skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not slavery. It just happens to be that these descendents in rural America often have to work agricultural jobs to pay their property tax (a tax that in turn pays for my extended farming family's kids' educations). And if they don't pay those taxes they get booted onto the street. And if they get booted on the street they eventually get tossed in a cage (instantaneously if they resist the booting). And when they get tossed in a cage, the 13th amendment against slavery no longer applies them. You see, you can't make them slaves (again) unless they don't do their forced field work!

Fortunately at least we seem to have understood the fact I benefitted and got roads from it, doesn't mean it needs to be perpetuated.
It all ends up on HuggingFace anyway so that's where the smart money is heading.
True, though it does so using KMS/DRM adapted from Linux [0], which I would argue were created in the same spirit as Wayland, even if they're not strictly related.

[0] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&;m=139245772023497&w=2
I am reminded of:

> One story has it that when Seymour Cray was asked by management to provide detailed one-year and five-year plans for his next machine, he simply wrote, "Five-year goal: Build the biggest computer in the world. One year goal: One-fifth of the above." And another time, when expected to write a multi-page detailed status report for the company executives, Cray's two sentence report read: "Activity is progressing satisfactorily as outlined under the June plan. There have been no significant changes or deviations from the June plan."
I am perceptive, thanks.
I've been fascinated by the concept of integrating Wolfram Alpha and ChatGPT for a while now. That's why I created my own WolframAlpha-inspired interface to GPT3 a few months ago. Unfortunately, the WolframAlpha API is too costly to use on a per call basis, so I resorted to GPT-3 (Davinci v2).

I've recently updated it to the latest version (Davinci v3) and the results are pretty good! Check out this screencapture to get a glimpse of it:

https://files.littlebird.com.au/Screen-Recording-2023-01-11-...

It's like a fuzzy version of WolframAlpha. If you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to reach out!
What are SA cases?
Go full ChatGPT and talk authoritatively about things you have no idea about.
404 Page Not Found in Mathmematics
Fair. And if a group of Irish people expressed that the name bothered them, it would only be right to listen to what they have to say.
All I can tell you is that distributing via torrent will significantly increase the effective bandwidth.
The issue is that not everyone is comfortable bringing up issues as they happen. Some people may not recognize issues. Others may avoid mention until a problem grows larger. Regular 1-1s make this much easier to catch and give direct reports a great opportunity to share.

Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.
If you need to "poke and prod" your "subordinate", I don't know if you're someone I'd like to work with. The whole feel of your text gives me the vibe of an 80's cop show interrogation and you're the cop who's about to retire and doesn't care.

When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.

The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.

Yes, the dream team is one that can just raise their hand and bring up any issue at any time, either in private or in public. But those teams need to be grown and the trust needs to be there. Nobody wants to be ridiculed for saying bringing something up in public.
This is the author's point:

Cowen's list of status losers includes "Appearing with blonde models", but not crypto itself.

It's not that Cowen is defending crypto in that post specifically, it's that he's looking in every possible direction except at crypto. As if the FTX debacle had absolutely nothing to do with it.
At least one CTO has actually tried exactly that:
https://danlebrero.com/2021/06/30/cto-dairy-lucky-lotto-chao...
I've felt the same way. That's why I'm having to take better care of my mind and body through better diet and exercise. It helps but it's not like when I was in my 20s. I'm also working on starting up a business or two that I can just manage workers with rather than have to do gruntwork. There's a lot of ageism in coding, and I think it's because our brains just don't do as well in 9ur 40s and 50s+ with all this complication. I hope you socked some money away, like retirement, etc. Focus on that as much as you can. Index and mutual funds, growth so you can exit the industry before it boots you out. There's plenty of room to foster an idea and have others do the layers of abstract function branches.
For those who have bought the book, thank you. You can buy copies at

https://www.manning.com/books/podman-in-action

Or download the free PDF from Red Hat at:

https://developers.redhat.com/e-books/podman-action
The author of the paper, Suzana Herculano-Houzel, made a nice video that talks about it as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1tEnm53zDs
Write your own automated tests that you control.
Also because a lot of them are of the "hardhats are because we live in a nanny state" and then fall off a roof or fall backwards on the ladder, because they are fabulously un-self aware, DAD
The more senior the role within a company, the more people can thrive on BS alone.

