skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some people are truly bad at comminicating.

The other side of this, trying to insist on yes/no answers to questions that are not yes/no questions is also a bit of a recipe for disaster.

> EDIT: I see some answers referring to learning disorders, disabilities, anxiety, not knowing the issue at hand. I'm talking about people which do know the topic

Some learning disorders do exhibit really good math and logic skills but poor conversational skills. Or just requiring a lot of time to put thoughts together and being really bad at on the spot real time conversation. Casual conversation and being academically talented are really pretty distinct skills that dont neccesarily come together.
I once left a project 4 months in mainly because the boss couldn't communicate with me clearly.

The answer to any "what is X?" or "what's the difference between X and Y" question invariably resulted in an hour-long meandering tour of the whole domain. But not really the whole domain... just tiny inconsequential bits and pieces of it, which I could never pause him long enough to get him to assemble. If you mention that "X is basically Z with 2 exceptions", I need to be able to pause you and ask you what "Z" is.

The first time and the first month this "dive into the deep end" was useful. It takes a while to load a new domain into your head and it's all going to be unclear and ad-hoc at first.

But at some point, I really just needed to know what X, Y, or Z is so I could get on with my work, and I knew I'd never be able to get that answer out of him.
> If the receiver is a “large” struct or array, a pointer receiver may be more efficient. Passing a struct is equivalent to passing all of its fields or elements as arguments to the method. If that seems too large to pass by value, a pointer is a good choice.

For an app that has medium-sized structs in hot paths, this tradeoff introduces considerable tension into the development flow.

However, there is one takeaway for us devs: Don't count on help from the inlining optimization pass of the compiler to evaporate away calling overhead of structs, neither when passed as the receiver nor as an ordinary arg.
All other social media out there is not as draconian. You should use probably that, and they have more people.

I want to test the hypothesis whether people can be nice and decent on the Internet without resorting to enforced real names and government approved access to the Web.

Mind you, you'd need to be a terrible person to be booted. Posting child porn. Inciting murder. Botting and spamming. Doxing and organising a mob. Why should terrible people to have a free pass? Why should one have a free pass for inviting a terrible person?

Again, I do not want to change the social media landscape. This would be performance art.
Many legacy hose and plumbing fittings made of brass and other metals can split in very cold temperatures if they've been left connected outdoors all winter. They'd be ruined in the spring thaw. I've seen plastics crack under similar conditions.
Exit nodes are usually still behind your firewall and have no open incoming ports. If you're willing to reconfigure your firewall to open incoming ports, you probably didn’t need Funnel in the first place.
Look at the title again. This is the guy who cleaned up Enron and he is calling it "unprecedented" and says "never in my career have I seen such a complete failure..."

This is not typical language. John Ray III is a serious person.
There is research to support it. It makes sense as well. If your human diet affects your health/nutrition/body composition, animal diet should affect their health/nutrition/body composition.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14423473.pdf
Sure, and a spot of heroin won't hurt you either. No one EVER suggested that eating some meat was harmful. Then Americans and some Brazillians decided they could live on 100% steak. Yeah, no.
SWEs are all types of people, but one characteristic that tends to benefit us is a capacity to think about problems. With it comes the burden of overthinking problems. This can spill into overthinking our own personal relationships with the job we have, and even become a source of anxiety.

We're not being paid to be anxious at work, but I personally feel that accepting that this is common is a reasonable basis for having relationships with team members and trying to find a productive manner in which to solve problems together.

One aspect of working on a team with many brilliant, anxious people is that we can become hyper-competitive about the small technical areas we have been a reputation of success around. We start to defend our areas with an overabundance of technical details - a firewall of jargon that can keep others healthily out of our spaces.

Pulling others IN to these spaces is still a traversal of that firewall; there's no playbook for getting the anxious to be less anxious, but I find that treating SWEs as people, and not engineers, has helped me build stronger relationships and earn a little trust. Trust that I spend on helping me get my work done. And hopefully, theirs, too.

One particularly divisive technique I continue to tinker with, is the "zoom out", or the "level set". When I have to broach a new topic, or body of work, with my fellow SWEs, I find it useful to address what the problem is as though we don't even work at the company solving it. This divides everyone into two camps: those annoyed by hearing the obvious, but then those who, in good faith, have no idea how to get involved with the work but would otherwise like to.

