skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My experience exactly. "Can you automate it?" should always be followed by a discussion of what "it" precisely means.

If you can describe in English not just the happy path but all possible failure modes, then your problem is automate-able. If there are nodes in the real workflow that are missing from your mental flowchart, you need to put in more work to understand and describe your problem before it can be automated. Codifying these decisions in writing and using it as part of your _manual_ process is a mandatory pre-requisite to automation.

Automation is almost entirely limited by the human mental capacity to model the problem precisely. It's not a technical problem at all. This is hard for people to hear - automation means a lot of front-loaded mental work for everyone involved.

In a manual system, you can defer that mental work to runtime and make decisions on the fly.

In an automated system, you're ceding control to a machine. You must first codify the contents of someone's brain with incredible detail such that a computer can make every decision the same way a human operator would under the same conditions. In an automated system, the criteria cannot be ambiguous in any way (if your flowchart diverges depending on whether a file is valid or not, you need battle-tested `file_is_valid` function). It's useless to talk about automating an entire graph when you can't even describe the nodes.

A good model that I use is self-driving cars. We certainly have the technology for 100% self-driving vehicles. But considering the number of edge cases in real driving conditions, most people are very hesitant to cede control to a machine. There's an implicit realization that while automation might be convenient, the potential negative consequences of a machine error are too great and most drivers choose to retain control.

The negative consequences of bad automation in IT are usually less severe but still an enormous drain on resources to babysit the failure states of poorly-conceived automation workflows.
Just to give a sense of how long these things take: you have to make the same presentation to the same people because it's been so many months they just forgot what you said the last time.
The requirement is “no longer than necessary” - meta started migrating people away from oculus accounts with the release of the quest 2 over 2 years ago in 2020.

If you have regulators breathing down your neck being conservative on time isn’t a terrible idea.
I know that the rootstock they commonly use for many citrus in the USA (Flying Dragon) is hardy down to nearly subzero Fahrenheit but the fruit doesn’t taste very good!
surreptitiously
- adverb
in a way that attempts to avoid notice or attention; secretively.
"Mary surreptitiously slipped from the room"

i.e. it was something done to you without informing you. To use your analogy it would be like blind folding someone and pushing them off a cliff (with base jumping gear on) if they lived I'd consider that at least attempted murder. But with secretly giving drugs to someone there is no way to avoid interference with the workings of a sound mind so that I think is on par with murder.
Just in case the author is reading: in the introduction, you use the term "virtual RAM" to describe the GPU VRAM needed for running stable diffusion, but what that VRAM actually stands for is 'Video RAM'.
or you just need to ship something fast but never get time to "make it right"

there isn't a lot of value in clean code beyond making it easier to maintain. it can be argued that clean code over time makes code safer by way of improved maintainability (which is true), but 99% of the time, customers won't buy software because of how clean the internals are.

meaning: if a customer is willing to commit to purchasing your widget or your competitor's for $LOTSOFMONEY if a single feature is created for them, then you can bet your ass developers in both companies will author (be told to author) the shittiest version they can that works to win that customer.

think about the last thing you bought that you REALLY needed. did you care that it was a generic brand that looks crappier but gets the job done? same thing.

disclaimer: i am a huge believer in clean code and TDD.
Well, I did talk about one specific solution architect. One that got the fundamental basics of ERP systems wrong. And part of the problem was his superficial, at best, understanding of ERP systems and underlying processes. The last part is ehat said solution architect has in common with the vast majority of commenters under this submission.
> (damnit, of course calculating the permutations of a list is n-squared, but this is an interrogation of the random trivia I can manage to recall and I feel like a deer in the headlights)

With this statement I'm inclined to believe the title. Last I checked there are (n-1)! permutations for a list of length n. Not knowing this off the top of your head is fine, but making this kind of comment is an unforced error and it doesn't reflect well on the author.
CGI was also a security nightmare full of footguns. Not that modern software isn't, but CGI was especially bad.

- Take untrusted input and pass it directly to shell scripts on your filesystem. What could go wrong?

- Executables in cgi-bin were nearly always included in your document root on shared hosting servers.

- File drops and web shells were rampant

- A trivial misconfiguration (not setting +x?) could result in the web server just serving up the source code of your scripts directly to the client. There's your database credentials hard-coded right there at the top of your file now exposed for all to see.

- You had to pay very close attention to resource limits on the server itself to prevent malicious things like fork-bombs

- Apache was a nightmare to configure securely for CGI

The list goes on. I don't miss it at all.
This is true. Prominent conspiracy theorist Chuck Schumer warned people about this when he blew the whistle about the intelligence agencies having six ways from Sunday to get back at anybody who crosses them, even the president.
Do you have an example of other information that could be included to validate that the message was not generated and signed in advance?
I think the amino acid profile is more important, because it's not really stated anywhere. You don't need to really worry about it with meat, but with non meat sources, you (allegedly?) need to start thinking about it.

