skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the first question should be why applications play such a big part and why they take the form that they do.

I think one part of the answer is administrative bloat, where "processes are implemented" and "guidelines need to be maintained". Especially for technical jobs it is hard to judge people from the perspective of HR, which is why you have "personal statements" and such, which only effectively measure your ability for coherent and flattering writing.

Another part is the job market, both employer and employee side. As long as only reasonably qualified people apply and companies accept reasonably qualified people having multiple rounds of interviews is just a waste of everyones time.

Personally I think "coding interviews" are just very insulting and speak of an awful state of the industry. Imagine giving an electrical engineer a 1st year undergrad assignment to make sure he really can calculate the properties of a basic circuit. Seems like a good reason to just walk out.

The paranoia of tech companies speaks to me as a desperate attempt to filter out applicants who are completely unqualified, from the vast ammounts of people applying.
The tax code does not require anyone to declare their assets. It's the income that gets declared.
The funny thing is, you don't even need to tax the rich all that much. The money is there. It's just spent on ludicrous stuff. The US annual defense budget is 800 billion dollars a year. Even when you argue that national defense and a well equipped military are necessary (which I believe them to be), I've seen military cost receipts. They're outrageous. You don't need 50 dollar rolls of toilet paper.
If you are wealthy and refuse to earn an income, then your savings will eventually deplete and you’ll become bankrupt.

Additionally they wealth already taxed in a previous era, and is currently taxed in this era any time they spend it via sales tax.

If of course you are spending all your money on personal groceries as a billionaire, then I’m 100% fine with not taxing you.
I managed to crack a steel frame mountain bike in the early 1990s - I did use it to commute (about 25km a day) and used it off road a lot. Simply got someone to weld up the crack, got the frame sprayed and it lasted another 5 years or until I could afford to buy something nicer.
If this was true about wealth creation, intergenerational wealth would eventually outcompete everything else, while it looks like the opposite is true.

Unless the people with money are the ones that made it themselves, they will keep buying bad watches like everyone else.

The what they invest it in, is the whole point. If you spend your life and wealth playing 20% of your bankroll with zero expected value - you should completely expect not to be wealthy, and if you do become wealthy it will be completely by chance, against the odds.
the noise floor for cameras (when working in the correct params) is ridiculously low.

modern slow 35mm film (now there are loads of types and speeds) has an optical resolution of something like 5-12megapixels. a full frame CCD has easily got an optical resolution of 50mp.
The rich buy stuff, do they not? Tax those things to force realization and thus tax of unrealized wealth. Buying a second, third, fourth home? Here's your increasingly high tax and interest rate penalty. Instead of throwing up our hands with "they don't have cash", force them to realize investments into cash and deincentivize being able to keep everything hidden being investments and purchasing things with unrealized wealth.
There's a world of difference between "you could assemble by some rube goldberg mechanism a bomb out of 100ml liquid containers" and actual firearms designed for easy long range killing.
As someone who tried to feed a 50 line code base into ChatGPT only to watch it fail with very hard errors (no I don't mean it answered incorrectly, it crashed), I am not very impressed.
The top federal inheritance tax rate is 40%. The top Washington state inheritance tax rate is 20%. I.e. the government takes half.
I dunno. I ended up not living with my parents because I moved away for grad school and moved in with a significant other, but if I was single and lived in the same city as my parents I think I’d be happier living with them for reasons entirely unrelated to money.

I agree that if your life with your parents sucks then it is a problem. But how many people is that?
As a person who used to work for housekeeping department in various London hotels I can tell there's no shortage of labour, there's a shortage for slaves. Hospitality jobs, housekeeping in particular, is modern slavery.
Oh boy, do you have an opportunity here. I suggest starting with "Understanding History and Other Essays".
Could you link the book? I'm interested because I'm considering self-publishing a book as well, and I definitely don't enjoy marketing.
It also gets dumped directly into the ocean from the recycling transport or dual use fishing ships. Who then fish and bring fish home.
That's called a Bucket-brigade device btw
I've been poor and tired a long time ago. I know what it is like. But it is what it is, and you have to deal with it, right? You can't just do nothing. So, at least what I did, is work on the extra work that would give me the highest payback and greatest time savings, because that shit build on itself. The first thing I did was to buy what staples that I could in bulk. Not only did it save me money, but it prevented me from having to go out and make special trips to purchase those items - so I got a LOT of time back.

I started making food in bulk, and froze it, and food prepped on Sunday so I didn't have to make food every day, just grab and go. Saves a LOT of time.

To this day, I do the same thing, and have not changed anything, because that stuff got ingrained in me. I don't really have dumb mistakes with my money, too much, as I am super careful and have priorities.