I try not to dwell too long during a "level set" because if it's not becoming obvious how to contribute with a little back story, then perhaps the fit isn't very good anyways and I let people scatter. And, to my own point of mental health, I have stopped insisting that anyone can do anything if they put their minds to it.

No one else communicates the way that I do. It's absurd to expect them to. So, to borrow from Postel's Law, I put far more effort into trying to understand how my coworkers perceive the requirements, than I do telling them what the requirements are to me. The time 'wasted' on this extra preparation has time and again saved me from countless hours of meaningless effort. I have saved entire quarters of the year by asking a few extra questions that were not obvious, by not needing to embark at all. Listening, it can be far more productive than speaking.
>Only figuratively in the hacker/gamer sense. TikTok is owned by ByteSense.

No, in the very literal sense that Bytedance has a board of directors, and on that board is a CCP member who has the real final say on everything the company does. When you are a business in China, you defacto work for the government.

China isn't America with a red flag, it's a fundamentally different system. Too many people think they know China because they understand America.

If Biden wants instagram showing people pictures of ponies, it simply isn't going to happen. If Xi wants tiktok to show people ponies, the next day every kid in america will be looking at ponies.
While I want to understand your point and welcome enlightenment, so far this conversation has just been kinda weirdly hostile.
Sounds like a dream for employees, I don't care what's under the hood. I have unclaimed business expenses because the reimbursement portal is so shit.
> Takes about 15-30 seconds to figure out if the person you are talking to understands or is being evasive. In which case you need to adjust and put on kiddy gloves, slow down, and coax information out.

Personally I don't find this approach very helpful. It's not always clear to me whether the person Im talking to does not understand the topic thoroughly enough, or whether they actually understand it much more deeply than I do and it's actually more complicated than I currently appreciate. Going in with an open mind is important imo.

I find this to be particularly true with software engineering questions, where a lot of the time you're making a series of compromises based on some assumptions about the use case. Maybe they don't understand a particular piece of code, or maybe it's that they've just spoken to a user who's doing something weird and they're trying to work out how that use case will interact with this code.
They are what the rest of the world is trying to model after.
Free speech has no place on Wikipedia. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, and to summarize the contents of primary sources, not a way for specific people to spread their opinions.
On top of that, sometimes the question cannot be answered as asked. If the question contradicts itself, even if only slightly, no direct answer would be correct.
Why would it?

In Western countries population is already naturally dropping. What's needed first and foremost is a culture shift so that we stop seeing that as a negative. In any case, we have no choice because population cannot keep growing indefinitely in a finite space (which is what would lead to an actual dystopian outcome and we are getting there just looking at the state of the environment).

The very fact that you replied what you replied just now after I mentioned population levels shows how the public has been conditioned.
The waiting list is shortened if you invite 5 friends with a special link. Whomever posted this basically invited all of us.

I think twitter's "high" traffic right now is akin to a traffic jam on the motorway because people slow down to watch that horrible terrible accident...
Listen to The History of Philosophy without any Gaps podcast. You’ll get a lot of insight into the evolution of human thought.
This guy has no reason to need to do that, his career is already rock solid - and if even 1% of the stuff coming out is true, this is an epic cluster of malfeasance and incompetence.

Usually small businesses are terrible at accounting and finance, but even they typically have some idea where their bank accounts are and what is in them
Why is a reduction in suffering preferable? How do you even measure suffering? Are you certain that plants and fungi don't suffer? This all seems highly subjective.
Always funny how those who have never really worked a day in their lives are the ones who scream "work harder (for me)" the loudest.
Why do you think the spit out results won't end up in shell scripts?

I've heard people are even copy-pasting stuff from Stackoverflow into production code without fully understanding the code they're copying.
Quick, someone tell the guy behind universal paperclips
It would take some extraordinary results, produced by a mere study nonetheless, to merit calling decades of actual research shoddy.
I like the goals and intent behind it, that alone is worth it. Most comments here don’t even debate Noams welcome words. A platform that isn’t a wild west race to the bottom of ad revenues? Sign me up! Micro payments for valued content? Heck yeah!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33510272#33510919
Your numbers are a bit off. It's 7m total up from ~5.6m before all this, not active. The active count historically drops back down to ~100k after booms, but this one does seem different and sustained due to the different circumstances. It's usually a small burp in a specific community. It's never been all of Twitter's most active users from across all communities considering alternatives.
https://semiphemeral.com/ is what I have been using for this for a while, but always good to have more options.
Then they ask for your card info.
I am not about to defend everyone as a decent communicator, but I do want to highlight a difficult scenario -- when discussing complex subjects, experts often strive to provide a complete answer/retort to a question/statement which almost always contains many caveats and a may necessitate pulling in background from tangential areas that comes across as meandering if not viewed through the same lens. Concise is not often accurate, but it's what non-experts want to hear. It's a catch-22, as the seemingly muddy conversation loses them distinction but if they do not pursue that route, then they mislead their audience and bad decisions can be made as a result.

