skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Derivatives are what inflated the housing bubble prior to 2008.

Yes derivatives are a big part of what inflated the bubble prior to 2008, but the fed purchasing them didn't do anything to maintain home prices.

The combination of (ARMs + low interest rates) and lenders being able to immediately flip mortgages to other to be combined in CDOs and other MBS derivates inflated housing. Lenders could make loans that they knew borrowers could not repay, but because it would be off their books before that time hit they continued to make them. Derivatives inflated the bubble.

But as rates continued to rise, ARMs began to reset, and buyers at the new prices dried up, prices began to crash and people began to walk away from homes. This immediately dropped home values and caused MBSes to devalue quickly. Demand for MBSes dropped immediately. Lenders stopped making loans because they realized they could no longer flip to loans to others to securitize them. As nobody wanted to buy a MBS now. This dried up the demand side, plus foreclosures added to supply side.

The fed stepped in and began buying close to worthless MBS for way above value not because of any impact on the housing market (overall MBS demand was still enormously down), but because they were buying them above their value to prop up the market so financial companies could still price them to "market" on their books and (via façade) maintain their capital requirements. They also purchased them to help inject capital into the markets and take more MBS off their book. The fed purchased these to prop up the financial system - it had nothing to do with home prices and had little impact on home prices. Lenders stopped pushing unviable loans to borrowers because they now held the risk. And they would hold the risk regardless.

The fed didn't prop up the housing market in 2008, they propped up the financial markets because so many people tried to get rich quick off mortgage backed securities and the bubble burst.

The bubble is now bursting in crypto. As you said, the floor for crypto (with little to no intrinsic value) is zero. The only question is how close to it's intrinsic value will it fall.

Wall St. pushed hard to keep MBSes unregulated, they formed a bubble and then fell back to close to their intrinsic value. Their intrinsic value was maybe 30% off of their peak value. (Maybe a bit lower, but due to the illiquid nature of housing the market never fully fell to it). So now crypto also unregulated has pushed a bubble, how far does it have to fall to hit its intrinsic value?
Konica Minolta kills off its customer service repair center
This is one of the classics, and yeah, I've gotten this one too. But this one's a gimme since it's so simple and you really are just expected to have heard it. Someone at Microsoft asked me this one and I considered it a massive gift. I thought for a few moments, articulated the solution, and then wrote the code. Then I said, "of course, everyone's heard this one before; I didn't just come up with that on the spot." (you may as well wait to admit this at the end instead of the beginning since you then get an open-ended amount of time to give a stellar answer to what they asked, then you get honesty credit for admitting you knew it all along, plus you've eaten up time that they might have used to switch questions on you).

There are much worse ones on leetcode, and people expecting you to get the optimal solution are absurd. I fully expect to fail those unless I'm lucky. I don't study leetcode problems, because my interview approach is to first and foremost, implement a naive (aka slow) but correct solution in the time allotted, then engage in a conversation about ideas for improving it (not a rewrite). This has worked for me for decades, and it's also what I expect of people I'm interviewing.

This type of approach allows the interviewee to demonstrate that 1) they can write basic code, 2) they can solve a problem, 3) they can critique their own code and discuss perf implications, 4) they can think of ways to improve it even if they don't necessarily have time for a rewrite, and it allows the interviewer to demonstrate that they aren't a dick who's just playing "I'm smarter than you because I'm in the advantaged position."
You can't simultaneously posit that you drive 1500 miles a year, and then complain about the charging speed. 1500 miles a year doesn't need 230V 16A. You would achieve the level of charging speed literally with a laptop charger.

200Wh/Mi -> 200 * 1500 -> 300,000Wh required -> 300,000 / 365 * 24 -> 35W charger needed.
My view of FP is that it's not compatible with the concept of modularity or separation of concerns.

If your priority is to ensure that similar concepts are grouped together inside flexible and composable modules, then co-locating related state and logic is necessary.

Unless a module can fully encapsulate (have full ownership over) the state which it operates on, it cannot fully separate its concerns from that of other modules. If you have a global state store and any module can potentially read from and write to any part of that state, then you are bound to end up with modules which have overlapping responsibilities - These 'modules' won't be very modular or composable because, whenever multiple modules share the same state, they invariably end up having to have an awareness of each other's behaviors (to avoid writing conflicting state changes or to know when they should update themselves).

