smoker who would agree it's helpful.

I've yet to find a smoker who doesn't know that quitting would be good for them.
> What barrier to entry; access to water?

Money. Boating is an expensive sport. Find me a boat, or even a rental, for less than $100. You can easily find second hand bikes for $50. Boating is also a pure luxury for most, where as cycling can be a necessity for those that can’t afford a car.

> Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating).

It’s my opinion, but find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true? For boating there’s clearly a huge safety element, every person you take out on the boat is relying on you to get them home safe. Just talk to any coastguard (or watch Smarter Every Day’s YouTube series) to see exactly how people end up drowning while boating in a manner that appears normal and safe.

> Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data.

The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data, including caveats from the data collectors themselves.

> The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error.

It shows no such thing. It show contributory factors, nothing about fault. A cyclist that didn’t notice a car pulling out of junction while the cyclist had right of way, might well be marked down as a contributory factor. After all, if the cyclist has been paying better attention, they might have been able to avoid the inattentive driver, but the fault still sits with the driver for failing to properly check for traffic before pulling out.

Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power? After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t. Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?

> But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common.

This applies to walking as well. There have been fatal pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. I guess we should licence and permit walking as-well? After all multiple pedestrians are killed everyday by drivers, don’t they need protecting from their incompetence as well?

If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well. The risk provide of cycling is substantially closer to walking than it is driving.
... a sub the size of cube 128cm along one edge? nice.
There is an interesting irony to this in that SBF had contributed $38 million to PACs as part of this election cycle.
It saves having every program that might want to send mail from requiring configuration.
Don't victim blame. Not every person or family is able to save, think about it a bit deeper than your personal bubble...
> you could also write waiters/waitresses

The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, from 1985, goes into this exact point, though he uses "waitron" instead of "waitrx".

> it is not really different from other plurals in this regard

Some yes, some no. Few now say "authoress" or "manageress", as a counter-example. And I don't think anyone ever used "bank telleress" instead of "bank teller."

That said, it seems you agree with me that "guys" is not a wholly gender-neutral term, yes?

The WaPo article author's argument seems to be that since "you guys" is used as a gender-neutral second person plural [1], "guys" is no longer a gendered word.

While I disagree. And gave counter-examples.

The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, more specifically at https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n153/mode... , makes exactly the same point, again this is from 1985:

> One of my pet peeves is the currently popular usage of the word "guys". You often hear a group of people described as "guys", even when that group includes women. In fact, it is quite common to hear women addressing a group of other women as "you guys". This strikes me as very strange. However, when I have asked some people about it, they have adamantly maintained that, when in the plural, the word "guy" has completely lost all traces of masculinity. I was arguing with one woman about this, and she kept on saying, "It may have retained some male flavor for you, but it has none in most people's usage." I wasn't convinced, but nothing I could think of to say would budge her from her position. However, fortune proved to be on my side, because, in a last-ditch attempt to convince me, she said, "Why, I've even heard guys use it to refer to a bunch of women!" Only after saying it did she realize that she had just unwittingly undermined her own claim.

[1] the article is dreadfully lacking in examples, but I think 'Hey guys' as an attention grabber fits into the same category as second person plural.
The way I did it was by not using it for my entire workflow right away. The trojan horse for me was org-mode. Doom Emacs got me started in what felt to be a more modern UX, and I used org-mode not for coding outright, but for note taking and personal project management. After a while, I started to use org-mode's built in ability to run code via org-babel to experiment with ideas in code. Eventually I was comfortable enough that I just started using it to code some times instead of VS Code, because I was already there. I still dual-use VS Code and Emacs because VS Code is still better at some things (working with files on remote server is still kinda slow via TRAMP some times) but I'm about 85% in Emacs now, since I like it better for text traversal, org-mode has become more integrated into my workflow with things like tangle, and I like magit better than VS Code's built-in git interface.
I work in Manhattan, and have for about 15 years at various startups and software companies. Personally, I've never seen it normalized. Sure, marijuana casually for some people. But it was generally not discussed and frowned upon. The same with Adderall, which is more of "did you hear people at X company are all on Adderall and working 16 hour days?" There is definitely rampant semi-abuse of energy drinks and coffee though. Personally, I could drink a red bull and take a nap if I wanted to.
In theory sure, but in practice a great deal of this is driven by earlier over investments by tech companies who saw a huge surge in profits during COVID lockdowns.

It wasn’t just online companies that benefited by changing consumer habits as people where stuck at home with little to do browsed social media and ordered food delivery etc. Setting up remote options across many industries had many similarities with the pre Y2K investments and a wave of modernization efforts. That followed by supply shortages which pushed massive investments to build more robust supply chains etc.
> Is it a surprise that people don't all work in the supportive environment that you have?

No, but what I'm saying was that usage of "just" is not the issue, a shitty environment is. If your boss / coworker / PM doesn't use "just" but still constantly makes it seem like a task should be easy to do in other ways (e.g. telling you your estimate is way too high for a task) and puts pressure on you not listening or accepting to your reasoning, is that better than them using the word "just", you explain why and they get that things aren't as simple as they thought? The underlying issue is not the particular choice of word.