But, if you are poor, what can you do? You still have to work and try to get out of poverty, even if you are tired. So one should try to think what they can do to get the best payback for everything they do, and do that first.

Like if you're poor but still own a car, and driving to work takes $50/week in gas, then maybe buying a bicycle and bicycling to work might save $2,500 per year in gas. If one is healthy enough. I'm not saying to do this - it is just an example. But still, if one could, that's an easy $2,500 per year. Then you take that money and use it to buy toilet paper, beans, rice, and other staples in bulk. This means you get a discount for bulk, PLUS you don't have to go buy them every week and take time and effort to do that.

I hope you get what I'm talking about.
But then it can't steal human written code.
another innovative points

- execution speed: their small team can swiftly add new markets in their platform.

- customer support: their team can be directly contacted on social platforms. ryan salame was once assisting us on our inquiries about their developer api's back then.

- access to capital: sbf's links to alameda gave ftx a smooth runway on their launch. their team's synergy is handpicked by sbf too which let them operate autonomously and effectively.

- consistent branding: the brand is sbf is a trading nerd who did well at alameda and ftx is his new thing. that guy fucked up badly but his track record is commendable before that.

these 4 above are not technical but if you're familiar with startups, you know these 4 directly converts to sales.
The problem is that at the other end there is also dysfunction. With high taxes and regulations keeping companies and profits in line the result is also a combination of structural inflation and stagnation resulting from the high cost of almost any kind of investment or operations. This is what triggered the fundamental changes which occurred from the late 70s through the 80s with Thatcher and Reagan.

It might be helpful if we could construct metrics for social function that more clearly showed when we approach extremes that interfere with business or social functions.
I don't think any individual should be a billionaire. There's no conceivable reason for a single person to need or have the right to be a billionaire.
The most obvious omission from that model is that in a real economy people voluntarily give money to others in exchange for goods and services. If everyone was equally good at producing useful goods and services then even if the yard-sale effect was occurring due to investment/wagering behaviour it's unlikely to lead to the extreme inequality the "pure" version does.
It's also fairly obvious that in the real economy there's virtually nobody in the super-rich list that's got there purely by being lucky with investments. To what degree that's true only because we do have redistributive taxation systems I don't know.
> transfer wealth to inheritors with basically no tax.

Other than 40% federal estate tax and 20% Washington state tax, which is right next to zero.
Ha, well that didn't go as expected!

https://imgur.com/a/uyXjs1N

I do appreciate an interactive example that doesn't have a canned result :-)
The 21st Century equivalent of "I don't know what happened, he just came out of no-where officer!"
The powerline isolation, it has been eaten, the good thing, anyone can cook such a thing up. so its a minority veto voting on progress world we are now in today.
> circular economy

haha that's my first thought when I hear about "charities" by the billionaires in the Anglosphere world... sounds like some tax dodging loophole with huge marketing budget and a website. Why don't they just pay their taxes?
I mostly use OneTab to replace bookmarks. Will this support sync OneTab data?
What's wrong about it? Unless you also "defund the police", that is. If law enforcement is well-funded and works well - which isn't all that expensive or hard on a national scale - than what's the problem about extreme inequality?
> Grain is probably something that will disappear

I doubt it. Oil paints are still here, even though digital painting is easier and quicker.

> Along with 24FPS.

24fps is film. 24fps will not die in our lifetime. In the same way that vinyl records are still here and thriving, despite being a shite medium.

24fps I suspect will be displaced by some sort of VR as the predominate high-end story medium.
Your comment is overly defeatist.

The market signal on that using PFAS is imposes serious liabilities on a company is crystal clear. Even a giant like 3M is in rough waters because it cannot bear the liabilities.

It is common that large public companies deinvest some part of their business that cause bad PR. They usually sell a part of their business to a smaller/more anonymous/non-public company that is prepared to take the liabilities. In this case there is no indication of a possible sale of the 3M plants and a complete closure is the most likely scenario.

A second aspect is that many 3m-customers will be forced to reevaluate the decision to use PFAS. A good example is the usage in firefighting foam. Any producer of firefighting-foam is now fully aware that selling foam which is guaranteed to be released into the environment is a major liability.

There are even proposals to ban end-products that contain PFAS at the EU-level. Lobbying is not fully transparent, but I suspect 3M was one of the last strongholds that lobbied against such regulation.

Today, in many emerging markets environment law is weak or the enforcement is absent today. However, we see that all emerging markets are catching-up. In 5 to 10 years PFAS-producers will face a similar regulatory risk in some emerging markets.

The last element is that the market-share of 3M was huge. It is unlikely that competitors in emerging markets can fill that gap in 3 years.