I am a degenerate that consumes a lot of Huel, and they claim to think about it but who knows if our understanding is good enough to properly model this stuff.
It can't do math because it is operating in a single neural network path. You, also, cannot do math in a single neural network path. Even when you add two small numbers like 123+456 your brain is mentally iterating over the digits, detecting if a carry is needed, doing that, etc. That is, you have a looping/recursive process running inside your brain. You only output the final answer.

GPT does not have such a looping/recursive process inside its neural net. It's a fixed depth non-recursive neural net.

You can get it emulate recursive processes by prompting it with tricks like "think step by step". If you describe the addition algorithm you learn in elementary school (e.g. the digit-by-digit, carry if the sum exceeds 9, etc) in sufficient detail, it can execute that algorithm.
> At the same time, I have put a ton of thought and effort into my company's hiring process,

Thanks, but I think there's only so much you can do. Part of the problem seems to be that there's such a thing as a "company hiring process" in the first place. (I don't know how to fix this; most problems seem to get solved by a thousand people making incremental improvements, so you're probably helping regardless.)

> So I guess what I'm trying to say is that therapy can be beneficial regardless of the brokenness of the hiring process.

This is definitely true. Though: therapy can be expensive, a good therapist is hard to find, and a therapist that works for you can be even harder; so it might not be worth seeking therapy for everyone.
Many places forbid driving while distracted, and this often applies regardless of the source of distraction. Just because something is connected to the vehicle doesn’t mean that any use of that equipment is necessary legal.
High protein is not a diet requirement and studies have shown detriment to too much protein consumption. The protein craze is a marketing gimmick, yet most westerners are drawn in by products that advertise it and seem to be concerned about it even when they live a lifestyle that doesn't require increased protein consumption [0].

[0] https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speak...
Ref: "How to take advantage of partial reconfiguration in FPGA designs"
https://www.eetimes.com/how-to-take-advantage-of-partial-rec...

That capability is called "partial reconfiguration" and is pretty common. Your description sounds like you would like to reconfigure the FPGA at a finer grain level than what "partial reconfig" does. Also, FPGA internals (WRT configuration) are typically undocumented and often proprietary, so having the FPGA self-generate FPGA configurations is going to be difficult unless the FPGA in question is well documented.

Using the FPGA to reconfigure itself might be tricky since FPGAs are typically loaded by an external source. Theoretically, you could generate the new configuration, write it to an external memory (e.g. RAM), and then use the FPGA load-from-memory capability to do what you ask. There is a wide gap between theory and practice here, however.

By the time you implement configuration generation and reloading in an FPGA, you probably will be out of room in the FPGA. :-/
Those backup instruments are starting to be replaced with digital systems using a battery backup. And analog gyros have always needed a power source. (Doesn’t have to be electrical.) :)
On a related note, I’ve noticed that vegetarian jerky and other vegetarian meat-product substitutes have a slightly lower protein-to-calorie ratio than the originals. Not a big difference, but consistent.
A Week Without Copilot
Latifa Bint Mohammed Al Maktoum
unnamed as [No Name]? both :wq and ZZ (:x) do the same: "E32: No file name"
Tinder for Startups and VCs
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34284790

This bookmarklet also "only" gets 99.9%
Well said indeed. We're finally getting back to the unvarnished truth, it's only returns on capital that truly matters.
I always :q when I didn’t change anything.

If I changed something intentionally, :wq and :x are equivalent. If I changed something accidentally, :x won’t catch that, and :q complaining will require me to decide if :q! or :wq is correct.

So :x does not fit my workflow of avoiding accidental writes. Just like ZZ does not.
Money is just the middleman pretending to be the boss.
For those looking to disambiguate the title, the post talks about being unable to find a new position as a software engineer. So "bad at interviewing" or "bad on paper".

Many in this thread probably came here to understand what one should do when they realize they are in the lower quartile of competency within their organization or even the profession broadly. I don't mean juniors who don't know anything, their competency will change, rapidly. I mean mid-levels who are accepting that they "just don't have it".

Lots of good advice in here about not defining your identity in terms of your profession.
On the day-to-day level, just ask for help. Your peers probably don't care about your performance as much as you think. They will care more if you make more work for them (and yourself). There is plenty of respect to be had in being a low throughput SE who isn't a mess-maker.
This is really the next layer up in the ‘galaxy brain meme’ of this thread. The understanding that the people that dissuade you from gold plated engineering solutions are not some inherently different monsters. Rather, they’re doing at least roughly what you’d do in the same situation.
That reads as somewhat misguided and dismissive. You don't have to understand the chemistry to improve recipes by trial and error, over multiple generations, and learn from the still-standing structures.