You might say as advice "don't presume a task is easy, if you want to avoid people think/misunderstand it can help to avoid the following words:...". But the really important part would be the first part of this advice.

Though to be fair I don't even know if I'd agree with that advice either. Stuff is misunderstood or not well understood all the time. Expectations exist if you want them to or not. Maybe it's better to communicate those expectations.

> "Why so long? It's just a button that does stuff. Can't you just..."

a) The core aspect to address is not the word "just", but that the person asks you something they consider simple. Changing the wording (removing "just" or other such words) doesn't change the actual sentiment.

b) The "just" in the example does emphasize to the listener further that the speaker is underestimating the task at hand or doesn't yet grasp the full context. While I would see this as problematic usage, it precisely is what can help the listener in identifying that they might have to spend some time to address that misconception in their follow-up reply.

Whether it's ultimately super useful or not I don't know, but it does provide extra signal. I personally would rather have someone use "just" if they do in fact think the task is simple/trivial than beating around the bush. I then understand that there could be an issue of misalignment or even disagreement on difficulty. You really do want to get that out of the way instead of each party in silence, paralyzed, thinking "I still don't get why we cannot / need to do X / Y, but I don't want to sound like ...".

And that goes both ways. I have definitely gotten a good reset and ended up agreeing with the speaker that a solution can in fact be simpler albeit not perfect. And if the speaker and I then agree that it's sufficient, why not. I'm digressing. Important is that communication happens in good faith. Politeness likely doesn't fix this if that's not the case.
Disney+ Reaches 164.2M Subscribers
Ah, thanks for the links. I guess it makes sense, given that mouse-tracking within a specific web page is pretty much impossible to ban on technical level, since you can just place a ton of invisible pixels covering the entire page, and track the mouse hover events over them. And it would be impossible to block by browser too, unless the browser prohibits mouse hover interactions with components present on the page entirely.
As many of these companies base their projections on a relatively small number of outside sources, it often strikes me as a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Big business and financial firms have been signaling a belief in a downturn for a while now -- including while posting about record profits.
Also pushover fan. I have come to rely on it for critical monitoring alerts, and have not yet experienced failure in many years of use.
There are many musicians who "build" music in live concerts with modular synthesizers (in newer times mostly with Eurorack modules). Since many decades! Without computers. With some experience they know how to handle their tools.
And with some experience a good live coder can do the same with his computer too.
I think that's what the OP meant...
Total Annihilation also had sole-purpose obstacles you could build for this and they were called... Dragon's Teeth.
He didn't become the richest person in the world by listening to people. Why should he now because you don't like his politics? You don't think he knows about complexity and running an organization? We're going to take some journalist shill's "analysis" over Elon's? You think he got this far by surrounding himself with idiots?
Best I found - https://twitter.com/LynAldenContact/status/15900632571588116...:

Imagine McDonald's makes its own money, let's call them clown-bucks, keeps most of it, and sells some to the market.

McDonald's then uses their remaining clown-bucks as collateral for actual loans.

And then people remember clown-bucks aren't real.

And then Starbucks comes and market sells the clown-bucks they were holding, while reminding the market that clown-bucks aren't really a thing.

McDonald's balance sheet is trashed, with their clown-bucks wiped out.

Anyway, that's what happened in crypto-land this week.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhEKHDuVIAUfg7g?format=jpg&name=...
It takes a _long_ time to save up enough to manage through a year of unemployment.

A social safety net is always there.
Because they have laws.
They have laws to do time limits on social media, and co trol what content is recommended.
yup, that duke. how do you suppose they manage to lure their students away from the nba and amateur basketball leagues
I never made any claim about ancestry, I was referencing a theory about Celtic languages in the British Isles being influenced by Semitic languages. And I don't think the lost tribes of Israel stuff is relevant, both because I'm not sure if the theory I referenced is actually derived from such ideas, and because it is so different as to be functionally distinct.
Clearly someone was being stupid if there was no accountability in what contracts they sign
I dunno that I have a firm principle here. I'm just trying to gauge "What's the actual risk to society she poses if not in prison?"

"Physical harm" vs "wasting investor money" just feels categorically different in a meaningful way to me.
The thing he seems to miss is that people that have business meetings over Zoom/Teams do not actually look at each other much. They're looking at a shared screen showing an Excel sheet, some slide deck, code, whichever. The video feed is just a nice little touch.

Depending on company culture, quite a few meetings may be audio-only, further proving the point that seeing each other really isn't that important. It's nice, but not exactly the main purpose of the meeting.
Try sleeping on your side only, or try a snore alarm or breathing aids like nasal strips or decongestant. I find my nightmares and sleep paralysis are linked to snoring. When you snore you are not getting enough oxygen and your heart rate increases to compensate. Then for some weird reason your brain invents dream scenarios to match your racing heart.
Nah, it is a basic "getting to know" question. "I rebooted the machine" will get one response, "I cleared the cache and local storage; and also reproduced in incognito window" will get the other and "I am not going to answer that, also you are unprofessional" will get yhe third type.

