skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I am even more concerned that very few people are talking about this.

People have been talking about the threat of automation since the very beginning of the industrial revolution. It just never plays out nearly that badly, and short-term disruptions are always outweighed by long-term efficiency gains within ~5 years or so; even those who experience the worst career disruption tend to end up better off within that time frame.

I certainly would not like for my career to be disrupted for ~5 years, but the alternative would be worse.
Did you read the link you’re referencing?

Employers just set the terms and conditions of how remote working is organised, within the framework of social dialogue (ie with employee representatives). The guidelines remind employers that they must ensure collective links are maintained within the company and prevent the risks linked to the isolation of employees working remotely.

There’s a difference between it’s no longer required to require remote and forced RTO.
What about non-graduates - and why do we need that distinction? The few extra years of guided schooling it entails does not deserve to be a lifetime defining difference between the haves and the have-nots.

"You achieved a university degree, so you deserve to be elevated for life" is little different in its entitlement bias than "you achieved house ownership, so you deserve to be elevated for life".

Equality goes beyond such things.
That reminds me of giving your kids The Quantum Computing Talk... Which now that I look at it, Aaronson was involved in too:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
I need some ELI5 help here. Does that mean he bet on a big, fast downward move as opposed to a slow, small downward move?
I think this illustrates the problem: when it's framed in terms of rights, the conversation needs such careful wording and so many asterisks that it distracts from the point. I'm leaving out a bunch of things I want to say because it takes too long to say them.

When someone says that X should be a right, is making it a right the ultimate goal? (What specifically does "should be a right" even mean? What do they think rights are? What do I?) Usually there's something else that making X a right implies, a goal for which the right is just an instrument. If making X a right results in Y, and Y is good, and that's why X should be a right, then why not argue directly for Y?

Otherwise you make a purely moral argument that only works on people who already share your values. What if they don't? That happens all the time with moral framings. One side doesn't understand the other doesn't care about their values and repeating or restating them in different ways won't change that.

Calling X a right is a position statement, not an argument. If you want to use it as a premise in an argument that "X is a right, therefore Y," you have to make a separate argument that X is actually a right. You can't just assert it.

Borrowing the moral weight of humans rights most people recognize, attaching it to an asserted right most people don't, and using that to argue for an outcome based on their support for "human rights" is turning human rights into a stick to hit them with. The more it's used, the more they learn to roll their eyes at arguments invoking "human rights." What happens when they start to roll their eyes at human rights?
Yes, now go read the labor law on "telework" provisions. Combine those two contexts, and you have a full story. One of France not, in any way, being a paragon of "remote work" ideals.

To make it opaque for you: remote work provisions were required because French labor law defaults to employees not only being in the office, but that being the preferred status.

OP could have, instead, used a genuinely remote-friendly nation, like Norway or Sweden, if they knew what they were talking about. But they didn't, which is the point; instead posting an ignorant and biased kneejerk response.
I feel like that table is at the wrong scale/isn't super useful (though the GPs scale is the same). For example with WA it lists the price as .0875, but for the majority (population) of the state it's ~.10/.11, and then for the rest (mostly eastern wa) it's like .04.

I'm guessing if the GP did have a source it'd be "this specific county in CA is 5x more than these sets of counties that sell electricity to other counties to subsidize their users"
Agree, my datasets have multiple billions of rows and if I don’t know the details of the query, or have the ability to tune it, it’s utterly insufficient for my needs.

I still fail to see how anybody who actually knows sql and works with “Big Kid” datasets would use an ORM.
The thing with dates depends on the context though. A birthday for example isn't associated with a timezone.
>you do need a fair bit of instruction-tuning for specific use cases to actually get things to work.

The instruction tuning part is "trivial"...it's the dealing with edge cases part that gets me.

With classic code edge cases are well insignificant edge cases. With LLM you never know what will make it go off on a tangent & the parsing code needs to deal with that chaos.