If an entry level employee is terrible, it will be obvious in a matter of days. It takes years for bad hires at the VP level and above to be recognized.
Product management feels like the kind of profession where you can get away with BSing. It's really hard to tell how much value you're truly adding. Easy to claim that the wins were thanks to you, and the losses just happened to be market conditions or luck of the draw.
Cool stuff! Congrats on the launch!
How much of that can be attributed to Bastien being better at begging for bailouts and subsidies, as opposed to actually improving the company?
I believe what you're saying is true, I just haven't seen it in practice. I've long joked that the best documentation is the source code, and, really, it's not so much a joke as a truism. I've found that having readable code has resulted in the best documentation I've seen, and you don't have to worry about it being out-of-sync!

I do believe documentation is important, but, having joined recently the largest corporation I've ever been a part of where I work on products of a larger size than ever, I am amazed to find documentation here to be as bad as, or even worse, than anywhere else I've worked, and most of it is simply outdated and irrelevant. I guess I need to work somewhere that does documentation well to believe in it more.

I also consider myself a good technical writer. Unfortunately, it seems that many software developers don't share this skill, and this could be a major reason why so many resist writing it. I think a litmus test for this is whether someone prefers to share information via a document, or via an in-person meeting, a conference call, or a video recording of a meeting. Unfortunately, videos and meetings are not searchable, indexable, updateable, or quick to scan. But they seem to be preferred by the same people who don't want to write anything down.
In this era I have access to a lot of computers. I don’t want to run everything on the one under my desk that happens to have a GPU. It’s kind of crazy that popular frameworks are getting worse at remote rendering, and it’s one reason backend services are switching to Javascript and Wasm frontends.
What is the bear case for this essay? It's notable that almost all large organizations operate in a diametrically opposed way, yet we have thousands of successful incredibly complex software systems. To me the essay feels intuitively true, but I'm not sure how to reconcile it with this empirical fact.
> aren't you (morally, if not legally) obliged to pay it back to the victims?

OpenAI would be positively thrilled to give SBF back his money and cancel his shares. I’m not sure his creditors would similarly salivate at that deal. (EDIT: Nvm.)
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/10/poverty-rate-....

[2] https://econofact.org/employment-and-poverty

I should've added that college students make up a large chunk of poverty as well, and the disabled (non-working)...

Using conservative rates for child poverty, you get:

* ~32% of the entire poverty population is children <18

* ~18% are disabled and don't work

* ~16% is seniors

* ~10% is college students

* ~6.5% is single mothers

* ~6% don't work (either looking for work or not)

* ~10% is everyone else - including dual-parent HH, single father HH, disabled people that do work, etc...

The idea that most poor people (as defined by the definition of poverty in the US) are single people working full time jobs is not possible. The poverty line is BELOW a full-time minimum wage job, and it includes money received from government transfers like SNAP, etc...

Only ~29% of the poor work full-time jobs - because by definition it's quite difficult to work full-time and be "in poverty".

If your definition of poverty is something else - then sure - maybe most people in that "poverty" are full-time workers.
You're probably thinking of Fallingwater, but most of FLW's buildings have conventional (sloped) roofs. Gehry and Calatrava on the other hand are known for leaky roofs (and walls, and windows, etc).
Can you quantify that to the management in that case?

To certain styles of management focused on "always building new products" to guarantee their worth/value, they absolutely will get blinders on and believe "new products are easy and more predictable than maintenance of old products". Those blinders are hard to take off once they get into that sort of pattern. All of their processes are built around "new products". That starts to be the hammer that wants to dismantle old products because they don't do maintenance (that's someone else's problem) but they surely know how to build new products. They are the build new products group, that's what believe they do. Building new products is exciting and they can be passionate about it.

I also think that's generally the wrong way to work and does plenty of harm and creates a lot of unnecessary stress on development teams caught in those cycles. But I've certainly seen plenty of management teams that do work that way in the real world and maybe don't question it enough.
> P.S. Fortran often appears on those “outdated languages” lists, but the lists are often compiled by people who have little or no clue about anything to do with computing, let alone programming languages.

So true!
Squirrels do eat them, especially the seeds. I suspect that they are not the ideal distribution vector for Osage oranges since they consume the seeds rather than distribute them.

BTW - we always called them “hedge apples”
Unless you're going for sniper level accuracy a barrel can be rifled with just the button because the die will cause its own rotation as you push it down the barrel, this is because of the trailing part of the button.

The reason rifling machines do it is to ensure minimal wear on the die, and for speed of operation but that's an optimization more than a requirement. This is also the reason why the cutters on a typical button are as long as they are: to ensure that it rotates.

You also don't need to index it for the same reason: the tool will seek the grooves made by the previous pass (except for point cutters).