Weaving together an on-the-fly response that both ties off the thought process and presents a narrative that doesn't lose the audience is a skill not many possess without extensive practice (e.g. high-level debate training, trial law, etc..).
After dealing with devs, customers, account managers, security guys on the customer side and such a bunch, I'm starting to realize something that's tricky. If you don't know a concept exists - or it slips your mind - you cannot include and deal with it in your communication. This might be inconsequential in some cases, or lead to misunderstandings in other situations.

For example - and it feels silly to type this because it's so obvious - as an ops-guy, I know we have to think about service downtime, its duration, our control over the downtime, user impact of the downtime and also the transitive impact of a downtime. This makes it very smooth for me to discuss a maintenance window with a call center manager, because even though our services aren't the same, we're knowing each other concepts. On the other hand, we've had developers who didn't understand how terrifying a rather uncontrolled downtime of unknown length is.

Or another example, some developers simply don't know that we're running a couple dozen instances of their software for different purposes. If you don't know that, "doing an hour or two of tinkering" for this update seems fine, because you just did it once for your test system. On the other hand, we're suddenly looking at literally man weeks of work if we accepted this.

Growing aware of such blind spots is doing good for me, and also growing awareness to the awareness of such blind spots. Some people who are very enjoyable to work with accept they have these blind spots and are happy to dig into them. Others are in fierce denial and more difficult.
ABI to what?

The kernel internally makes no promises about ABI even in C, why would that change for Rust?

For userspace, Rust doesn't export anything new to userspace. The kernel APIs remain as they were, and Linus has the same view as ever about whether it's OK to break userspace.
Awesome! Loved it! Simple and so fascinating.
> be part of a voluntary layoff and would receive three months of pay as severance

That is very generous severance. No wonder so many people resigned.
I don't want to get into the drama of why this might be useful, but I used this service to delete 15,000 of my tweets over the last decade. I also want to mention that Twitter's archive service is a fantastic piece of engineering and gives you a local version of your history with JSON and all your media attachments so you can hack to your hearts content.

Coincidentally I made a video[0] today to show off what this tool looks like once you set it up and also show off the archive bits. Regardless of how you feel about the situation, it's never a bad time to make a backup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSbdZyUeVHg
I surmise that a significant percentage of communication issues in the workplace are of this type. It's not always 'clear communication' vs 'unclear communication,' but 'communication style I'm familiar with' vs 'communication style I'm unfamiliar with.'
There are tens of examples of this in this very comment section
Sure, some people are not native English speakers, but in OP's case that didn't affect the clarity of their question, even with a couple inferred missing words.
It's one thing to get users. It's another to keep them. Mastodon's user experience is godawful. It might be an IRC replacement for nerds, but it'll never be Twitter.
Consider variadic arguments for such cases.
That is exponentially more difficult.
Hey! I'd be glad to share.

First, we're a fully remote team, so all meetings are virtual. Super informal, fun and casual.

We all put it suggestions for what we want to read then we let a random wheel decide for us. Nobody is forced to read anything they don't want though! We sometimes try to alternate fiction and non-fiction.

We normally give ourselves a month to read it. Some of our team have dyslexia, so they prefer listening to it.

If everyone's finished it, we meet up and talk about the book. If someone hasn't, we delay the next meeting to allow them to finish it. At the end of the chat we ask everyone if they would recommend the book or not (we wanted to avoid "rating" the books out of X)

That's it basically.
The new CEO (John Jay Ray III) was the one put in charge of Enron to clean up that whole mess. I don't think anyone doubts his legitimacy at this point, so there would be no need for him to be on the defensive. He was placed here specifically for that reason, I think.
I think we either need to narrowly define whataboutism or stop using it altogether. in discussions like these it takes the role of a hammer to beat anyone that questions American exceptionalism and it's kinda gross.

it always goes along the lines of your thread;

a: "hey, look at awful thing x <other country> is doing, we should do something about that"

b: "we do that too, and it is bad. we should fix it"

a: "that's whataboutism and it's off topic"

where x includes, but is not limited to: class-based legal asymmetry, extralegal incarceration, the existence of a ruling class, unprovoked invasions of sovereign territory, race-based murder by state actors, news suppression...