In the short term, we will see some PFAS-producing companies in emerging markets making record profits because of this decision. However, I think it is unlikely that growth in emerging markets will come even close to filling this gap.
Opportunity sent a similar message. Someone on youtube made a phenomenal short video about its life. It is one of my favorite youtube videos ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9GobEFUk&ab_channel=melod...
yes, the electric company will be concerned
A sex tape with Ellison and SBF in it. The public needs to know how deep this ran.
There are two kinds of living with parents. One kind involves paying no rent and doing no share of the responsibilities. But plenty of people cook, clean, and contribute to the household that achieves all of the same “character building” you’d get by living alone.
Yes but How do you know which cat or geological feature corresponds to which version number?
Norway have had monthly payments to all parents until kids turned 18, very high parental leave, low caps on fees for nurseries (around 300 usd/month), and most of these have support across the political spectrum.

All told, the value adds up to tens of thousands in support per child, and yet it's nowhere enough to keep fertility rates at replacement. As such I doubt Orbans policies will as well.
Good transliteration is not arbitrary; it's supposed to make it possible for the reader who doesn't know the original language to reasonably approximate the pronunciation.

In your other examples, all the sounds would be considered "o-like" (rather than "e-like") in most languages with a 5-vowel phonology or similar. A reader might not be able to parse the diaresis, but if they say it with a plain "o", it's a reasonable approximation.

But then "ё" in "Пётр" is really just [ʲo] phonetically, so it should, ideally, be reflected by "o" or some derivative glyph in transliteration for readers to be able to understand and pronounce it with any semblance of accuracy. Something like "Pötr" would probably be best, actually, since in most alphabets that have "ö", it's used for [ø] or similar, which would give a more accurate approximation of [ʲo] than just [o].

OTOH the Latin "ë" (when present in the alphabet, which is much rarer to begin with) tends to stand for [ə], so it would be most logical to use it to distinguish "э" from "е". Note that this can be treated as a consistent pattern: a diaresis over the vowel inverts its "default" frontness (front vowels become back, back vowels become front) to simulate the corresponding presence or absence of [ʲ]. Thus we can then also write "ä" for "я", "ü" for "ю", and "ï" for "ы".
There are so many wealth making opportunities that give more than literally zero expected value, and don't require 20% of your wealth.

You can become rich by following the rules of expected value and compound interest.

Backtest this against the population and tell me that people today wouldn't be richer if they made sound financial decisions based on the information at the time. I know I would be richer. The kicker is, wealth inequality would rise along with median wealth, because compound interest. This is so unpalatable for some people that they argue against sound decision making and reduce wealth creation to coin flips.
People can and do learn from running failed businesses.
There is no evidence that people have a higher overall level of education before entering the workforce over time.

Rather, people know a different set of skills and accumulate a different body of knowledge. It is only if we define "education" as the degree of knowledge in the body of subjects we teach today that one can say people in the past had less of it. But that's only because we have discarded the many bodies of knowledge an educated person needed to have in the past.

For example, one can laugh and say that to earn a doctorate in mathematics during the renaissance you'd need to know algebra only to the level of solving a cubic equation. However you are missing all the archaic geometric ruler and compass constructions, evaluation of various infinite series, and deep knowledge of Latin, Greek, French, German texts, mastery of rhetoric, music theory, and other topics that few learn today. So it is not true that a mathematician of the present could waltz in and get a Doctorate in Philosophy in medieval Paris. He would probably get quickly thrown out for failing to master the many various scholastic topics that were required of a PhD in that time period, and which no one learns today.

As another example, a new worker in 1800 might be expected to know how to deliver a calf, fix a fence, shod a horse, make homemade preserves, skin a rabbit, set a broken bone, paint a barn, as well as know Greek, geography, history, recite the speeches of Cicero, translate the Odes of Horace, navigate the seas by an astrolabe, stain a bookcase, identify the key flood valleys of Europe and know which animals could be hunted in which part of the year in various European forests, or know the biographies of German princes, etc. But you are correct, they wouldn't have MS Office skills or know how to create a webapp.

Once you move past "hunter-gatherer", you very quickly run into complex societies with their own historically developed bodies of knowledge that require lifetime learning, whether that means learning the seasons and details about planting crops and irrigating fields, dealing with pests, where to dig a well, how to tan leather, etc - or whether that means something else, it is still a vast body of knowledge that takes decades to master. The point is, wherever a society is technologically, it will choose different areas to train its workers, and omit other areas that are no longer needed. But how many resources does a society need to train its workers? If that number keeps growing, then there is something wrong with the society.
Film grain hasn't been real since about 2007. (apart from a few cases) Even stuff shot on film tends to be degrained and re-grained.

