skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don’t know if I’d call it original thought, but rather a synthesis of a few ideas I’ve been exposed to. Every innovation is eventually commodotized, so being a worker in a new space pays well because we haven’t figured out how to do it at scale. In addition, the space is not saturated, so there are more low-hanging fruit for innovation. Eventually though, things get automated and the cost of disruption goes way up, limiting significant returns to those that have sufficient capital to work at gigantic scales.
Or alternatively, high pay and old tech working for military contractors in roles that require security clearance. In some cases tech employers must pay a premium to get someone to perform extraordinarily tedious work.
I get upset that people pay thousands of dollars to go abroad to look at nice, dense towns with pretty buildings and then come back to the US and say "anyone who wants to live in a nice town like the one I just visited needs to get out of the way of Progress, we need cheap people warehouses and we need them now".

I'd happily raze several square miles of land in my hometown and build nothing but housing if what came after was something like Copenhagen, instead of Houston (which is what's currently happening).
99% of what you consume online is just noise, man. You're clearly driving yourself mad. This isn't concern trolling, I have the same problem.
Why are you being so pedantic? At this point it seems like you're trolling.

> so i guess that managers are not individuals and don't contribute?

> i have never, ever come across a programmer working on a system of any complexity that did not depend on contributions from other programmers.

No one said non-ICs aren't individuals, and no one said they don't contribute. No one said that ICs don't work with others or depend on others.

What has been said, several times, is that their contributions (i.e. the code they produce, artifacts they create, etc) are largely individual contributions. They are the ones creating the thing, and are not responsible for others.

This gets a bit murky as you move up the IC chain, in that your contributions become less tangible and are in part measured on how you lead others and make those around you more efficient. But your performance is still largely judged on what you produced.
The report was not clear so I read the actual bill. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf

This is the crux of the matter:

> a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

And once he defined this

> . Requirements for science instruction in schools. (1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

First, he gets words wrong, in science theory means "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses" -- source: https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-scie...

As for "scientific fact", there's simply no such thing. Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-sc...

Complete hogwash.
He can't "Just use Sciter", as you recommended. Proprietary libraries and frameworks might be cost prohibitive or just plain incompatible with most projects.
Blue states have their own issues though:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-2-2-4-may-be-thou...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/democrats-blue-st...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
That's simply counter to how $BIGCOs work. Just look at infosec for a big corporation. There's no incentive on their part to minimize cost or disruption with strict security policies and audits. The people who feel the pain are the workers, not the CISSPs pushing STIG hardening rules. And if the C-Suite starts to wonder if all the time and money is worth it? Just show them some news reports of breaches. In many industries (especially highly regulated ones), the entire audit world of Deloitte et al is designed to make things unproductive.
‘Fall’ Shows Us Why AI Tools Are Crucial for the International Film Reach
There's a lot of stuff golang doesn't have :(
> Teaching about free markets is like teaching about spherical cows.

Thanks for illustrating my point that people in American classrooms should be taught about it.
Mostly, I believe Nintendo has about 20 years (not sure of the exact amount, a ridiculous number anyway) of operating costs in savings.

If they stopped selling anything tomorrow they’d still be good for a few decades.
Neeva has an AI for search. It works sufficiently well enough on some searches that it's all I'll read. Others I can tell it's missing things.
Developers build what the market will pay for. If they overbuild luxury houses, they'll go down in price. All new supply is good supply, period. We need everything from SROs to luxury penthouses. That's the only way we land on affordable housing in a market economy.
Not really, tbh. There's a mix of unit types and the depth of the shortage is so extreme that I'm not worried at all about finding takers for pretty much anything.
In a suburban area far from a major city?

Not going to happen.

Even other countries with great public transit dont do have that.
What’s an example of something tyrannical they’ve done such that science is now a target?
On Android? I just opened FF on my phone (v109.2.0) and pull to refresh does not work
In CA there’s at least one or two cars per bedroom of housing. They’ll be parking all along the street.

But so what? This is a last ditch effort to beef up the critically low housing supply, not intended to be the ideal solution.
what about data privacy. I can't use this for work
Open RuneScape Classic
I believe that the answer is weak not because they don’t have a competing technology, but because they have to figure out how to implement it without breaking their business model. The way ChatGPT works so far there’s little room for ads. Microsoft can afford this because their main income stream is from other sources. Google lives and breathes from ads.
It has been shown that such gluts eventually lower prices in all cheaper tiers of housing. High end owners trade up for discounted luxury creating a market surplus, then midrange owners trade to high end, and finally, the low end houses become more affordable.

