skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, I appreciate your dedication to responding after I kicked off this thread. Given the first response I didn’t feel it was worth the time to continue engaging, but you hit pretty much every point I would have.
As an ERP consultant, I love when these discussions come up. It spreads more hatred for Oracle and SAP among the developer community and keeps my jobs safe.
Ireland grew up. I’m immensely proud of what my country has achieved in so few years. We’ve transferred ourselves from an impoverished theocracy to a thriving secular and increasingly liberal European peer.

Many people my age (and younger) who left Ireland during the Great Recession are now returning and they being so much with them.

Many people of my generation were educated in schools dominated by the Catholic Church. There was no better way to show these kids the reasons why the church has no place in running our society and I’m happy to see their influence in education weakening every year.

We still have many problems here but they are the problems of a modern country that many other developed nations face. We’ve grown up.
> I meant that the intent is obviously the chained comparison.

Yes, "Is `b` between `a` and `c`?" is a natural and common question to ask.
FWIW, Julia does lower `a < b < c` as a chained comparison:

julia> Meta.@lower a < b < c
:($(Expr(:thunk, CodeInfo(
@ none within `top-level scope`
1 ─ %1 = a < b
└── goto #3 if not %1
2 ─ %3 = b < c
└── return %3
3 ─ return false
))))

That is, it turns `a < b < c` into `(a < b) && (b < c)`. You can make the chain arbitrarily (within reason) long.

Of course, if a language doesn't lower chained comparisons in this way, I would much rather have a compiler error than have it silently return `(a < b) < c`.
iOS was actually called OS X at the time. It was before they changed the name to iOS. But it was never called Mac OS X, which was the name of Apple's OS in 2007, which changed to just OS X around the time of the rebranding to iOS.
Progressives go into fight-or-flight reponses around libertarians because the 60s-style 'live and let live' libertarian has been displaced by the 'destroy all government services' libertarian in popular culture.
There are a few things in my mind:

- We cannot rely on any system. We need to rely on a human race that is not afraid to manage itself, so that we can mitigate the influence of power hungry people;

- So that we should force people to manage, even if they don't enjoy it. Because only by having the power to manage the state the people can retain other powers. If we leave management to a group of elites eventually those power will be taken away;

- This also means everyone should have a great amount of art and scientific knowledge, as management is both a science and and art these days. Public education these days doesn't really work very well;

- All management positions should be rotated if possible. This is probably too ideal but once most people reach a higher degree of self-management consciousness they will naturally seek to manage themselves instead of following orders.
IMO, you need multiple models. The product model (or the "this team owns X" model) force a commitment to an area of work that doesn't always align with business needs. The project model is terrific for aligning people across skill sets, but doesn't do as well for ongoing work and tends to push staff from project to project (vs building deep experience), which can work well for generalists but not for everyone.

I see the actual problem being that management is rarely simultaneously deep enough and strong enough to make the right choices around work organization so everything just defaults into hierarchies.
I don't know what the world's most important problem is and if I did I wouldn't want to solve it, i've got enough of my own problems.
No because multi-modal learning is next. A human can learn what a rock is after N=1 only because we have the visual/tactile of the rock (combined with our intuitive understanding physics etc) to go with the text label. We can immediately guess how it fits into our world from that visual/tactile. GPT needs very large N to grasp the concept of a rock because it requires a lot of textual associations to figure that concept out.
But GPT-3 is already useful to me lol.
> What about discussion?

Is achieved by talking among each other, or simply by knowing how to fix/implement the feature (not every bug requires any discussion at all). Either in person (which would be inherently "private" as you say), or irc historically - I'm unsure whether irc is still significant as I recall free node dying off or something a few years back?

> Do you claim there is no private discussion among Apple engineers about WebKit bugs that have been put "InRadar"?

No, I'm saying your claim that "The funny thing though is that Apple still sends WebKit bugs into Radar to work on them:" is nonsense. The reason that bugs are cloned to radar is so that they can be tracked for releases. I think you have decided that any time you don't see discussion in b.w.o it means discussion there must be discussion in radar, and that's false. The reality is that most bug fix/feature implementation doesn't require discussion during development, actual recorded discussion happens during review as that systematically results in recording the exchanges.

> I see a lot of WebKit bugs that have no discussion whatsoever and just seem to arrive ex nihilo from Radar.

Again, I think you grossly overestimate the amount of recorded "discussion" that goes with a bug.

> You wonder what the reasoning or explanation is for a certain code change, and you'll find absolutely nothing about it in the Bugzilla.

For many there's not anything in radar either, because many (most?) bugs you see are created to track reviewing the change, and don't exist before the review process. The lack of explanation is typically because the engineers working on changes have the context for why a change is needed, so don't include an explanation.
Universities are also generally exempt from all the taxes that pay for municipal police, so they provide their own.