.. and mass surveillance with a political agenda.

Were I to Don my tinfoil chapeau, I'd say there's a taste of astroturfing to conversations like these. Abusive patterns of social interaction that certainly seem like they're in service of a national agenda. But lacking proof, I won't.
You're being unfair. The half of the hull above the water line under the passenger boarding ramp is totally fine.
Oh so our current owners are concerned that they might lose control of the culture to some new foreign owners? If I believed that the US security state was there to protect the American people I might be more concerned, as it stands this is just a changing of the guard for who will be our technocratic authoritarian overlords, and I can't be plotzed to care.
Easy. I present you two universes, one with our cosmological constant and one with a slightly smaller but still nonzero one. The differences would only become apparent over distances greater than a few billion light years or so. Out planet, solar system or even the entire galaxy would be virtually indistinguishable. But inhabitants of both would wonder how the cosmological constant got cancelled out so precisely against the QFT vacuum over so many orders of magnitude when studying the sky. No bias required.
Virtualization is almost zero overhead in modern day, and is safer. Breaking out of sandboxes has many more areas of exploitation.
"escape its sandbox" ... it's more useful outside the sandbox, so... we just let it loose
Heh:

> Assembly ship, also known as a Judas goat, a bomber aircraft used by the U.S. Air Force in World War II to lead formations.

Imagine being the pilot. Funny name.

(I tried pasting the link too, but apparently the back button no longer remembers input text on iPad. If only there was a kill buffer. Regardless, it’s via the bottom of that page -> Judas goat -> disambiguation.)
The true cost of meat and processed foods is obscured by corn subsidies.
This is a very different threat vector. None of the examples you or the parent commenter have cited enable influence/propaganda/mis- or dis-info/psyops.
If you read the first paragraph of the article, the primary concern mentioned is not surveillance, it's influencing the American public in ways that benefits China and harms the US.

Psy-ops effectively

Here's a segment by 60 Minutes explaining how they show their own citizens educational, beneficial content inspiring them to be better citizens, while the rest of the world gets the degenerative content we usually associate with ticktok.

And China could easily further adjust their ranking algorithm further to highlight the views it wants us to have. All social media has the power to do this, but China has both the most adversarial incentive and a demonstrated willingness to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY
There's the BBC Horizon programme from 2006 "The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow" about Temple Grandin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00791tq

Who went to great lengths to make it easier for Cows to be slaughtered, perhaps I missed something, it talks about her efforts to empathise with the cow, at what might disturb it as it is moved into the slaughter house.

It just seemed quite jarring about being so empathetic to cows, yet making it easier to be slaughtered, a strange disconnect. I eat meat, and indeed spent summers on the family pig farm, but this documentary just seemed very strange, yet no I know of thought it was strange.
> Small islands of decentralized communities (USENET newsgroups, dial-up BBS, vBulletin/phpBB forum websites, this HN website, and recent Mastodon interest, etc) do not accomplish the same thing.

One of those things is not like the others.

This HN website, phpBB forums, etc., don't interface with other systems. Mastodon does. Usenet and BBS' problem was more that they just predated the massive influx of always-online users that came with the advent of smartphones.

It's not like Twitter is a single server through which all content gets pushed. It's a replicated, distributed network of servers. ActivityPub servers are too, except the shards in network are not all owned by the same entity.

How would you learn about something via Twitter, sans promoted tweets? You'd find out about it from the retweets of the people you follow. That's literally the same thing you'd do in a Mastodon instance.

The big difference is that nobody in the ActivityPub network has the power to force content into your feed. Hasn't that been one of the biggest complaints of mid-2000s era social media? That the algorithm takes presidence over your own preferences? Never in my life do I want to see another "here's one weird trick you can do with a couple of pennies in the bottom of a plastic bag" click-bait article. That's basically impossible to propagate within the ActivityPub network. But that doesn't mean nothing can propogate through the network.

I'm having long, engaging conversations about topics I care about with people within the ActivityPub network. Almost none of those people are on the Mastodon instance I am currently inhabiting. I'm having more of these conversation than I had on Twitter, where I have 15x the number followers. From my perspective, my word is getting out further through ActivityPub than it ever did on Twitter.