skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yup pretty sure this is the simplest answer here. Lots of people just BS on the fly if they're expected to have an immediate answer, but it would do better to keep meetings short if people honestly said IDK
Oil wasn’t as hard to come by as you’d expect. Think of butter, animal fat, olive oil, seed oils, etc. It’s nowhere near as hard to make as you seem to think. The first recorded history of deep frying is from 2500 BCE.

Wheat too was in our diets long ago with the first recorded use in 32,000 BCE. Sugar was 8,000 BCE.
Like a divorced dad making up for past grievances with his new, younger spouse.
You might try telling them how you want them to answer. "Can you tell me in a few words how you would X?"

You may not get what you want the first time, but just keep politely giving them guidance, and eventually you will "train" them on how you like to get answers.

When they successfully give you a succinct and cogent response, thank them: "Wow, that was very well stated. Let me repeat it back to you: Z. Perfect, thank you."

In terms of why this happens, they may be formulating an answer on the fly, but feel like they have to start talking immediately. So, they're working through a half-formed thought in real time. There's that old joke: "I'm sorry this letter is so long, I didn't have time to write a shorter one." Simple is hard.

I struggle with this at work, too. I'll ask a question that I hope is a one word, or at most one paragraph answer. Five minutes later, I'm grinding my teeth, thinking "stop filibustering this meeting."
written in javascript... noooooope
So which one is it? Incompetence or Malice? These ultra-smart people from MIT and Jane Street, the "elite", couldn't possibly ignore basic accounting, or the fact that they were operating a Ponzi scheme and defrauding both their investors and their clients. It would be like calling Enron leaders "incompetent".
The article references https://infogalactic.com as a WP alternative.

Constrast: https://infogalactic.com/info/Graham_Linehan with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan

- I think the author may have a point. Regardless of what you think about the person in question, the former seems far more encyclopaedic and neutral (though perhaps missing a necessary paragraph on his unpopular beliefs).
Disagree with (1), no formal training is required to communicate well, although no doubt it can help if you don't learn it from other sources.
This is effective altruism at its finest. They will finally give Congress and the SEC the egregious case they need to craft (and enforce) new laws governing DeFi. The industry as a whole will become safer due to their malfeasance. If that's not altruism, I don't know what is!
My understanding isn't that you _can't_, but that you _aren't allowed to_ by kernel policy. (The risk being that the kernel will panic on OOM, which is not an acceptable way for the kernel to deal with OOM conditions.)

If this is out of tree, AFAIK you can use these all you want. Whether or not you _should_ is obviously a different matter.
This is technically true, but I wonder in practice. Like, the King of England absolutely has the power to withhold consent on acts of parliament. How accountable is parliament to the King? But replace the King with Congress, and parliament with the FBI.
I couldn't find that deception, but machine translation from German to English is almost impeccable nowadays, and there's a lot more in the german sub-article

Warning: Horrifying: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaskammer_(Massenmord)
I have spent a lot of time working with front line users and engineers in requirement gathering. I recognise the situation you are describing. Part of the problem (IMO) is that some people ‘think out loud’ when answering a question and use the interaction to clarify their thinking on the fly. This can be useful in identifying edge cases - but can also feel exhausting. My advise is the focus on your questions and use them to steer your interactions: Write them down - send them out in advance - document their answers in front of them then share them after. Good luck!
As someone that used to do exactly everything you describe

I had undiagnosed ADHD which I've finally gotten diagnosed after 30 years. I somehow managed to get into tech (at some of the most prestigious companies) as a software engineer but I couldn't advance past mid-level engineer because of a severe lack of consistency. I would have weeks where my output was massive followed by weeks of low output.

- don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question

I might've gotten distracted mid question. Or worse, I forget a word I was about to use and need to think hard about what that word was.

- don't stay focused to the point of the discussion

Some other tangential idea might've popped up in my head and in the moment I find it so compelling I need to blurt it out.

- don't some level of clarity in their train of thought and speech

My short term working memory is terrible.

- generally over-complicate matters by wandering off to other related subjects and extending the scope of the discussion

See above

Anyway, I think most people are on some spectrum of having the ability to maintain clear trains of thought and I think it's one form of intelligence. So you should feel fortunate to have this ability naturally and learn some patience with the rest of us peons that are not as good as you. Intelligence, patience and compassion will get you far.
"Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter?"

No lol, wtf is he talking about
Ever heard of "The Foundations of Geopolitics"?