It (sometimes) has a dual educational purpose where they run a law enforcement or criminal justice curriculum and the campus police service provides practical experience for students.
I don’t know about the author but for me personally chatGPT has already replaced 70% of what I used to go to google for. More importantly it saves me lot of time. That is just incredible.
Humans become intelligent after reading / hearing several orders of magnitude fewer words than GPT-3 has access to.

There's dozens of ways GPT-4 could be improved over GPT-3 without needing more training data. Eg, through reinforcement learning (talking to itself), tweaking the neural architecture, spending more time training, etc.
Are we talking neutrinos here?
It's about as much a paradox as the problem with pacifism. Pacifism stops working once someone aggressive comes by. This is why every state, even the most democratic, has police, including riot police.

The problem is that universities strive, at least notionally, to look for what's been found objectively true. For instance, portraits and other figurative paintings exist in earlier Islamic art. This is an undeniable fact, supported by multiple evidence. But this is also considered offensive by some modern people who profess Islam. They don't want these images to be shown, talked about, taught in a university, or otherwise made known. These people are citizens enjoying all the same rights and protections as other students, who might want to learn these facts.

So a university is in a double-bind. If they assert their right to teach objective facts in a course dedicated to such facts, they will make many enemies within the Islamic community, and suffer the uproar from the "pro-tolerance" crowd, on campus and in media. If they step back and remove these offensive facts form the curriculum, they will suffer an uproar from the "pro-objectivity" crowd (which may have a large intersection with the "pro-tolerance" crowd, by the way). But they choose the latter, because this way they will make fewer enemies. and risk a smaller dip in popularity and grant money.

The very same mechanism of civil pressure which was successfully used for various things me and you (hopefully) consider good, like women suffrage and racial desegregation, can be used for purposed me and you (hopefully) find problematic. Most people value social peace over some tolerable concessions to those who feel strong about a particular issue. I don't see any way around it: the mechanism is value-agnostic, much like strong encryption or firearms.

While natural sciences (even biology) are currently enjoying an environment where the scientific truth is considered the most important concern, social sciences, to my mind, are in a situation closer to that from the times of Galileo or Socrates.
March 2022: Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian Broadcasts Translated into English
I don't think your theory "Company efficient and rewards good work, Government inefficient and punishes good work" holds in reality. From what I have seen most large organizations are full of people that are good at navigating organizations but don't really care about the end product. And they keep hiring similar people so bureaucracy keeps growing. I have worked at Siemens, IBM and now a medical device company and it's been the same everywhere. Enormous amounts of money are spent on things that make no sense and nobody in power cares as long as they look good. And the paper pushers keep growing.
I think the article about GPT-Chat being unlikely to replace search engines is right though.

I think that LLMs are something entirely new and calling them a “Google killer” is a failure of imagination.
can you go into details? do you have a business use case you are exploring, developing?
Why would Harvard want to emulate European schools
Try "ZZ" instead. No ":" required.
With a recent announcement that Apple is considering third party app stores and side-loading, I’m betting that future iPhones with USB-C and iPads will enable some form of docking that will enable a rudimentary desktop environment and let you run desktop Mac OS apps.
Maybe give the power/obligation to the "engineers" (well, here it's about universities, but I know far more about managerial duties of engineering associations than of a university; though much should translate), which can pawn off the non-engineering work to some sort of group-shared secretaries. I.e., the managers aren't the ones owning the power, but the engineers are. The latter just don't want to do the daily tasks that require holding the power, so they hire a delegate to hold the power and take care of day-to-day duties.

And because each "engineer" doesn't have enough non-engineering work to keep their own secretary occupied during the times of day the secretary needs to be available (for answering phones, interacting with the "engineer", etc.), groups of engineers come together and hire a small team of secretaries to keep up the availability even in cases of sick days. Small team as in, like, on the order of 3-7. Given their already-required organization skills, a flat hierarchy among them with escalations directed to an elected board of "engineers" should suffice, giving a natural damper on secretary team size due to scaling limits of such a flat hierarchy (and organizational charta/codebook restrictions that prevent any middle manager/secretary-overseer from holding actual power).

I'd actually be happy to hear about the practicalities of such a structure for an engineering collective/organization (lacking any sort of CEO presiding over the engineers)...
> In the past 6 years of my working career, a manager has meaningfully intervened in my work exactly once, and the outcome was weeks of time wasted.

6 weeks of wasted work is much better than 12 weeks of wasted work.

And how exactly did you know what work to do in the first place?
We had a great Atlanta PD major do a Q&A on the GT campus after a string of thefts/muggings.