Or put differently the % of cases that are edge cases seems to have gone up dramatically
I gave a stab at what I found neat about the "code as data" take before. Basic assertion is largely that the same language you use to talk about a program can be the same language that makes a program. The example I used was the code that would take the derivative of a function. You could do this in basically any language, of course. But the fact that the data structures and general code constructs is the same for the code that make a derivative is fairly unique in lisps. (Link: https://taeric.github.io/CodeAsData.html)

It also basically requires that there is very little that the language can do, that you could not also do. Which is in stark contrast to a lot of languages.
Yeah. Not much different.
I'm amazed that as a PM you think features linearly drive revenue. This has not been my experience.
The post says '64-bit x86 ("x86-64" or "x64")' which is also roughly what the first sentence of Wikipedia has to say about it. I personally picked it just because it was shorter to type and easily understood in context.
It's tough though because during high demand employees have leverage but employee incentives are very misaligned. People are getting big offers and raises so some don't necessarily need or want the Union.
I have two thoughts about that. First, reliability -- are you certain that everyone you'd send such an invite to would receive them? That they wouldn't get sucked into spam folders? That everyone checks their email regularly?

The other is that paper invitations are just nicer overall. They give a feeling of permanence, are classier, give your loved ones a memento (or at least something to stick on their fridge for a while), etc.

Electronic invitations seem to me to be more emotionally distant, less "real". More suitable for ephemeral, relatively unimportant events.
Doesn't the US have some kind of government level (labour?) review board, which would generally be expected to get involved about here?

It seems like a "union busting" type of tactic, of the "get in early" kind. ;)
https://whalewisdom.com/filer/scion-asset-management-llc#tab...

I'm not an stock options hedge fund trading expert, does he not have to report the expiry date? These have an expiry date right? Or is it some type that doesn't expire?
Tunnels cost money to run. In Step 3 the companies that own IPv4 addresses have even more reason to pass those costs directly on to their downstream consumers, plus a little extra to earn a bit of profit.

IPv4 address owners get to be landlords collecting rent on anyone downstream. It benefits those with massive early IPv4 allocations and few other people.

In that case there seems like less reason to upgrade major network interconnects from v4 because that would "ruin" some IPv4 landlord's "rent" (and profit).
SQL and ORM both have merit in different situations. Pick the correct tool for the given use case, and don’t be afraid to mix & match IMO.
I don’t know if that means that now is a bad time to unionize though. There was more leverage before obviously, but considering they’re threatening to fire you anyway, I think it’s a pretty solid opportunity.

Though, I have no idea how unions work in the states. It sounds like they may be somehow barred from any collective action somehow?
A good teacher can make soup exciting. Catching interest is 90% of teaching.

I’m in my 40s, and for a good chunk of my childhood overpopulation and resource scarcity were big fears.

It took me a like time to accept the global warming consensus, because that’s what happens when experts cry wolf.

This looks like an interesting case, but also very specific to Montana.
They're cultural icons. There's cultural analysis (are they gay?) [1] and fanfic (seriously!) [2].

1: https://youtu.be/7SUeWVEpgdY
2: https://archiveofourown.org/tags/comparethemarket*d*com%20%2...
I'm curious to learn what sort of issues you've seen when trying to use modules instead of GOPATH? Most of the migrations I've done have been pretty seamless and the few that had issues where all easy to resolve with a few replace directives or similar.
The Cuts at WVU
I think that’s part of why I’m having trouble with this framing - it’s treating CRUD as the entire universe of why you’d need to connect to a database.

Some of us do very intense compute in very large datasets, and ORM are not capable in those tasks. At all.
O2 actually has a stronger narcotic effect than N2, so probably it would have the opposite effect if any.
It’s difficult to migrate away from. How do you know what you can stop if you don’t know what the exact requirements of client are?

I think it’s a stupid thing to deploy
Of course that's not real innovation. It's just profit extraction from a dwindling business.

The simple business that makes a good product for a fair price and pays fair wages and keeps going forever is a romantic myth for the most part.

Why? I'm not sure exactly, but it has something to do with growth.
I assume that the year 1900 "identification" you refer to is the work from Svante Arrhenius, which was later disproved.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/so-if-angstrom-already-...
You gotta give it to him. Michael Burry has predicted 20 of the last 3 crashes.
What is the expiration date on the puts?
I'm always amazed how many employees some of these apps, that seem simple, have.

Grindr has 273.

And apparently Tinder has 809.

How???

I imagine two devs could maintain the app. I've certainly managed more complex apps myself.

Perhaps the algorithm is infact incredible (I doubt it?) and requires a large team of data scientists, developers and sys admins.

There is of course people to deal with spam protection and abuse.

But then what? Is the rest all marketing and ads sales?
When the student is ESL in the first place (and doing coursework via text), it's pretty hard to determine whether they are cheating or just struggling to communicate verbally.
Heat death is one of the possibilities, but it's still very much an open question, as it depends on the curvature of the universe and the nature of dark energy.
Even before the introduction of virtual threads RxJava should have been avoided.