According to Wikipedia, the prescription for destabilizing America is: "Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
It's the same with left wing views. You just don't see them because well, they're censored. What's is seemingly a uniquely right phenomenon is viewing the annoyingly centrist stuff that is allowed on the internet as left.

Like yes, it's on your left, but it's not left by any stretch of imagination.
There are at least three worrisome things that data can be used for:

1. Shaping and manipulating minds. Eg, show healthy, educational, intellectual content to Chinese users, and unhealthy, addictive, emotional, short-attention-span-inducing content in US and foreign markets (already happening [1]).

2. Train AI for analyzing and further manipulating foreign publics, or for providing strategic insight into political and election dynamics, making political and election interference operations more effective.

3. Collate data on individuals gained from TikTok with other sources like credit ratings agency breaches, OPM, etc. for their entire life, to create a continually growing lifetime data profile on every American, European, Asian, South American, African, etc. which may be used for pressure, coercion, or manipulation operations or similar. Think of it as "customer lifetime value" [2] for political purposes.

None of which we want an adversarial, totalitarian foreign power to be capable of doing to us.

[1]:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tristan-harris-social-media-pol...

[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_lifetime_value
I gotta say that removing the context from this sort of changes its meaning in a misleading way for those seeing it for the first time. It makes perfect sense in this context as well but some people have interpreted this as a sort of nihilism, but it’s actually an endorsement of pure utilitarianism, more or less.

Which doesn’t make it better, my big take away from all the FTX stuff is that SBF and friends were just uh, not that smart, just dipshits losing other peoples money and thinking everything in life was as easy as impressing brainless VCs. (With some actual on purpose fraud mixed in as well, who knows)
Define simple; it is often the case that something seemingly simple is actually quite complicated.

It is often good to provide additional context to identify common ground and from there guide the discussion.

A system that can be described in a linear and continuous fashion without drilling down is either too simple, or too broadly described, neither of which is particularly useful when complexity is high.
Personally I can think of fewer crueler punishments than having a swarth of your history, having your past obliterated.

Burning down a valuable part of the library of human existence feels awful, period. And I have such a hard time recognizing what pushes people towards the evn more radical info-suicide. Fear for oneself, of being seen? Spite against the not-so-benevolent librarians?

Seeing bits of the web die, seeing linkrot & bitrot creep in... it's awful. All those conversations people had with you, and now you are just nothing, a ghost... it's horrific.
I'm don't understand this sentence. What signal are you talking about and how do tongues reject vegetables?
It was a pretty clear rant. Missing a word is not exclusive of clear communication.
> I paused and politely asked one of the cops if there was something going on... or why was there such heavily armed police presence? He casually said, "oh there's a football match here this afternoon".

Did you really ask them? Riot police usually don't go out of their way to casually interact with members of the public.
I've always felt incredibly at how trivially we take our ability to coherently sync our minds by using symbols and utterances. Language is so fascinating and unfortunately, there will always be people who are good at at and those who are bad at it. My insight is to never assume that the person opposite of me will always understand my interpretation of what I'm uttering and therefore repeat often, using different terms, analogies and (surprisingly) gestures. Many a times I've felt that I do not ask a super confusing question clearly but still my professors are able to understand what I'm trying to communicate about. But they are some of the smartest people I've ever met in my life and it'd be unfair to hold everyone to their standards.

To recap again, language is difficult and communication requires active effort as opposed to just assuming that what one has in his mind will always come across perfectly no matter what words/utterances are used. Unfortunately, not everyone knows or ponders upon it.
The problem lies with advertisers. They have become centralized by 2 companies. If it was possible to monetize small communities it would be great, but it hasn't been for 10+ years.

It's a pity that we never hear from Advertisers
I didn't say he only made non-melodic music. I don't see on what basis he or anyone would describe Clapping Music (which I recently saw performed at a school concert, hence it being on my mind), for example, as melodic.
but they also did that with their customers' fiat deposits which went through the traditional regulated finance network. Does that mean the point of fiat is to elude regulation too?

Whatever regulations there are on fiat apparently didn't stop them from defrauding their customer's fiat.

AFAIK straight up stealing customer's deposits in a way the contract specifically says you will not, whether in USD or UnicornBucks, is some form of theft/fraud/embezzlement and already illegal.
Fiat Currencies Around the World Face the Same Fate as the FTX Fiasco
If you want to work for free, Reddit will gladly accommodate.