She straight up said something to the effect of "I'm doing the best I can with the resources I have. Your zone also includes Midtown, with bars and commercial. If crime goes up there, owners with more political connections and tax revenue than the university gripe. So that's where most of my resources are."

Gotta respect honesty.
By looking at what happened in earth judging it is a normal likelihood for a cell to form within billion year and evolve to us within 4 billion years, is nuts.
Scientists thinks this way because they have no idea about what statistical possibility of this to happen in such time.
What happened and happening in Earth even if not a miracle to one then it is result of a luck statistically impossible to find anywhere in cosmos.
It is worth to mention that all living beings in earth are descendants of same cell. Even in earth there is no sign of multiple different cell formation which shows how lucky we were.
> Somebody somewhere would be doing these things

Yes, but Harvard duplicates existing services. e.g. when Harvard runs a dining org, that service is already provided by local restaurants and grocery stores. The only things Harvard needs to provide are things that you can't already get in Boston. Classrooms, libraries, labs, etc. It's just like engineering. Anything that can easily be offloaded to a third party tool should be.
Also surprised: we've got two massive information systems: web and filesystems, both distributed in their own ways. Would be cool to connect them seamlessly transparently.
As I said, with labor protection laws this could have been avoided.
Read up on “qualified immunity.”

My only slightly exaggerated take is that police on duty can do whatever they want to whomever they want - up to and including killing someone - and not be held liable.
> They have political enemies they want to disempower and the "deep state" is a useful cover story.

Given that the alternative to disempowering those orgs is throwing good money after bad, there's nothing wrong with a bit of benign disruption to the existing power structure. Fixing things is not rocket science; educational systems outside the U.S. don't have these dysfunctions to anywhere near the same extent.
Whew! I've always spent too much time deciding which way to go.
It's pretty objective, in the sense how violent and non-violent is reasonably objective.

People who take significant action to have a certain point of view suppressed are intolerant towards it. People who dislike that point of view but restrain themselves and allow others have their despicable ways are tolerant. (And those who don't care are neither, but are considered tolerant by some.)
The modBook, released for the last decade, would like to have a word with you.
Pass grandma test with that then we’ll talk, after you close that print dialog. You’re as grown used to this “easy to remember” as any Vim user or a truck driver.
Many tech businesses don't need to contribute to open source either, yet a significant amount of salary is lost to those employees who do.
>This is a perfect example of a useless, substance-free criticism.

I would argue that rather than being substance-free it is merely subjective. This thread points at plenty of real examples of problems, but they're mostly dismissed or ignored.

Unfortunately most things in life are subjective. I don't consider complaints that depend on subjective things (EX: was such and such a maintainer rude during such and such a thread) to be substance-free, even though we don't have a legal test for comparative rudeness.

>Make it so good and so respectful and so helpful they can't ignore your suggestions anymore.

I think the SDL developers in the lined thread did that, it didn't work.
See Public Enemy, '911 is a Joke', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZDIitWz8Go
Unless the difference in training of GPT-3 and ChatGPT has led to an improvement in the veracity of the replies given, I think the differences in their training are moot in regard to the question of what it will take to get substantially true responses from them. For the reasons I gave in my previous post, I don't regard progress in appearing plausible as necessarily progress towards being able to tell truth from falsehoods.

To be clear, I am not claiming that a symbolic approach would be better. Pointing out the shortcomings of current methods does not provide evidence that symbolic approaches will succeed (or vice-versa, for that matter.)

This leaves code. On reading your statement about starting with it, it suddenly occurred to me that code is a constrained environment compared to the whole of human discourse. It is obvious, I think, that programming languages are extremely limited in what they can express in comparison to human languages, but perhaps less obviously (at least to me), it seems to follow that what humans can say about programs is also constrained (again, in comparison to human discourse in general - but not nearly as constrained as what can be said in the programming languages themselves.)

This leads me to agree with you in this respect (at least tentatively), and here's why: Currently, on Earth, we have one species whose individuals have a well-developed sense of themselves as agents in that world, a similarly well-developed theory of mind about others, and are adroit language users. A few other species have some of these abilities to a limited extent, but not nearly so well developed that they can fully make use of them. As an evolutionist, I suppose that some of our ancestor and related species had intermediate levels of these capabilities, and if we can make AIs that occupy that space we would be making progress.

In this view, attempting to match or surpass human performance in language use and understanding the world is about as difficult a target as we could have. As an intermediate target, the domain of program code and the things people say about it has some things going for it: not only is it more constrained (as argued above), but quite a lot has been written about it and is available for training. It is also (arguably) less likely than human language in general to contain statements intended to influence opinions without regard to the truth.
It's the Holga effect all over again.

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/39913-holga-120gn-imperf...
> I mean that died decades ago when spammers just made pages with your word repeated over and over again. Spam makes everything worse.

