skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think reasonable people will give allowance to the hiring loop taking a day or two to synchronize on their earnest opinion of a candidate. I'm not bothered by that at all.

More disturbing are the cases where the hiring organization knows in advance that they _will not_ hire a candidate. IMO, it's unethical to waste someone's time on that.

In my personal experience, I had a FAANG drag me along for six months, passing screen after screen, only to be put off at the end for a "flaw" that was obvious from day one on my resume. I'll accept your judgement, but don't waste 50 hours of my time discovering something you could have learned in 60s by reading my resume.

Hirers complain about not being able to find candidates. This is one huge reason why.

I've been thinking about charging $1000, up front, for a day's interview. Sounds like an arrogant, asshole move. But still, what would be better?
What were the smells and what are the injuries?
As a person who has used VASSAL, there is a lot of possible improvements that could be made.
Yes, you're correct about geometric brownian motion. The model must include some mean-reverting component (implied by "short time fluctuations") for DCA to come out ahead, and such a component would violate standard no-arbitrage assumptions.

This is a reason I haven't made active use of DCA. But DCA doesn't give up much, either, so I'm fine with "passively" engaging in DCA-like behavior by haphazardly dumping spare money into index funds after min("significant" drop, time limit) instead of purely maximizing time in market.
Boost is a shortcut for "re-toot by copying and pasting all the contents and a link to the original" with some convenience sugar on the timelines.

If boost were removed, users would re-invent it.
> But they aren't banding together.

Sure, just like Uber is "ride sharing" where the drivers pick the price. "We're all just using the same software" is a thin veneer over what amounts to collusion to raise prices.

> There is no mechanism for keeping other landlords from leaving the software, and there are multiple competing alternatives.

The mechanism is "you lose money" (countries can leave OPEC, but it's still a cartel), and if you read the article the competing alternatives are getting bought out.

"In addition, we understand that the Antitrust Division allowed RealPage to acquire one of its closest competitors, Lease Rent Options, in 2017 – one of more than 10 acquisitions RealPage has made since 2016."

It's pretty effective. https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...

"The approval allowed RealPage to acquire its only significant competitor, Roper said, adding, 'I was surprised the DOJ let that go through.'"

"In one neighborhood in Seattle, ProPublica found, 70% of apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage."
The problem is calculating all the types. This is largely a consequence of overloading (and especially operator overloads) and literals. Splitting them up into separate variables works because Swift type-checks each line separately, so moving an expression into a separate variable makes Swift resolve the type for that expression on its own instead of as part of a larger expression.

For example, if you have the line

print(1 + (2 as UInt))

this compiles as it infers the type of `1` to be UInt as well. But if you split it up

let a = 1
let b = 2 as UInt
print(a + b)

you get a type error as you cannot add Int + UInt. This demonstrates how the declaration `let a = 1` forces it to resolve the type there, and the default type for integral literals is Int.
Especially so in an era of inflation and increasing interest rates.

We, somehow, collectively decided to have it this way. It is not a law of nature!
The preferred ultra-narrow design will result in pee easily getting all over the wall. A few degrees of error or a left leaning renob make this design ergonomically questionable.
I'm not entirely sure when did programming really clicked for me, but there is this one time that still sticks in my memory to this day. There was this video which explained the concept of functions, and I clearly remember that eureka moment when he explained about the "return value" and I really just paused the video and looked into my source file and programming has never been the same ever since. Prior to this I was really just doing copy&paste trial&error.
APL to NumPy
It’s actually quite clear cut.

1st world: NATO and allies
2nd world: The Soviet Sphere
3rd world: Everything else.
I think we'll need about 10 times as many parameters and text on the web... Or so. How long would that take?
> many people don't realize that Facebook and similar mega companies don't actually profit from selling your data.

I think most people here know this. The difference doesn't actually matter as much as the companies think, though.
Oh nice, read this article earlier today organically through nytimes and afterwards thought “wish I found this on HN to see the discussion”

Pretty goofy and sad story. Stories of beginner sailors gone missing seem to have increased in the past two/three years. Of course this particular article is more nuanced
You (but not many other people) can purchase liquor and sex, but you can't go to a grocery store the next morning and buy coffee for your hangover. You can't replace your totaled car that was lost during your escapades, either.
As stated in my sibling[0] to your comment, the developer may have limited ability to fix it, since its a preference the system will often override. That said, its literally a one line change to implement it (for each view controller class), so there is little reason for them not to put it in, even with its limited effectiveness.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33781895
I followed your advice and tried with Temperature 0.0 and rather than paste more walls of text I edited what I got. Sorry if that's bad form? I also upped the max tokens to 100 to better compare with the fb can model. Interestingly whilst the davinci 003 model changed output and was still subpar IMHO, the davinci 002 didn't change at all. I wonder if its cached internally.
Your suggested alternatives Apple
should consider?
Lots of community banks & credit unions run on top of iSeries right now too.
What a sorry state Europe has fallen into. The authoritarianism we all fought so hard to eradicate in the 1940s has come back into vogue, it seems.
Not commenting on substance here but I am curious about phrasing. Why did you say "storming the capitol"?