In other words, capitalism actually works at setting prices.

Put another way, would you rather live in a new house that was meant to be sold way below market, and has all sorts of structural shortcuts, or in an older house that was mid- to high-end when it was built a few decades ago?
There's no Safari on Android.
Unfortunately, even Brother does this now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34695261
You didn't make an argument. You just made an unsupported claim. You did not compare fraud rates, you did not measure costs or benefits, you did not account for the urgency of the established by the context or make any attempt to assess relative feasibility. You made no argument.

More importantly, embedded in your claim is the assumption that comparing two different states with multiple order-of-magnitude differences in size and complexity should be accepted without question. Imagine deploying a solution for a class of 32 students in two weeks. Now imagine you have to do that for an entire university community of 8,000 people including all faculty, staff, and administration. You must account for on-campus and off-campus students; part-time, full-time, and remote employees; labor-oriented staff who do never use computers at work, multiple languages, bureaucratic restrictions to account for, politicking within different departments, and so on. Here's the kicker: you still have the same two weeks you had for the classroom project.

It's an absurd comparison that should never be made without clear disclaimers, caveats and careful specificity about the point.
FYI We're preparing video for service introduction, thanks!
It doesn't really seem to do that, it just creates its own definition of "scientific theory" and bans that.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/SB0235.pdf

The key part is this:

"WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction."

So, Newton's Laws would seem to be okay to teach because it's observable and repeatable despite being superseded by more complete theories. And in the other direction, creationism would not be okay to teach despite not being falsifiable.

This actually seems pretty reasonable in spirit to me. The real mistake is ironically trying to define scientific theory and scientific fact.

Sure there might be edge cases where extremists or politically motivated people on all sides would be unhappy they can't push their pet ideas, the body of well proven science is so vast that there is no shortage of useful material to teach students under those definitions.
This is one of the dumber things I've read, but - one of the effects of the internet in its current incarnation is that "state senator in Montana says something stupid/introduces a stupid bill" lands in our inbox as though it matters. It does not. Unless you live in Montana and can vote State Senator Dipshit here out of office, this isn't relevant to you. It's not a broader sign about the current state of the whatever. There's an idiot in Montana who wrote something stupid down, just like some idiot did in Alabama the week before and Portland the week before that. I'm spending too much time writing about it, you're spending too much time reading about it, and that little adrenal spike you got when you read the title was already more impact than this should have had on you.
This is very refreshing to see. One of the faux-leftist points that NIMBYs use to block housing in California is to say that developers only want to build in communities with lower rents, and displace existing residents, and therefore all development should be stopped to prevent gentrification.

However, the past year has shown the opposite, and completely disproven this line of argument. What causes gentrification is that city planning forces all development into the communities with the lowest rents. And the bills that would have broadly upzoned, and included protections for at risk communities, would have accomplished more housing affordability without displacing the most at-risk tenants.

Seeing where builder's remedy projects have gone should be a mask-off moment for those that opposed SB50 and SB827, two bills that would have allowed a ton of new development that enables transit. Projects like this one in Los Altos Hills are good for increasing economic integration of the Bay Area, but they do it at a cost of reinforcing car-dependent living.
If you are working at Google, your well-being is already very good. Ride the highs and the lows, start saving some of that huge pay and you will be able to coast along while looking for new jobs.

Otherwise you could just work in government and get paid bellow average but be stable in all economic environments.
> WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction

Earthquake in Turkiye and Sudan this week: observable, not repeatable. I claim that the earthquake did happen. Is that fact or theory?
Homeownership shouldn't be about building wealth. It should be about having a place for your family to live while you grow old. The best thing about the rate hike is that it has banished real estate investors and others who drive prices high and are only there to get rich.
I grew up playing this game, which is what eventually led to me learning to program. Jagex shut the game down a while back, but a group of dedicated fans have recreated the server and kept it going.
>Siri is not why people are buying iPhones, in fact well over 50% of users say they never or rarely use it

So? A decent portion of users do use it, and for some of them its a vital feature.

I would be shocked if removing siri would save Apple more money than the lost revenue of fewer iphone sales.
Just write an app, Jesus.
Reconcile "brings together many facts" and "no such thing as scientific fact".
I’m confused about how this all works together. There are a lot of gaps in this story and it sounds like a hysterical “outside people are moving into town” narrative.