No there was a long blessed period of time between the solving of spam and the introduction of altered results.
You probably should have some additional tests around the CachingKeyValueStore related to eviction and size. Maybe this doesn't matter very often, but you should at least test the behavior of your Caching store if when the cache size is only, e.g. 1 item.

You can either do this by passing in a mock KVStore, or by passing in a normal/fake KV store in which you can update the underlying data. So for example:

data = ...
kv = new KVStore(data)
cache = new CachingKVStore(kv, cache_size=1)
v = cache.get(k1)
data.update(k1, new_value)
v2 = cache.get(k1)
assert v2 == v1 // Cached!
v3 = cache.get(k2) // evict k1
v4 = cache.get(k1)
assert v4 != v1
assert v4 == new_value // Gets the new value

Otherwise, yeah for some cases like this you can just inherit from the KVStore test class and run all the same tests with a slightly different set up method to use a caching store instead.
Thanks. It's a modded version of a theme called "Hello Friend Ng".
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

The behavioral difference between Caching KeyValue Store and KeyValueStore is that it doesn't fetch from the underlying data source when called a second time. So that's what I would test. Given the signature you provided, I would either instrument KeyValueStore so I could tell if it had been run twice, or (if KeyValueStore has multiple implementations) I might create a ExampleKeyValueStore in my tests that had that instrumentation.

I solved this problem a bit differently in my code, though. Instead of making a CachingKeyValueStore, I made a MemoryCache. It has a get() method that takes a key and a function. The first time it's called, it runs the function; the second time, it returns the stored result. Here's one of my actual tests for that code (JavaScript):

it("caches result of function, so it's only run once", async function() {
const cache = createIndependentCache();

let runCount = 0;
const getFn = () => runCount++;

await cache.getAsync(NULL_LOG, "key", getFn);
await cache.getAsync(NULL_LOG, "key", getFn);

assert.equal(runCount, 1);
});

And in case you’re curious, here’s the implementation, excluding a bunch of instrumentation and logging:

async getAsync(log, key, getFnAsync) {
if (this._cache[key] === undefined) {
this._cache[key] = getFnAsync();
}

try {
return await this._cache[key];
}
catch (err) {
delete this._cache[key]; // don't cache errors
throw err;
}
}
First-level manager here.

That’s after a very-long (nearly three decade) career as an IC in “big tech”.

I think my take on this is not surprisingly different than yours.

As a first-level manager my job is all about execution and getting things done. Being in 20+ hours of meetings a week gives me a lot more perspective on the big picture than the ICs on my team.

They often think certain work is important because they have a very myopic view of what we do. I am always looking for the ICs to drive our work, and expect the more senior people to come to the table with ideas. Sometimes those ideas are great, and they have a low-level perspective that I am missing because my nose isn’t in the code as much as it once was (it still is, and I still commit code, but it’s opportunistic and not that frequent). But often they get stuck on fixing whatever the most recent thing that bothered them about our code rather than on what actually impacts customers in the long or short term.

There is a lot of management above first-level that doesn’t seem to add a lot of value, but I’m not sure how much of that is inherent versus the specifics of who is in those roles. I expect my manager to be focused on strategy, long-term direction, team composition, building relationships with other orgs, etc. Up a level from that, again an even broader perspective. Depending on who is filling those roles I may or may not see those behaviors.

It’s very common and convenient to focus on personal productivity as an IC, but if 25% or 50% or 90% of that effort is going towards things that ultimately don’t have impact for customers, it’s not very productive after all.
It didn't have a name, just "a version of OS X", then it was called iPhone OS when they released the SDK and the App Store.
Do those existing local businesses have the capacity to fulfil the customers that Harvard currently is, if Harvard were to suddenly tomorrow withdraw that service entirely?
Sounds like flashcards without the spaced repetition. Hardly revolutionary, and I'd bet SR would work better due to the preferential focus on cue-note combos with less retention.
I re-evaluated VB6 with age. We "internet kids" liked to shit all over those dated-looking widgets, but the productivity boost it allowed Grown Up People to write apps to Get Real Shit Done, remains fundamentally unmatched today.

Its main limit was really the same as Windows: it was fundamentally a single-user application model. It's a shame that Microsoft didn't really manage to make something equivalent for the internet age - mostly because of commercial choices made to support Windows and SqlServer.
The state has no role in this story. This is about a private university firing a private person.

"Progressivism arose during the Age of Enlightenment out of the belief that civility in Europe was improving due to the application of new empirical knowledge to the governance of society." according to Wikipedia
Agreed. When searching at Google I can alteast decide which website I am going to trust as I can directly see the website URL and information there but with ChatGPT we don't have that advantage yet.