For reference I've been running a personal linguistic influence project where I'm tracking where certain oft-used phrases came into common parlance and this is one that arose as a clear winner in recent years (see also Google n-gram viewer). "Storming the Capitol" vs "Violent right-wing insurrection" vs "Stop the steal" vs "mostly peaceful protest" are the main trigrams I associate with that period, and I've been trying to track where those terms are used most. I've ordered them there by most used, FYI.

The thing that gets me is that "storming" seems like a very focus-grouped marketing term.
Hotels and flights are, granted, less essential than a place to live. Remember, you _have to live somewhere_. That is a functional difference compared to other "market-based" things (never mind that "market-based solutions" are a lot less workable when atomicity is lost. Yeah yeah, regulations making things harder to build, I think more should be built! But there are real, "wanted" things in the way of just having market magic solve everything).

Employers sharing salary information is also maybe a descriptive reality but I don't believe to be necessarily smiled upon. Remember the wage fixing scandals in SV?

Analogies are great because you can say A is like B, up until A is no longer like B and then they are terrible. But seriously, there are qualitative differences in things which make comparable effects be more or less of a problem (or even go from good to bad!). Thinking continuously by analogy misses the forest for the trees.
You're right, thanks. I went ahead and fixed my post.
Quote which is interesting re Go lang..

> I eschew embedded capital letters in names; to my prose-oriented eyes, they are too awkward to read comfortably. They jangle like bad typography.
In general, preimage would be harder than second preimage because you have less information(just the hash of message0) whereas for second preimage you know the message and the hash(because you can obviously compute the latter from the former).
I can speak about how it actually works, because I live in a building that uses this and has used it since I moved about 2-3 years ago… although it seems like they just recently paused using it (I got my renewal a few days ago).

Every day (or every week or month, up to the property) the rent gets recomputed for every unit for whatever terms you want to offer. My building offers 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 month terms at the moment (yes, 12-months is surprisingly absent). You get a wide range of rents based on the terms that seemingly don't make sense. That's because it calculates both current market factors as well as what it thinks is in store for the future. So a 9-month term can be either less or more than an 13-month term, because it heavily depends on WHEN that term will end in terms of how hard it anticipates it will be to find a new tenant.

When I first when to move in I was told that the rate quoted would only be good for a week and next week ALL the terms would be different—and they were. It feels like a little bit of a lottery. Wait another week and the rent may go up or down for any of the terms. I did wait an extra week, and then the rent went UP for the 12-month by DOWN for the 13. The rent spread between both terms and time was around $400/mo IIRC, so it was not trivial.

I just got my renewal for this year and my building is no longer using this feature. I can tell because all the terms now have the same (albeit it ridiculous) rate. I'm not sure why my building stopped using it. It may be because of the backlash happening right now, but I actually think it may be because tenant turnover is simply through the roof with this system. Our building is a rotating door. People would move in with a great intro rate, but when it comes around for renewal the rates were VASTLY different, as well as the terms they were mapped to—and you knew that. Why pick a 14-month term when you can pick a 7-month term… and maybe stand to get a lower rent in 7-months? I was always wondering what my options would be on renewal. Sometimes I would check my unit, which despite being rented, I could still see what the "new rate" would be if my renewal was that day. The numbers were always just all over the place. Sometimes the 7 or 8 month lease was the cheapest. Other times it was by far the most expensive. It honestly just felt like there were a bunch of dice rolls every day that determined rent within some range.
I don’t think that really changes anything regarding the law / article.
Without application developers, there would be no Apple App Store. You could come up with a sense in which they're not "banding together" to create the app store, but it wouldn't be convincing.

> There is no mechanism for keeping other landlords from leaving the software

Nobody is saying that landlords are being victimized.
> in what way

expand on how this in any way shows that a "...chorus of coastal media types..." (again, still waiting for a definition of this) are somehow factually "...asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum"
Assuming the most logical reading of that is (non-(citizens/permanent residents)), those are mostly all tax payers [either current or near-future].

I agree it's abhorrent xenophobic policy if meant to be ((non-citizens)/(permanent residents)), but I read it as naturally meaning the other.
Yeah - I would imagine with some hash functions it doesn't make much difference whether you have access to message0, or just the hash of message0. Whereas with other hash functions it might make a lot of difference.