How are these regents “hard left”?

How did the regents somehow attract “ a huge influx of Californians/Coloradans”?

Aren’t cost of living issues a local issue around these campuses, at least as far as housing goes? Montana can’t be short on space…

And what does any of that have to do with the bill in question? The bill is about k-12 education.
I want to keep situational awareness. I want to be able to interact with an ever present computer as second nature. I want it to be a seamless part of my life. Bicycle for the mind and all that.

Obviously a full color display that could overlay reality at will with a wide FoV would be better, but I think the monochrome vector laser thing is achievable today and for me personally would be invaluable.
I've paid 20 bucks for Minecraft, and got over 4000 hours of entertainment out of it. If there's a book with a similar cost-benefit ratio, I'm not aware of it (except for public-domain or open-source e-books obviously, can't beat free).
I am baffled by this comment.

Throwing out unit tests? If you make a change and it fails a test, then you fix the bug or fix the test. I can't even imagine in what universe it's a good idea to throw away a test if it covers code in use. In what universe are unit tests "false comfort"? And if "nobody understands what's actually being tested" then you've got huge problems with your development practices.

Similarly, viewing habits from 2015 are tremendously important. There may be a show they're releasing soon that is most similar to a title released in 2015, and those stats will provide the best model. "Summarize" requires knowing how data will be used in the future, but will likely throw away what you need. Not to mention how useful and profitable vast quantities of data are for ML training.

Storing data is incredibly cheap. I'm actually curious where this desire to throw away old data comes from? I've literally never encountered it before, and it flies in the face of everything I've ever learned. The only context I know it from is data retention policies, but that's solely to limit legal liability.
I'm not seeing the connection between the specific ideological groups Raymond is criticizing, and anyone in the OP submission. Are you bucketing the author of this article with the people Raymond is criticizing? That connection seems so broad that anyone calling for any systemic change of any kind in the tech space could be likewise bucketed, which seems unreasonable. Aside, I don't think that was Raymond's intent with the essay, where he employs some very specific examples of what groups/ideologies he is criticizing.

I'm asking for context, one quote from the article I already read is not providing it. It's only confusing me further. I did not understand your perspective after reading that article, so you quoting one line of it that seems especially salient to you from your perspective is not helping me understand you.

Breaking down the acronym in his essay, I don't really see the connection between the "social justice" advocacy he is specifically criticizing, and the advocacy in the article for worker rights / class equality.

And to be clear, I'm really doing my best not to voice any opinion for/against Raymond's own views in that essay or the author's views in the OP submission - I just truly cannot understand why you are drawing this comparison between the subject matter of each article.
Homeownership should be like a piggy-bank, not like a stock. Because let's be clear, any other homeownership wealth building scheme is a pyramid scheme.

And I don't know how you could say this will stop homeownership being a wealth building scheme, because it certainly allows that to continue.
1. I think you're overestimating the amount of time the average US worker will spend laid off.

2. If you're worried about being laid off the best thing you can do is build an emergency savings account. It seems perfectly reasonable to have 3-6 months of expenses in a "break in case of emergency" type of account. What is your plan if you are fired, or if you car breaks down, or if you have unexpected medical expenses? Savings keeps you safe.

3. The total lifetime earnings of a US office worker is higher than a Japanese office worker for the same time of work, in most professions. We are optimizing for lifetime earnings.

4. The term "Salaryman" is associated with long work hours and an unhealthy lifestyle, even worse of a woke-life balance than is offered in US.
When did that ever stop Zuck?
Real revolutions have never been tried yet.
It's weird. I've personally experienced cases where the highlighted instant answer is obviously incorrect and the full context actually claims the opposite of what the excerpt claims, and those kinds of examples circulate around the web pretty frequently, and everyone who has ever tried to ask ChatGPT or similar systems tricky questions should know how AIs just invent stuff when they don't know the real answers.

So why do companies like Microsoft and Google push in this direction? Why are they making the results more and more opaque? You'd hope that they would care enough to be good stewards of the power granted to them through their information monopoly, but barring that, you'd hope that they'd recognize that people want results they can verify, not just random answers.

Or maybe they're hoping that people don't care about verifying results, hoping that people just want an answer that's not necessarily the right answer? It seems like a dangerous gamble.
> Very few of the changes in even the most diverged of Chromium forks change anything significant about Blink, which is really what matters. The bulk of differences are tied up in the bits wrapping the engine.