But they also have thousands of very well paid employees. Average salary $150K+.
Percentages lack sufficient granularity. Permillages would do the trick.
People seek what is emotionally comfortable for them. This steers their communication. For example, they may wander off to topics they feel more comfortable with, or where they unconsciously hope for more emotional payoff. You can’t treat people as being rational actors, except in the sense that they may actually be quite rational about achieving their emotional goals. This is often completely subconscious.

Another factor is that people may be addressing what they perceive (consciously or not, and correctly or not) to be your underlying concern, rather than what you literally say.

And sometimes people may actually be ahead of you, and may skip over things they believe should already be clear to you, with the result that they seem incoherent and sidestepping to you.

People also may simply disagree with what they perceive to be your point, and start elaborating on stuff in an attempt to get you to see their point of view, without explicitly stating that they disagree with what they perceive to be your premises, because in their mind it’s obvious from what they write.
Linus is more pragmatic than you think. He's cautious and resistant to faddish trends, but he can be convinced. I think Rust has a ways to go before it's ready for the kernel proper (the architecture support being the big thing), but if it does get there I think he can be open to the idea of a switchover.
As a scuba diver, I have seen California sea lions killing ocean sunfish (mola molas) for what appears to be pure sport. The sea lions tear the fish's fins off and play with the body like a living frisbee. Then when they get bored they let the maimed fish sink to the bottom to be eaten alive by crabs. Occasionally you'll see like a dozen of those half-dead molas clustered together on the seafloor, pathetically flopping around as the crabs close in.

Nature, red in tooth and claw.
I am considered to be a strong communicator (so my boss tells me), but I still find myself talking too much, and going off topic at times. So I've put some thought into this just for my own profession to try and get better at it.

In a work context:

- Some people just follow their train of thought wherever it leads. It works OK in their internal working life, because it leads them interesting places. They may not realize that they have to maintain a clean "interface" with the external world and have some of that chatter not cross that boundary.

- Some people have hangups. They like to draw the conversation to their own things which make them look good.

- Some people are just self-centered. I don't mean conceited as in full of themselves necessarily, but as in they really find it difficult to see the world through another person's viewpoint. The world only exists through the viewing pane of their own interests and experience.

- Some people over communicate when they are nervous instead of keeping it crisp. I do this. It's important for me to be relaxed in a meeting where I am presenting.

- Some people just don't know how to gauge their audience. They try to explain the whole "elephant" when asked about it, instead of trying to scope the answer to the audience's level of expertise and the scope of the question. Imagine a blind man considering a vacation to Africa asking, "What's the dangerous part of an elephant?" - Well, it's partly the pointy things on its face, but also they are gigantic and ill tempered. There, I answered it in a concise way, but you can imagine (say) a nerdy zoologist getting wayyyy into the details of anecdotes of the myriad ways elephants have killed people.

- Playing dumb, by the way, can be a sneaky way of setting people's expectations to gain an advantage. See: The scene the Shlomo character in "The Honourable Woman" has near the end of the season where he admits that as CEO of a telecom that he actually understands all the tech from the top to the bottom. And that people's expectation that he doesn't reveals things about them in their interactions.
I'm about as libby a lib as ever lib'd and Trump's action on China was maybe the single thing I agreed with him on. Neoliberal free-trade-over-all-other-concerns policies are actually pretty unpopular among voters in both parties, but are very popular with the donor and policy-wonk class, with the result that both parties typically favor it and have since the 80s, despite their voters mostly disliking it. One of the notable things about Trump's candidacy and presidency was his breaking from this (unpopular) long-standing norm, which fit with the rest of his messaging in that he mostly ignored whatever was ordinary or standard and instead picked the kinds of positions you'd hear talking to a Republican trucker in a diner ("They ought to just build a wall" is straight out of those kinds of conversations, for instance).

Oh, wait, one other thing I agreed with him on: leaving Afghanistan ASAP. The whiney push-back he got on that and the way the military managed to sand-bag the effort until well into Biden's term and still fuck it up, was straight-up embarrassing. Heads should have rolled.
What's clear is that FTX didn't have any real corporate structure in the usual sense. It was a handful of people sitting around on bean bags doing stimulants and trading crypto all day. It's amusing to read about the clash between the bankruptcy CEO's expectations of what a corporation looks like and what FTX actually was.
I don't expect the Coinbase CEO to secretly leave the country with gold bars. But I do expect Coinbase to either go bankrupt or to face major lawsuits for years and to have very poor stock performance.
I would subdivide the group into those who seem like they intend to communicate the desired point(s) (and simply fail for whatever reason) and those who actively don't wish to, such as for pride, to cover their lack of knowledge, to favour alternate options, to slow down a project etc.
I trust the co-founder Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is a hate site masquerading as an encyclopedia. The valid pages provide cover for the propaganda.
1) Sometimes not staying perfectly focused on what you see as the main point of a conversation is not the wrong thing to do. In a meeting discussing a complex business problem for instance, a smarter person in the room might see that the root cause of a problem you're all working on is "Problem D", whereas everybody else is focused on "Problem A".