Also with film evolution, the film grain has changed.
I thought FTX was not fraudulent from the beginning. It only went that way when Alameda started losing cash (it was originally very profitable). When, instead of just letting it die, SBF decided to use customer money to save it (and also to pay himself and others bonuses and buy people free houses and other shit)?
Top 1% of salary earners. The CEOs, highly paid doctors, engineers. The real capitalists - those who hold the assets and pay for their yachts with stock-backed loans - they don't pay 40% of the federal tax revenue. Their salary is $1/year.
Play doesn't have to be useless. It just has to be inefficient.

Efficiency in this case would be to just go and buy an $1800 guitar pedal instead of investing $40,000 worth of personal development time on a toy project for the sheer joy of it.
Diaeresis is used in English as well. The New Yorker writes “coordinate” as “coördinate”. It has the same meaning as in many European writing systems — “pronounce independently”. So it’s like “co ore” not like “core”.

It’s also common to see it in loan words and proper names, even with a different meaning.
I think it's more that the upper middle class gets hammered while those above do not, so it feels like punishment and adversarial. The way things are right now, everyone has to play the "get as much capital as possible" game because it's the only way to support your family and progeny, but as soon as you hit a relatively low threshold, you start receiving a huge amount of tax pressure. If we redistribute wealth, we redistribute infrastructure, homes, education, medical care, etc. this pressure could be relieved by not forcing personal capital to be deployed and responsible for such support structures.
That was just an example saying Costco. But, one can try to find someone who has a Costco membership and make a trip together. Or maybe going in on a membership with someone else. If a Costco is near enough, it would make sense to find the money to buy one, because the savings would give enough money back to make financial sense.

5 miles is not a long way. I live in a metro area, one of the highest traffic-wise, and I go that far, no problem.

The car - you have to do this thing called "work" and work at finding someone who has a car and share. Maybe a church has a van that does this kind of thing. I'm not saying it is the easiest thing in the world, but seriously, it is not that difficult to find out if someone has a car that can go to a grocery store, even a normal one, and carpool.

There's a lot of other things one can do to lift themselves out of poverty, that are not difficult.
With "cross translation units" (CTU) analysis a static analyzer could derive a constraint on `some_function` return value and check this against the array size to detect a possible bug.

The Clang static analyzer [1], used through CodeChecker (CC) [2], do support CTU (enabled with `--ctu`). I'm very happy with the result on the code I'm working on.

Of course this is not magic, and it's important to understand the limitations. The CTU analysis is well suited for an application: there is a `main` function, and all the paths from there can (in theory) be analyzed through the code base files. But if the code to analyze is a library, then the CTU analysis will be done from one or more unit test applications and the paths constraints analysis will only be as good as the unit tests. To avoid this one can analyze without CTU, but then the above code will always trigger a report as the static analyzer has no information on `some_function` return value and must assume the worst.

The other limitation is that there's only a limited complexity budget the analyzer can handle, so it cannot track all constraints on all paths. Depending on how the approximation is done it can lead to missed detection or false alarms.

IKOS (last time I checked) does not support CTU, it's doing "a file at a time" analysis. As far as open source tools go the Clang static analyzer is the only one I know with a working support for CTU (best used through CC). I there are other ones I missed I'd be happy to learn about them and try them out.

Clang SA + CC is a really nice combo. It's not sound (the limited complexity budget above), so can miss issues. Still, with CTU and the use of Z3 to cross check alarms (very nice when using bitfield) it is a nice user experience with very few false alarms, which matters to make the tool more acceptable (people tend to ignore tools with too many false alarms after a while IME). Still some rough edges for people doing embedded cross compiled development but manageable.

[1] https://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/

[2] https://codechecker.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
Sounds like every startup ecosystem
In the real world, there is more than one sandwich seller and they compete with each other. When was the last time you non-consensually bought a sandwich?

Even homeless people on the street will sometimes refuse free food, so the idea that sandwich-sellers can set any arbitrary price they want or people will starve is just not something that happens in practice.

Indeed, sandwiches are abundant and affordable.
> simply because they had more money

It's because they took on more risk. The bigger the risk, the bigger the payout. The safer the investment, the lower the payout.

> do not share fairly the value created between workers and owners.

They do if one considers risk.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this stance but at a practical level it's interesting to think about.

Let's say life is a computer game, and once you max out at $1bn in earned wealth (presumably this includes liquid and illiquid assets such as properties, cars etc), you cannot accumulate more wealth.

How does a government enforce this stance? You cannot stop say Bill Gates shorting Tesla and earning millions from the trade, can you?

Can you stop a landlord renting out their properties to block further income from them?

What about interest generated from bonds or savings accounts?

Do you simply tax the shit out of people if they have over £1bn in wealth?

The big challenge I see for all of this is that rich people have the best (and most expensive) accountants/lawyers money can buy. If you try to tax the shit out of them, their accountants and lawyers will find a way around it.

Also, if one government is too heavy handed, they'll just move assets to another more lenient government.