It's basically just a very coarse inside thread cutter, where the thread is so steep that it will drive the tool to rotate much as the bullet will rotate when passing through. This will work with any thread that is more than 1:1.
Just got 2.7% for my title bump. Hurray.
er… a month and a half later? Seriously?
The are ways to defend against it but I don't see any that aren't quite heavy handed, like forcing all users created after some date to identify using electronic id.
Just de-lurked to say: I agree with you completely.

As a veteran of several industry-winters, I have to expect some
down-voters are in for a rude awakening over the next few years.
I'm a big believer of treating mathematical notation as a first-class citizen on the web. This won't make me jump ship to a Chromium-based browser, but I'm glad to see it happen.
> now we consider Google an ad company first

Google has been an ad company way before 2013.

AdWords was launched in 2000. Google bought DoubleClick in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

Second paragraph of the Google 2004 financial report (first paragraph described what Google is):

We generate revenue by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising. Businesses use our AdWords program to promote their products and services with targeted advertising. In addition, the thousands of third-party web sites that comprise our Google Network use our Google AdSense program to deliver relevant ads that generate revenue and enhance the user experience.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312505...
Anyway you can enlighten me on how to distinguish between Users to build the apps and users that will use the apps?
I got lost in the documentation.
I'm assuming there are different kind of users. Users that build the apps and outside users that register to use the app, if publicly facing.
Exactly this. It receives the email, now what? You need to run some code on it and so the way to do that is one of the compute services. AWS isn't forcing you to do anything here.

99.9% of SES users I promise are only sending mail anyway. You aren't forced to have Lambdas or anything else to send mail.
Not that hard, but it wouldn't have anywhere near the capabilities of modern combines and tractors.

If you wanted to build an "open source", state of the art circa 1970, should be totally doable. Modern tractors are kind of absurd - they are basically teleinformatic devices with an engine and attachments. All the problems of modern cars and modern industrial machines (e.g. CNC milling machine), combined.

It's a bit like the change in telephony over the period - anyone with a soldering iron, machine tools and some knowhow could build a rotary phone on their own, but imagine trying to even assemble the components of an iPhone at home.
Larry Wall is still alive, isn't he? Am I missing a joke somewhere? (e.g. Perl might be dead...)
The parent is talking about Anthropic (https://www.anthropic.com/), not OpenAI.
> It's much harder to kill people with a knife than with a gun.

This seems like a reasonable statement, but I don't think it's true.

If I had to be shot with a handgun from close range or stabbed with a kitchen knife, I would absolutely choose being shot. You're statistically far more likely to survive a shooting than an attack with a bladed weapon.
I disagree that my (extremely broad) diagnosis of the problems with forecasting in America is based on flawed premises. You've provided thorough, correct, and important details here but my comment was aimed at the broader HN audience, not on writing the central argument for a discussion on the historical timeline. I think what I said, "Horrible oversight by the federal govt (read, congress) of our technical/scientific forecasting resources means that our forecasting ability is extremely fragmented and poorly organized." is a very concise summary of the things you've laid out here.

As for the details in your comments, the only thing I disagree with strongly is the comment about investment in computing. While sufficient computing resources are central to good forecasting, the lack of investment by NOAA in computing (I sit at NOAA) is a red herring. ECMWF is significantly better than either of the two available American forecasts because they are just better at what they do, all around. In particular with respect to data assimilation. I've sat at meetings with ECMWF forecasters who have asked for access to my in-situ data products and their pipeline is as simple as "point us to the data please". Their data assimilation pipeline is so much more sophisticated and thorough that catching up on that alone would be a huge huge leap. Mind you, not just '4DVAR' the methodology, but literally the way that the community finds and integrates observational data.

ECMWF, the organization, is quite literally structured to strictly accomplish the goal of 'improve the forecast'. Whereas, again broadly, the American institutions are much more a congolemerate of associated researchers doing individual science projects while small teams work on specific segments of the forecast. Yes, we are attempting to fix this. No, we haven't fixed it yet.

This is not to say I don't think we should fund computing or that computing won't help. But we are quite literally 5-10 years of research behind on multiple fronts.
My thesis is that in software it takes an expert to identify another expert, and outsiders struggle with being able to tell who's full of shit. You end up with pseudo-metrics like lines of code and random inspections of the last bit of code you wrote (e.g. muskian Twitter).