And there is still value in studying today those that survived in order to improve ours. The way lime healed cracks is new to me at least, but it's taken as a given here.

> you wouldn't build anything worthwhile

You just need more cement, it could be replaced with fibers. We still use unreinforced concrete in some cases.
The market is clearly not doing a good enough job in this case, and the problem is one of safety.
yes this has been, and continues to be the case from my perspective, for at least the last 50 years.
You missed a plan tier… 1 story, “landing page mode”… I’d be willing to try something cool and new like this for $35 to make a super slick landing page… but the entry price of $350 USD per month is… well past “why not use SquareSpace” and into maybe I can justify the hours of time to hand craft my own scroll based 3D presentation using the old revealJS 3d tools… the fact that your per “story” price is more than an entire site on several hosted site platforms is … it’s very premium and while you may indeed have something so good it’s worth it, odds are Im not going to use the remaining 20% of perfect Apple grade scrolling animations to justify the price.

Im not suggesting you’ve made a mistake pitching it as premium, I’m just unsure if you’ve over shot, because this is definitely pricier than I’m comfortable with and I’m not afraid to just use Wix or SquareSpace or Typeform or any one of a number of tools instead of coding it all myself.
Yes, that was it. I had a non-common TLD in the email domain. com/net/org are no problem but it seems that many country TLDs and generic TLDs are not working. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction but can I suggest that you tweak the email validation algo, so that it allows basically anything as TLD. Otherwise you'll always end up missing some new or more exotic TLDs.

While you're at it, please also make sure you support "plus addressing", and let people change their email in the profile settings without having to email you...

Email address validation is not easy, you'd be surprised what weird things can be in valid email addresses ;-)

I'm now going to check it out in more detail.

Thanks for sharing this - and happy birthday from me as well.
I feel validated to know that I'm not the only one unimpressed with ChatGPT because it can be so confidently wrong. It almost seems worse than not having ChatGPT.
There are waves of that effort periodically (use a different reserve currency) but they always peter out. It's simply too hard for reasons in my original comment. Eventually, yes, but unlikely in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

The policies you describe as "idiotic" are rationally imposed. The assumption is that they will weaken Russia's war effort, and that the cost, while high, is much lower than fighting a hot war down the road if Russia is allowed to continue to invade its neighbours.

You can argue that the policies aren't working, but while looks like that in the headlines, if you look at what's going on inside Russia all the lines are pointing down, even if the government's own figures claim otherwise. You could argue that a slightly different class of restrictions could be more effective.

But the only basis for "idiotic" is if you think it's none of the EU's business if Russia chooses to invade and try to conquer one of their neighbors.
Who is impressed by appliances lasting 5 years. If I buy a new Stove or Fridge and is craps out before 15 years I never buying that brand again.

Smaller table top appliances lasting 5 years is ok I guess, something like an Air Fyer or even a Microwave, but larger ones no that should be 15 years.
For me the legitimate reason to code C is to get stuff done, period.

There is hardly a need for more (to do what I do -- systems in the broadest sense) and there's a lot of time saved by not thinking about 21 "safe" and "ergonomic" ways to write everything in C++ (that very often end up being not that safe, and unintelligible).

Yes, there is the "subset" argument, only use what you need. But I don't buy that, I'm not like that, it doesn't work for me. Constraining myself makes things easier.
> Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras.

And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. But saying "you must have a backup camera" is in no way an endorsement for massive info-tainment screens.

> Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff?

Because touchscreens don't help serve any purpose of the car, they are merely cool flashy tech that actually makes things less safe. The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling.

https://youtu.be/G2PMzSo1Bss
Malicious PyPI packages create Cloudflare Tunnels to bypass firewalls
That is just unjustifiably gross. I get wanting to have noncompetes for people with nonpublic information that could be used to harm the company (note: I said “get” and not “agree”), but to slap a non compete on a close-to-minimum-wage worker whose most secret information is how many pickles to put on a sandwich? Makes my skin crawl.
Sounds like OP has anxiety actually
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-marijuana-...
There was that story about the U.S. Navy removing touch screens from their destroyers after their horrible usability was implicated in some very embarrassing collisions. That was in 2019. If that doesn't change anything, it's not a question of car manufacturers just not being aware touch screens are more error prone.

As I think most people know, the main reason they use touch screens is because it's cheaper to develop than physical buttons: you don't have to redesign the dashboard and wiring in order to change the UI. That's important to them.