2) Some people will always communicate poorly as worse than average communicators will always exist in nature.

3) On top of this, phones and other modern technologies provide a constant distraction for people. That average person might have appeared far more competent in a different era where they lived more in the moment and had to focus on what was in front of them rather than trying to resolve a problem as quickly as possible to go back and look at their notifications.

4) IMO, the question shouldn't be "why don't some people communicate clearly", the question should be "why does it seem like more people are communicating unclearly than before". To that I would say a combination of technical distractions as well as dropping IQs.

5) My personal life tip for both programming and interacting with people in your daily life (real-estate agents, waiters, customer-support people, plumbers, etc) is to make very simple requests without conditionals whenever possible. Everybody gets confused with words like the following: if, unless, and, or, until, when. To reduce the chance of confusion, say straightforward things to your busy waiter like "Please bring me some bread" and don't give convoluted requests like "If my appetizer or salad is ready, bring me that and my bread, but if the meal is ready, I want you to please get me my drinks first." Convoluted requests with conditionals are most often a chance for confusion.
It's well known that cattle kept inside ends up with much lower Vitamin D content in milk & meat.

Not sure about other nutrients.
Ticketmaster faces antitrust scrutiny after Taylor Swift ticket chaos
> Right now I'm relatively new in my position, and it was a real torture to understand the system, because nobody seems to be able to explain it in a linear way.

This is... not surprising at all? Are you new to industry? Have you only worked at greenfield startups?

Particularly true for products with significant R&D components, btw.

> Ok, where I'm now it seems a PhD can be bought around the corner for 2 cents.

Some advice for hiring people with advanced degrees:

1. The masters degree itself is not a good signal. Especially in CS, MS programs are viewed as pure revenue streams and explicitly treated differently from other programs in terms of rigor and signalling value.

2. The PhD degree itself is not a good signal. For example, the University of Phoenix awards PhDs.

3. Some CS subfields are worse than others in terms of PhD signal:noise. Machine learning is a big abuser -- faculty at lower ranked programs can often get away with using PhD students as super cheap entry-level SWEs/SREs ("graduate student descent"). There are some subfields of CS where a PhD is a better signal. Actually, this can happen at higher-ranked universities as well.

So, what to do?

1. For masters degrees without a thesis component, I'm not really sure. Treat it as a new grad who took some extra coursework.

2. The great thing about a PhD (or Masters with thesis) is that the output is a 100+ page document. You can read usually about 10 pages of that document (intro, conclusion, fist page or so of each chapter) and have an immediate sense for how well the person communicates.
I have some idea of the US where and when the original article is talking about, but can't speak of elsewhere.
My favorite bit about the FTX fiasco is the spreadsheet with assets and liabilities has an entry for negative $8B:

> hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account
Interesting that none of these twitter articles are making it to the front page.
What's so hard about selling tickets? Is it a technical challenge? A sales challenge? An operational challenge? I'm having a hard time understanding how selling tickets to a concert is so hard.
Well, nobody designed us. We're a product of evolution. Had we been designed, and the designer was not a cruel monster, I'm sure they could have thought of a way for all beings to feed themselves without the monumental suffering that exists in the world.
"if people all try to retrieve their savings from banks, they will see the banks for the scam they are, as they will collapse".

Your argument does not make tether a scam.
>You say that, yet Instagram, Twitter(1), YouTube who have all tried so far have all failed.

Youtube Shorts didn't fail, they're actually way better than TikTok and are doing well. Instagram Reels are basically a flop, but Shorts are freaking addictive. I tried using TikTok a while ago after all the praise on HN for its magical recommendation algorithm. After trying to get the algorithm to give me anything interesting for an hour, I gave up. Youtube Shorts on the other hand is like crack. It's way better than YT's "normal" recommendation algorithm.

I recommend it if you haven't tried
Indirectly false.

Even though we don't use metric directly in most cases in the US, the US customary units have long been rebased to be defined by metric units.

Inches and pounds are just centimeters and newtons walking around in a whacky outfit.
By not paying payroll and US taxes, Twitter will instantaneously become profitable!

...briefly. :-O