Withholding useful information and being rude about it is not the best way to get help.
It's all related to taming inflation
> [...] my father grew up during the Algerian revolution, so it's hard to tell if his nightmares are just an artifact of being terrorized by French colonists.

Epigenetics in the wild: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-parents-rsquo...
Last time I gave a similar explanation. I was downvoted. So it is nice to see someone else repeating it.

>To me, this op-ed reads like Qualcomm propaganda.

>I definitely understand the position of those who would hate ARM in this case

Which is like 90% on comments on this topic on HN, mostly from RISC-V supporters.
It looks a lot like XMPP with some of its flaws – too much flexibility and no principled stance on privacy and security issues. For example, I couldn't find how ActivityPub supports signatures of sent content, while Mastodon (one of ActivityPub implementation/services) specifies and requires it. And it's really disappointing that they don't solve the identity theft problem, leaving it all in hands of instances' admins.
It is sometimes very hard to name things well.
The name either becomes so unspecific that it is just as useless, or it gets so long that nobody will use it.

This gets worse the "deeper" the math goes, but for me it never was a real problem, as you usually learn the definition together with the name.
> At least in this case, any advice would be helpful.

It's not clear what you mean by "this case". It's a rare case where "any advice would be helpful."

> Beyond this, learning itself requires lots of humility. You must be prepared to be offended in one way or other to learn any person, in any way.

The mistake you're making is assuming that the person is having this discussion with you because he wants to learn for you. And that, after all, is the point of several other comments in this thread.

It was definitely years before I understood what people meant by "I don't want your advice or solution. I want you to listen."

Losing weight is a simple equation of calories in vs out. The reason people are not losing weight is not because they don't understand that. If you want to help, don't suggest ways they can reduce calorie intake or burn more calories. Understand what the barriers are that's preventing them from acting. It's almost never a lack of knowledge about nutrition/exercise.
This is pretty small adjustment for a company their size and comes on the heels of several large acquisitions and a huge hiring spree. I'm not sure this is actually a headcount reduction or just a restructuring. They have over 3000 job openings listed on LinkedIn right now.
Banks say that they don't invest deposits?
Is it though? The social safety net usually doesn’t reach up to help people earning SV tech job salaries. I would prefer to see more friction when it comes to layoffs so we’d see less of tech giants doubling and halving their headcounts in a period of just a couple of years.
> I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues

Where have I blamed cyclists for road issues?

> rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

> that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

>

> Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

It seems that you have simplified the issue into government/countries and motorists = bad and that they're uncivilized. You appear to be blaming everyone else for road issues besides cyclists.
Personally I think calling randomized fine tuning of large statistical models "Artificial Intelligence" is incredibly pretentious. But then again, humans pretend to be so much more then the naked monkeys we really are and isn't that the whole point of this brief 'civilization' phenomenon we seem to bloom into shortly before killing our host planet?
I'm late to respond but the reason it's likely working is because you are involved.
Installing YouTube vanced (and yt music vanced) on my phone and using YouTube music in the browser with ublock origin has been free and fantastic user experience (browsers now support dbus commands, so media keys work without needing to install the app on desktop). Highly recommend.
I know places that do it. One was three block away from where I lived. It made goddamn impossible to sleep, these waves travel trough ground like it's nothing and you don't usually hear them, but when you lay on the bed you can feel them it scrambles your brain.
> Salesforce let go of fewer than 1,000 employees Monday, according to a person familiar with the move.

> At the end of January it employed 73,541 people.

“…employees Monday”,

“…January”

Is this grammatical? Is it coherent? Or was this generated with GPT-3?
I went to Georgia Tech with Dare. It's a great school, but it's not exactly the kind of place you send your scions of privilege.
> it’s better to be liked than right.

Broadly, maybe. At work, I don't care about being liked by people that can't admit they are wrong.

That doesn't being a dick to anyone I think is wrong. The whole point of telling someone that they're wrong is to correct course and fix things, and bullheaded, righteous, approaches never accomplish that.

But it does mean you don't keep quite. You don't give up. You ask questions, you try to learn. Because part of the process of saying that something is wrong is being willing to learn that maybe you are the wrong one.

I understand being unwilling to bulge to people that come in thinking they know better about everything. But I do not accept not even listening to someone that disagrees, that's a red flag,and I am out asap.
I think that might be jumping the gun a bit. The article talks about a jump in "monetizable daily active users" during Elon's first week as owner. Couldn't that just as easily be explained by dormant accounts opening Twitter to see what's going on?
In the 1990s a piece of Germany’s air traffic control software ran on Emacs
> I think thoughtful people

That is a pretty backhanded euphemism....

Anyways, I thought "service personnel" already covered that example, but yes "staff" might be more common. Anyways, the point was that these are common conventions and all are intended as gender neutral -- so insulting people for using a specific one seems very misguided.
It's absolutely taking a risk, but for many people it is an unavoidable risk, and thus would not be considered taking "excessive" risk, as OP mentioned.