Secondary to that, there are still some people who see a big colorful touchscreen on the dashboard and think "golly, this car's fancy", and might be more likely to buy a car with a shiny (greasy, coffee-splattered, fingerprint-laden) touchscreen on it. When you upgrade the trim level on a car, a lot of times they just give you a bigger touch screen, as though it were a status symbol for some people. I think the internal term for these people is 'rubes', but I'd need to check that.
That is understood. The life cycle of canary is n days, in this case apparently 7 days. Industrial output, economic stats, health of world figures, and Vatican whispers are precisely what a state intelligence agency is supposed to know before the general public. The idea is that the message embeds bits of information that were disclosed at a specific point in time and my point is that these types of bits are not that that unpredictable for the sort of adversary that necessitates canaries.
In some respects this is clearly an ideal way to find a job, in the sense that on average it's going to achieve a much better fit than random software engineers applying to random "Software Engineer I/II/III" positions.

And have literally gotten a job or two this way, more or less.

But I think there are a lot of practical issues.

This is extremely resource intensive (in terms of time and emotional investment) modus operandi. And considering that an explicit part of the process you describe is promoting yourself for jobs where the company isn't even actively hiring, you're going to have to try this with a lot of companies.

Most companies are pretty opaque and many don't even know what they need, and it's certainly even rarer for them to randomly drop crucial "oh man, wish we could find a good database guy who also practices Wing Chun kung fu for our dojo" hints by word of mouth.

It's like finding love, almost. It's great when this sort of serendipity happens and folks can maximize the chance of it happening by absolutely networking the hell out of themselves but I don't think it's something you can rely on.
> A streamlined on-call process should be in place instead.

Honestly even 99% of non-nuclear reactor code doesn't need on call. Most of the time it can wait until the morning. Amazon? Sure, have on call. Your app that's used by businesses during the business day? Fix it tomorrow.
TIL that VIM has built-in encryption.
Coconut oil is OK and when I rarely cook with oil I use coconut oil.

Usually I convert “fried food” recipes to simmer in water or vegetable broth, then add a tablespoon of olive oil after the food has been removed from cooking heat. Easy to do, and I think tastes better.
Great, the usual fork threat in pseudo-friendly language. Religious terminology thrown in.

People don't have unlimited time and can't react to every PR. Most projects that take too many PRs devolve into a buggy mess that is only propped up by the "community".

Why would I expose my vaccuum cleaner to such software?
It’s still used to torture music students to this very day!
You haven't provided any argument to rebut, only an assertion.

On the surface, there appears to be no actual canary-specific value to keeping the text short. If you have a specific reason you disagree, feel free to bring that argument forward.
I'd argue that 3rd world cars don't have screens because they're cheaper to maintain, not cheaper to build. Buttons are dead simple and reliable, and can be fixed by any mechanic, computers cannot.
While many people would agree that value to users is more important than "pure" engineering/code quality, moving the goalposts doesn't nullify the GP's point. If Google was hiring to acquire Homebrew (assuming it was possible) then value to users would be a factor to consider. But if they were just hiring the person to work on non-homebrew projects, why wouldn't "pure" engineering quality be relevant?
Can't you use :q and then :x instead of :q then :wq ?
there’s certainly people on HN that are quite unique and exceptional (the only question is to what extent)

People who don’t use smartphones, people who only pay with cash, people who have smart phones without data plans, people who turn off notifications on their phone for a large percentage of their day, people who own Android devices and strip out everything Google related, list goes on
I don't think any person that wants physical interfaces (buttons, knobs, levers, sliders, ...) doesn't also think (touch-)screens can be nice for certain tasks.

Being an electrical engineer there is one thing that I can tell you about electromechanical parts: They are expensive — especially in the good and reliable variant.

That means car manufacturers have a real incentive to make you believe you don't need them and put everything on a touch screen instead.
What is government for, if not for solving the issues of the populace it is governing?
I haven't used C++ very much, but I found "A Tour of C++" to be a great introduction. It focuses on the core of C++ OOP semantics and is written by Bjarne Stroustrup himself. I like the book because it doesn't try to answer the question "which feature is the canonical way to solve problem X", since from what I understand, the "canonical" way to solve a problem in C++ changes quite frequently as new features are added. It was recommended to me by one of my professors a few years back for being short and accessible to a person who is looking to learn what makes C++ special, not how to program from scratch.

EDIT: Reading the page again, it looks like the book does have some discussion of C++17 and C++20 features, but I focused on the first few chapters which really nail down the whole copy and move semantics feature as well as operator overloading.
Julia Computing offers Julia Hub. Not sure if that’s what you’re looking for but maybe.