That’s because they don’t need to because there’s nothing wrong with chromium. In the hypothetical situation where Google goes rogue and messes with chrome to the point that forking is required, this would be done differently.
Hat's off to them then! That would be the first electron app I've used that didn't feel like an electron app at all.
There is some important information missing: recent EU legislation ( Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act , aka DMA and DSA) will force the big providers to open up their platforms.

That includes chat service interoperability, allowing app side loading and alternative app stores, .... and a mandate to not restrict any significant functionality to first party only solutions, like JITs on iOS.

So this will become reality soon, at least in the EU.

The interesting thing will be if Apple opens up globally, or if they restrict this regionally.

ps: companies will definitely delay and fight opening up however they can, but the regulation at least avoids many problems that GDPR had and should be easier to enforce.
The free part is potentially dubious even if purely for reasons of pedagogically efficiency but being able to distinguish a genuine structural issue (or at least be less wrong) from merely supply&demand is something a lot of people lack.
I'm curious how the mass layoffs play out when the large tech outfits find themselves needing to fill difficult positions.

My expectation, unfortunately, is that for the biggest players it won't be much more than "we have to pay more for talent to be willing to work for us."

However, for some it may play out as it did for the survivors of the early-00s dot-com bust. I know of one company, in particular, that narrowly avoided bankruptcy by laying off about half of their staff. They did this in the ugliest way possible (at the time) ... having people sent to rooms to receive either "you're safe/new job" letters or have their badges taken from them and walked -- en mass -- out the door after an apology speech delivered via video.

Unfortunately, this company was located in a market that even in the worst economic times never broke 1% unemployment for devs/engineers. When the need to expand/fix what fell apart came, they found it impossible to hire mid-level and above programming and support positions[0]. After discovering an unusually low number of referrals (despite large bonuses offered) for programmers, they polled staff and found that the issue was the reputation of the company among the staff's professional network... and being a (still) large employer in the area, that represented the overall reputation of job-seekers in the area[1].

The company I worked for (or, at least, the company that we merged with) had a similar problem, though had a much larger pool of engineering talent to pull from (and I'm not sure they ever did "door #1/door #2" style lay-offs). It was a big problem for them for a few years, but was managed by increasing offers and accepting less qualified candidates (which are realities for large businesses with a lot of bureaucracy, anyway).

[0] I know of several cases where they paid employees to move across the country in order to fill needed positions. It was always puzzling to me why they didn't just hire remotely, but they had a reasonably centralized operation.

[1] My buddy continued working there after they laid off most of his coworkers; apparently the environment improved, dramatically, about two years later but the hiring problem persisted until he left a decade later. I suspect it's better by now. I don't even know if the company has the same name.
Whatever the merits of what you're saying, the bill in question is about K-12 education, so I don't see how it relates to any effort to rein in the universities.
Super neat demo!
Why? All that matters is user count. Who says it needs to be cross platform?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that a feature that 15% of users are using every day is not helping to sell phones.
Chamath talked about manager bloat on a recent All-in podcast in a way that seemed to make sense. Basically there is pressure to grow your career by moving from being an IC to a manager and once a manager there are incentives to grow your number of reports. The organizational efficiency suffers when you have top tier ICs start managing teams of average people. You might get a team of 6 engineers that’s only doing 2x as much work as the former IC that’s managing them used to do, which means the cost per unit of work has increased tremendously.
This seems absurdly high. I barely see people making those kinds of salaries in large foreign companies.

Anecdotally, my friend earned something like 5M yen and was working 10-12 hour days including Saturday at entry/mid level.
If you live in a no income tax state, don’t bother reading this, it doesn’t apply to you.
not being american.... why don't you guys have national standards for things like education?
You mean like that employee Justin Moore that was fired by Google after 16 years throuhg an automated e-mail? [0] Or like that guy on reddit that lost 20 years of life-savings in just 5 months because their spouse got cancer?[1] Also current generations saw the retirement age go from 60 in 1995 to 67 and if Republicans get their way it will be 70 or higher, less than a decade shy of the average death age. Please, people would optimize for stability if it looked like a feasiable goal, but at this point is just a fantasy like Santa Claus, I'm glad that it has worked this far for you but don't assume other people could be so lucky.

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/engineer-laid-off-over-16-104...

[1] https://i.imgur.com/GbNcdKc.png