Underlying FP philosophy is the notion that there is no value in encapsulation; that there is no value in assigning exclusive ownership over specific state to a specific module; that such ownership is dangerous because it makes the module unpredictable from outside.
What FP proponents fail to realize is that once they've rejected the philosophy of state encapsulation, they've implicitly accepted the philosophy of state multi-ownership.
Whenever you have shared ownership of state, it becomes unclear who is responsible for that state; this leads to potential conflicts.
Avoiding conflicts forces modules to become aware of each other's existence and interactions and this reduces their modularity.

The functional programmer's need for modules to be fully predictable with each interaction was born out of a need to micromanage them.
On the other hand, OOP proponents understand the value of module autonomy and see them as black-boxes which need to be trusted to do their work.
OOP proponents understand the value of simple interfaces when it comes to modularity and they understand that such simple interfaces are only possible if the module has sufficient autonomy and this requires it to have full control over its state.

An analogy for FP in the real world would be like a computer manufacturer relying on chips from a chip manufacturer, but the computer manufacturer insists that the chip manufacturer must produce chips using only the materials provided by the computer manufacturer...
Let's say that, eventually, a new superior semiconductor material is discovered; the chip manufacturer will not be able to use it to improve their chips.
Although it has autonomy over its manufacturing processes, it is constrained to the materials provided to it by the manufacturing company; therefore it cannot take advantage of the innovation behind the scenes without the computer manufacturer also updating its processes and materials. The chip manufacturer is predictable but it is not modular; it cannot improve itself without involvement from the computer manufacturer.
I thought the same. When I remember to use a timer, I find it very motivating, but the breaks are easily filled with email, switching contexts, getting a drink, going to the bathroom or whatever else.

Maybe a purely structured chat would work - summarise what you achieved, outline what you will do in your next allotment. But anything beyond that might be time better spent planning and prepping for the next session rather than wasting the first minute getting up to speed?
I don't know Clojure, but stack traces and breakpoints are nearly unusable in Haskell also, for exactly the reason you say. It's a weakness of functional programming, not the language.

That said, you need these things less when you don't have mutable state and you do have referential integrity so you can zoom in on the critical path of side effecting code.
I use notepad and trying to move away from it. 1st there is friction creating new files, 2nd no search functionality, 3rd I've too much freedom to just create files anywhere.
I stand corrected, thanks for the link.
By IB do you mean international baccalaureate? Do you recommend that over standard curricula?
>There's a lot of complexity to be tamed, and in my experience that can be a very enjoyable part of actually engineering

In my experience there is almost no correlation between complexity of the project and time needed to do 'non-technical' work. Quite contrary, the most complex things I did as a dev required me to do a lot of coding - to prototype, to experiment, to load testing and so on.

And at the same time the easiest project in the larger corporations required me to write down design docs for trivial stuff and spent months in meetings to 'align' with people, who don't have time to even read your design doc, but want you to have bi-weekly meeting about it.

So no, I don't buy this excuse anymore. Unless you are building space ship or do very unique work, there shouldn't be any need to spend 80% of your time in non-strictly-technical work.
Corruption and abuse of power. Banks work closely with the gov to weave laws in their favor. A local bank once showed me the legislation saying, bluntly speaking, they can do whatever they want without an explanation.

I'm still praying for a decentralized banking solution to give contest to these criminals.
The original Zero started at $5 when first released in 2015.[1] The Zero W was $10.[2] The $15 board press release you link is for the Zero 2 W.

[1] https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/raspberry-pi-zero/

[2] https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-zero-w/
Yes, but. Boeing is a tricky case, because it's a strategic company for the US - in the actual, military/security sense of the word: the US government is willing to burn money with them in peace time, so their expertise and factories exist and are available during war time.
Fuzzers:

- https://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html#trophies

- https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/#bugs
only down side if vscode isn't open then it takes a while to open up
Ugh. I do the opposite, as I am VERY much not a morning person, so I spend the first hour or two each day just fighting to appear awake. But then get enough done in my peak couple hours after lunch that I run out of work to do.

Wish the promise of "Salaried means we pay for the job to be done" ideal was more of a reality.
Wouldn't you have to have access to your coworker's email in-box to do that?
Basically what @clivestaples already said. If you go to the Laravel Website [1] and look through "Ecosystem" in the navigation - that's what I am missing from Rails. And of course a more active community.

[1] https://laravel.com/
Water availability is a red herring IMO.

Desalination is expensive, but even desalinated water would add very little to the cost of green hydrogen.

A high-end cost estimate for desalinated water is about $1.50 per kiloliter / metric ton. There's about 111 kilograms of hydrogen in a metric ton of water.