It's never going to be better to only have the hash vs having the message itself though.
> What you got with UB is what you expected to get - a seg fault with a null dereference, and wraparound 2's complement arithmetic on overflow.

This is how it worked in the "old days" when I learned C. You accessed a null pointer, you got a SIGSEGV. You wrote a "+", then you got a machine add.
This article is pointless. It’s basically saying there’s not a lot of battery cars out there as a percentage so of course they haven’t had a big impact yet. That is not at all remarkable.
> Does this cartel punish defectors? How can it prevent people who don't want to participate from undercutting it? It doesn't, and it can't. That's what makes it not a cartel.

Your definition means OPEC isn't a cartel. (That is... incorrect.)
I’m inclined to agree with your point, but I think there is a downside that has to be acknowledged. For somebody very close a problem, that problem is always The Most Important Thing. Sometimes it takes someone further out to put it in the proper perspective.
strange indeed. maybe nobody mentioned it because the lower mpg requirement for "light trucks" was already in place since the 1980s? and even the drop in requirements accross the board in 2012 was already compensated for by 2014 and the mpg mileage was higher in 2014 than before and went further up ever since?

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

the lack of small trucks could also be caused by dark marketing of larger, heavier vehicles as "more secure".
Sure, but without mandated paid sick leave, people don't stay home. When it's the difference between going to work to scrape by, or stay home and have trouble making rent or buying food, most folks choose to go to work sick.

We're a society that doesn't value collective health very much.
Yes, you are correct. The difference between andesitic and rhyolitic classifications is based on silica content.

Andesitic is the midrange member of the continuum from rhyolitic (silicic, explosive) and basaltic (mafic/ultramafic, more lava and oozing) end members.
They must have opened the libraries with Unix line endings in Windows.
Any engineer I've met knows Apple's "security argument" about the App Store and Sandboxing/Isolation are two completely separate things, the problem is most non-technical people believe Apple when they say the App Store keeps them secure.

At this point I don't think it's realistic to expect engineers to solve this problem —Apple would retaliate by booting them from the App Store of burying app reviews in red tape. What's probably needed is legislation that mandates hardware manufactures can't restrict what users are allowed to run on their devices.
Of course. But protesting is much different than attempting to suppress speech, which is what we've often seen at universities in recent years.

> “no mandatory hosting” and especially “no mandatory attendance or recognition”

Huh? How are you getting to this from the linked article or the Chicago Principles?
This isn't strictly correct "The only way to expand your ZFS pool is by adding a new VDEV into it" and it is the reason I primarily run RAID 1 mirrors. If you run out of space, you swap out the disks one at a time, wait for the drives to sync and then expand the pool.
RFC 6648 – Deprecating the “X-” Prefix (etc) and in Application Protocols [2012]
Ask HN: How do you make money / profits as a programmer?
This is, of course, the counterargument to eradication, which is what leads me to muse on it
What they did was collude to control supply of lessors by setting rates so there would be less competition. This is the definition of collusion and almost textbook anti-trust. The question for anti-trust cases like this is what was their enforcement mechanism.
That critical interest is short term until we get the Arizona fabs up. Then it'll be back to standard levels of ideology, nationalism and domino theory.

And if it's just about power for its own sake, fine. But the records of military adventurism are in fact starkly different over the last 200 years. Xi might ramp it up and we might ramp it down, but for now the spectre of Chinese militarism reminds me of those two hunter guys from South Park, "it's coming right at us!"
Drivers don't pick the price in Uber (Or with traditional taxis), they only signal whether or not they are willing to work. You can't be a driver and undercut other drivers on that platform.

But nothing stops a landlord from undercutting any other landlord. It's the difference between the Uber 'Marketplace' and an actual market.

> The mechanism is "you lose money"

Yes, that's a market mechanism, it's not a cartel mechanism.
How is it not competitive? One raises their rent and the others race to raise theirs as well? Sounds competitive to me.
> Remember, you _have to live somewhere_.

You also _have_ to get education, healthcare and a whole lot more than nobody is doing anything about making any kind of affordable.
What comparison between hotels and flights is being missed?

I don't know as much about hotel pricing, but my understanding of flight pricing is that it's done with buckets of fare classes: prices are set in buckets, and they only go up (or down) as each bucket is exhausted (or re-opened, if a ticket is canceled). I'm sure it's more complicated than that these days, but I don't think it's directly comparable to the rent adjusting system described in the news release.
I recall that talking to overly ostentatious people in nightclubs as to what they are doing for work was a canary in the coalmine for lots of large scale fraud, especially when it was apparent in any discussion with them that they were far from the intellectual capacity to understand what they were doing.

2000: "I'm daytrading in dotcom stocks"

2005: "I'm a mortgage broker, want an interest-only mortgage?"