An experienced engineer with many products under their belt and tons of coaching of others on their track record will easily tell if someone knows what they're doing, especially if they get to pair program together for even 30 minutes.
>Sure, the US strategic goal is to dominate the world militarily. It could achieve that with half its military spending, arguably even a third

Major citation needed on that one. There's inefficiencies in any large organization, sure, but this has nothing to do with a need to prepare a deterrent strategy for the actual wars that matter. Agreed that playing COIN in the desert for 20 years was stupid, and we should all be upset at the politicians and media apparatus that encouraged that stupidity. That doesn't have anything to do with the current situation.

I can't parse what your second paragraph is getting at, other than SpaceX is cheaper than ULA, which I'd consider to be irrelevant given their different mission profiles.

>So, your premise that you can just overspend your way into invincibility is not sound either, if anything the opposite might happen.

I never said this.
From my time in academia, there are two reasons:

1. It's fast.

2. It's tolerant of poor programmers.

Regarding item 2: People who want to specialize in scientific computing intentionally avoid becoming good programmers. Most of them are not in CS, but in some other engineering or in science. They want to focus on their discipline (e.g. climate science as this example gives). They don't care about code quality, or even SW practices (e.g. when I was in grad school a little over a decade ago, I couldn't get a single one of my colleagues to use version control - and some of them had codebases in the tens of thousands of lines).

They are not judged by the quality of their code, but by the results their code produces. They don't show their code in their papers, but the plots/tables. So they'll use the language that puts up the least barriers, and is performant. Hence, Fortran.

(Incidentally, many of them don't care about reproducibility. They'll modify their large codebase, spit out some results, publish them, and then add new features, and will never check if the modified codebase will continue to give the same results for the same inputs).

All the other reasons in the article? Insignificant factors.

Edit: Note that I'm not saying that if you code in Fortran you're a poor programmer or use poor practices. And I'm sure there are good Fortran code bases around.
I had to play therapist to a few teammates and I never want to repeat that experience again.

It's really stressful trying to prod someone to get their life back together when they clearly need professional help and maybe medication.

I'm an engineer, I'm not built to be a life coach in any way.
Rain seeding dates to at least the 1960s in North America.
> I am amazed that people try to force limited and unfinished Wayland

Can we just not do this useless flamewar under every similar topic’s thread? Especially that no, noone wants to force Wayland, they want something that is under active maintenance, which X11 is not anymore, since every maintainer of it left/migrated to Wayland.

> Not to mention that A LOT of stuff is X11 only and not ported (and never will be) to Wayland.

Hmm, only if the goddamn maintainers of X11 who came up with Wayland thought of that. They could have named it something like W11.. no, XWayland!
They would have and could have done it when they controlled the House, Senate, and Whitehouse 4 years ago. But they aren't seriously about getting things done, just optics.

Edit: When they controlled all three during the beginning of the previous President's time in office. Still waiting for infrastructure [week] to end and I'm still waiting to see what the Republicans ACA replacement will be... SMH
If you use it "correctly" (very subjective) it is a great driver assistant. On long road trips I am way less tired and can focus more on making sure my environment is safe (animals entering road) instead of focusing on lane keeping, etc.

Most lane keeping/cruise control setups today from other OEMs would also be sufficient in most of the scenarios I enjoy AP though.
Are John Deere's products that much better than their competitors? Why would farmers willingly put up with this if alternatives existed?
> Erin’s VP of sales had just bought a condo in Miami to be next to her aging parents […]
>
> Her VP of Sales might be wonderful, but with the all the travel the company is only getting her half-time. Erin needs a full-time head of sales in New York. Time to have a difficult conversation.

Hustle culture nonsense. Family is important https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html

IMO there’s always a way to do both. If there really isn’t, choose family.
NeevaAI
This only works if you're already high status otherwise you will be labeled a "loser". Already burned once on that.
Architecture documentation is not just consumed by programmers/coders. I can't imagine showing Haskell (or something similar) to non-technical leadership or during an M&A process.

Know your audience. Frankly I would loath trying to decipher code when getting a high-level view of the architecture of a system during onboarding.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice if you’re not trying some of the other film simulation modes on those fuji cameras. They look fantastic.
I’m a Scientist Who Spoke Up About Climate Change. My Employer Fired Me
Please don't post garden-variety politics to HN. There's too much of it and it mostly isn't intellectually interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Corporations allow for infinite iterations of BSers because at the end of the day, if you're found out, you can always re-face, re-market, and rebrand. Also, once they get a win and a bag of cash is in their hand, now they have capital to help iterate and push their BS.

Need to buy more time and you have cash on hand, run the FTX effective altruism playbook and throw some cash at charities and media.