Even assuming only 50% of that ends up as saleable hydrogen, you're still talking less than 3c of desalination cost for every kg of hydrogen you produce. The other thing to keep in mind here is that hydrogen production occur only at places and at times where energy is very cheap, so the energy inputs to the desal plant should also be very cheap, pushing down the cost of desalination.
If "Anthony" is an AI, why does he take days to reply? Surely a sufficiently capable developer relations AI could handle dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of developer queries simultaneously!
I think that's sort of true; to me a lot of the value of fancier and FP is that you can do things "in userspace", with plain values and functions, rather than needing magical language keywords. Magical language keywords do have some advantages because they can have tight integration with the language implementation, like stack traces as you mention. But they're also hard to understand and reason about, especially when it comes to how they interact with each other. (E.g. in languages that have both builtin async and builtin exceptions, the interaction between the two tends to be complex and confusing; whereas where async and error handling are implemented by libraries, it's easy to see exactly what's happening in any scenario, since it all just follows the normal rules of the language).
One of my friend worked on WITCH’s treasury software used internally by government, from which millions of USD transactions happen on daily basis. Since remote access to server was not allowed, he used to use his personal USB drive to copy code from his personal laptop to the mainframe server on daily basis. With both being full of viruses.
security theater + outdated talent
Household income is a skewed bell curve [0]. Some graphs make it it appear bi-modal because the last few bars will contain larger buckets: in this chart, the last 2 bars represent $50,000 in values where all proceeding values are $5,000 [1]. When looking at the change over time, there is an increasing number of households at the upper end of the curve [2].

[0]: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2015/demo/dist...

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Distribu...

[2]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads...
Taking the ideas of big tech, and applying them to a low tech area is sure to make things better. /s

The tool used to be a pipe and wheels. Now the tool is a five figure contraption with millions of lines of code, hundreds of moving parts, and extremely specific high tech things that aren't easy to replace.

People are drunk on high tech, and have forgotten that simple is good.
Should people who sell food get to make up their own definitions of "kosher", "halal", "vegan", etc., without being "socially exiled"? If not, what's the difference between that and this?

And this is nothing like what Adobe and Pantone did.
We can finally put those tinfoil hats to good use, though.
Yikes. So I as a “journalist” can leak any of my “friends” conversations because they didn’t tell me “off the record?” Must be hard having any actual friend, as a “journalist.”
“It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.”

-- F. Nietzsche
This comment only makes sense in the monolingual USA, where learning a new language is an arduous task and not something people do all the time.

German, Polish, and Chinese programmer all learn what "for" means.

And anyway, Java calls functions "methods", yet somehow we survived.
This is mentioned in one of the William Dunham books, how Cole was presenting at a conference and silently multiplied two by itself 67 times, subtracted one, and then multiplied the two factors he'd found and got the same number. And apparently received a standing ovation. Until then, it was not known whether it was prime (it's of the form 2^p-1 with p prime which iirc are potential Mersenne primes)
People have a sense that motorcycles are dangerous. They're loud, heavy, and take a modicum of skill to ride. Also, in many places you need to take a safety course to ride one.

I imagine a lot of people see onewheels as fancy electric skateboards and don't give the failure case much thought, or even consider how much balancing assistance they're getting electronically.
>How the heck did we end up here?!

In my view, America as a society became paranoid after 9/11. What you're seeing is a symptom of this. It isn't like this in other countries: kids walk around by themselves all the time.
Ok this took many back-and-forth emails, but I eventually got this from support:

> Marvin from Product Operations here and happy to clarify. The answer you're looking for is: no we are not using your data to train our models.
Solve that by living somewhere that sidewalks are rare. I’d swear they’re practically illegal here in Indianapolis.

I was surprised once to see frozen, dangerous sidewalks in front of a law firm, but I suppose no one is going to be foolish enough to sue them.
It's not a "security risk", it is a confession of defeat from the UK

What are UK investors doing? What has the UK government done to empower a sovereign industry?
Indeed, comments should answer the "why".

But ideally the comments should be executable, as unit tests, making you read them if and only if you break them.

For this to be a tolerable development experience, test as much as you can while keeping your tests away from slow dependencies like networking, DB, disk I/O..., and try to keep tests relevant to what you're modifying executable locally in a few seconds.

Maybe even refactor your app to have dependencies at the top, so that most code doesn't have access to them.
This can be ridden through as well, the bumpers are consumables that will slide on pavement. This is what I'll typically do if I push the board too far, though I have pitched the front into a sidewalk crack where it stopped dead and I kept going.