2020: "Crypto baby!"
In my mind this was was “best case engagement”

I told you what I’m about.

You told me your preferences.

They don’t mesh, so we both split after having spent a pleasant 90 seconds
I'm not sure I'm following the options you are comparing.

(A) keep buying and criticize

(B) stop buying

Correct?

What am I missing here? (B) has a bigger impact and sends a bigger signal. Right? Talk is cheap. Leaving the Apple ecosystem is hard and demonstrates a very serious complaint.
I don’t understand this perspective. Are you really confident those measures will increase supply? I’m not. I find it really hard to predict what the outcome of any of those measures would be.

How about this one:

4. Stop artificially restricting the goddamn housing supply and catering NIMBYs, and instead allow housing of reasonable quantity and density to be built.
If Mr. Schmidt's story is to be trusted... this is just an incredible story.

In the heart of the pandemic, the YouTube misinformation rabbit hole lead two US residents, at least one VERY well educated, to jumping to their death, in treacherous waters in the South Pacific.
Musk’s Boring Company Ghosts Cities Across America
Lava can move quite fast.

A fair amount of recorded photos and videos of eruptions were taken by people who realized they would not escape.

The lahars are the scariest. They’re landslides that can go down river valleys at speeds exceeding 200km/hr. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/lahars-move-rapidly-down-v...
I think it's simpler: there's general arrogance that Apple knows what's best for their customers. Their entire philosophy isn't about giving customers what they want, it's giving customers what Apple thinks they need. So, when you uncover phones crashing because batteries age and folks don't get their batteries serviced, you throttle the CPU in software to avoid the issue. It's pure arrogance.

We also know that Apple is stubborn (see the removal of the headphone jack), so of course it's going to take a lawsuit for them to reverse course on something like this.
Earlier versions of gcc actually used to support this in a very restricted context in C90 (or maybe gnu89) mode:

struct foo { int a[10]; };
struct foo f(void);
int b[10];
b = f().a;

In C90, you can't actually do anything with `f().a` because the conversion from array to pointer only happened to lvalues (`f().a` is not an lvalue), and assignment is not defined for array variables (though gcc allowed it). The meaning is changed in C90 so that non-lvalue arrays are also converted to pointers. gcc used to take this distinction into account, so the above program would compile in C90 mode but not in C99 mode. New versions of gcc seem to forbid array assignment in all cases.

I think this quirk also means that it's technically possible to pass actual arrays to variadic functions in C90, since there was nothing to forbid the passing (it worked in gcc at least, though in strict C90, you wouldn't be able to use the non-lvalue array). In C99 and above, a pointer will be passed instead.
Maybe those things are bad too?
BlockFi sues a Bankman-Fried company to recover Robinhood shares
I've got to ask the stupid question...

Why do EV's need lots of electronics? the only required controls I can think of are:
- Charge control,
- Power control - accelerator and regen breaking
- Whatever driver assist is legally required

You don't need phone home telemetry, glass dashboard controls, dodgy auto pilot or many other luxury "needs"

I would think that an EV could be even simpler than a ICE vehicle as there is no need for all the complex engine management required to keep fuel consumption down.
I think it was true of Intel Macs largely from their underpowered GPUs. I remember Yosemite being rough on a late 2013 MacBook Pro because the Intel iGPU was awful. Likewise going to Big Sur on a late 2019 MacBook Pro when not plugged into power (and thus not using the dGPU).
> Drivers don't pick the price in Uber...

Yes, that's the point. This fact is getting them in hot water in a variety of jurisdictions, as independent contractors are supposed to set their own rates.

RealPage is trying to play the same regulatory evasion games - "it's not collusion, everyone just uses our prices". I hope it ends poorly for them.
Apple discovered this problem and preemptively fixed it in 1984.
There are a few budget-related factors here - remote vs. on-site production, number and type of field-level mics.

One soccer league I watch broadcasts matches in three places: streaming-only, cable-only, and OTA-only.

Streams get the smallest budget ($10k) and have the worst field-level audio, just one mic usually positioned away from the loudest fans and near the benches, which means the coaches and bench players are loud and clear but everything else is muddled. A 20k-attendance sold-out stadium in full-volume cheer sounds hollow. They're also remotely produced with off-site commentators, so the director and audio mixer (who only has the one field mic anyway) don't even know if the crowd is _supposed_ to be loud to the viewing audience.

The OTA-only matches, at 10x or more budget, get mics surrounding the field and behind the goals, mics on field-level cameras, and depending on the venue additional mics in or pointed at the most raucous section. They're also produced on-site with on-site commentators, who modulate their voices along with the crowd noise. More resources and more on-site attention result in a much more dynamic and engaging mix, the director has options to switch to a field-level camera and raise its volume, and so on.