But I've got decades of board riding experience that has taught me to keep my center of mass over the top of the board. This is an important skill to deal with unexpected bumps on snowboards and skateboards as well. Even when the board stops due to colliding with an object I've still got a decent chance of running it out.
I don't get the snark, why is AI in quotes? What are you trying to prove? Are you just plugging your site?
One problem with this approach is that the customers of the app stores generally aren't individual developers, they're the companies that make the apps. It would be stronger to say

Uber, King Games (candy crush), Roblox, and PUBG Mobile are dissatisfied with the way policies are unevenly enforced on the App Store / Play Store. Here are our demands, kindly address them or we will collectively deprive Apple / Google of the app revenue and band together to make our own.

than

Developers Alice, Bob, Carol, Dan, [...], and Zelie, who work at Uber, King Games, [etc] are dissatisfied with [...]

... Although, I can't say I would like to live in a world where the biggest revenue producers for the app stores get to dictate terms to the app store providers.
Slack it really great for getting info but it definitely can become a firehose and a distraction. Many of those fire and forget posts are from people equally as exhausted with it as you are trying to keep up. I have also talked with plenty of people who feel the same way as you do about inflection. Some people need this more than others (myself included).

I don’t know your role or the expectations at a FAANG but chances are all these messages you are trying to keep up on are keeping you from doing something else that would be more valuable to both your mental health and the company.

If you can set boundaries I would do so. Some things that have helped me:

- Asked my boss what was absolutely important for real time communication and turned off notifications for everything else.

- Aggressively using my status for work. I block my calendar between 8am-12pm and put “programming” in my status with notifications turned off. If there’s a real fire slack lets you “send anyway”.

- I try to put time aside in my day to dedicate to paperwork type stuff. This includes slack, email, hr stuff and so on. This really helps me because I’m not constantly context shifting and can give the appropriate time towards anything being asked of me. It also helps with perceived tone as I don’t read the message feeling resentful.

This sort of stuff is easier said than done and you have to figure out what works best for your situation. At the end of the day most things can wait a bit and actually work out better when there’s a bit of time to process and think about them. A lot of people have just forgotten.
I'm going to be really upset if the government uses stories like these as an excuse to bail out FTX, SBF walks free having "raised investment" to cover the $8b loss, and the government is left openly controlling a major crypto exchange.
> The consciousness is not some magical force that enters us but just a giant bag of tricks that our brain plays.

That's kind of a straw man of what Dennett's opponents argue. No philosopher seriously says that consciousness is a magical force entering the brain. Rather, they make arguments that materialism (physicalism) fails to account for consciousness, whatever that entails for metaphysics or epistemology. Some are naturalists, but not physicalists. Some are idealists. Some like David Chalmers propose a kind of property dualism. Others might be neutral monists or think we're cognitively closed to the solution. Or panpsychists were everything has a bit of consciousness.

Materialism is a metaphysical assumption. We don't know the truth of what reality fundamentally is (it could be a simulation for all we know). We also don't know how to bridge the subjective/objective divide, as Thomas Nagel has argued. Another way of framing the argument is that the objective world is an abstraction across many subjective experiences, where consciousness is abstracted in favor of mathematical forms. That works well for describing/predicting patterns in nature we observe, including the brain, but then when you turn it around to explain the mind, it runs into difficulties, since the abstracted-away subjectivity has been left out.

There's no need to muddy the waters with the word "magic". We don't know everything, and some things we might never know. We do know that we have experiences of color, sound, taste, smells, feels, dreams, inner dialog and what not. That's not magic, it's just how we experience being in the world, whatever the world and our experiences are.

Here's a view opposing Dennett's from Jaron Lanier: http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html
I think that donating money one time buys you a photo. I think donating every cycle and especially anticipated into the future buys you access - which is correlated but not the same as outcomes.
if this research is so old, did world tried any thing to ameliorate this problem? I guess it doesn't happen yet...
>From what I understand, memory cells literally reproduce the original brain signal just as if it were coming from outside stimulus. Like playing the brain waves off a tape recorder.

I can't recall pictures of events that happened yesterday with anything resembling what it was like to be there and experience seeing the events in person. I can construct images of what things might've looked like, but the creative process of recalling that memory feels awfully different than experiencing events in real time.
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that design and discussion, of often very detailed technical aspects, is "non-technical work" of any kind, or that sitting down and writing code is the only "technical work".
My thoughts on the topic of large-scale "AI" plagiarism:

https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa...

Discussed numerous times here on Hacker News.

We are witnessing a monstrous perversion of "fair use" and the greatest theft of intellectual property in human history.

But the "AI bros" love it.