It colors your entire code base, prevents natural error handling, and quite frankly makes maintenance that much more complex.

Obviously there’s a place for it, but every project I’ve been on that used it shouldn’t have.
Purescript has by far the strongest type system of any mature compile-to-js language, good FFI, footprint comparable to react.

Elm is a heavily stripped down purescript, plus an ambiguously-benevolent dictator for life. Also truly terrible interop. It's a good learning environment but I would strongly recommend against using it for anything big.

Rescript is basically Ocaml with half-js syntax.

Typescript is bizarre. On a scale from 0 (C) to 10 (Haskell), it's a 12, a 6, and a 2 duct taped together. It's got some incredibly powerful features (template literals, conditional types), but it's missing most of the standard "advanced"-but-production-ready type system features (e.g. no HKTs, no type-directed emit) and the foundation is absolutely riddled with soundness holes.
I guess my thinking is just that the company has given the union a really good “first issue” for the union to tackle. If you just signed up to unionize, and then you get told you’re going to get fired unless you move, why would you not try out collective action?

Even if they threaten firing people for participating in some sort of collective action, you were already going to get fired.
It's not downgrading (unless that changed recently), it's just new emulating old. And only partially at that.

E.g. `go fmt` with a new Go will use new-Go's formatting, not the module's version's formatting (comment format thrashing is fun!). And then they special-case backwards compatibility stuff like the `//go:build` syntax change, and that behavior pays attention to module version. API accessibility and module file formatting follows module version, I don't believe `go vet` does (in general, nor do I think it necessarily should), compiled implementation of stdlib absolutely does not, etc.

Rust (cargo) by contrast actually does version the tools, and automatically pulls the stated rustc, stdlib, docs, everything (set in rust-toolchain.toml, among others: https://rust-lang.github.io/rustup/overrides.html). I'm not sure if cargo versions itself or not.
I've sometimes wondered if I am the only person who actually likes the syntax :D There's a reason for it, but additionally, I like the fact that it's explicit — I can look at `some_call.()` and specifically know it's an anonymous function.
That 723M$ figure for nasdaq is not the worth of the put options themselves, rather the value of the underlying shares that the contracts represent. He likely has 20K put options each for $SPY and $QQQ. No one is going to bet 93% of a portfolio is index puts. They're likely hedges worth tens of millions, not 1.5B$ in put options.
For future events, you need to store at minimum the local time; of course, that's not super useful to use, so you may also want to store the UTC as determined by the best current information when it was saved.

Whenever you get new rules, you need to look at at least all future events and see if their UTC offset changed and then decide what to do about it. Often the right thing to do is just adjust the UTC offset based on the new rules; but sometimes you might want to ask the user, or maybe just notify the user: hey, we got new DST rules, please confirm these modified events: [list]. Users don't always input times accurately[1], so a heads up lets them review the modified dates and update the events that were modified in a way that doesn't reflect their actual intent.

You might also want to look at past events and maybe also notify users that the rules changed, and you're sorry about any inconvenience because you didn't get the rules or didn't process them until after the event.

[1] If I'm planning to watch a sporting event on TV, I'm most likely to input it into my calendar in my local time, but the event is most likely scheduled in local time at the event. But not necessarily. IMHO, the closer to the time change the event is, the more important it is to get user feedback.
> Any high-level language that is afraid of map/reduce and other functional constructs is a waste of time to me

Elixir is afraid of most "functional concepts".
> LLM are not mere increased productivity or the computer operator, but automation of productivity so that it can happen without an operator (or with much fewer).

Enabling the same production with fewer workers (or, equivalently, greater production with the same number of workers) is the definition of a productivity increase, not something that constitutes a difference in kind from a normal productivity increase.

> Moreover, all this "increased productivity" still left wage stagnant for 40 years

Not in computing it didn't. Same job category pay rose in real terms over almost any window you choose in the last 50 years, and in most cases the distribution of jobs also moved over time from lower-paid to higher-paid categories within computing.

Also, even general real wages didn't really stagnate for 40 years, average (mean) wages dropped slowly for 20 — mid-70s to mid-90s, and mostly have slowly climbed since, crossing over about 30-ish years after the past peak, but the same effect isn't seen in median wages (though that also was low in the early 1980s and most of the 1990s, before mostly rising strongly) or median personal income (which, despite short drops around recessions, has been rising consistently strongly since the 1981 trough.)
There are many alternative is that are both accurate and shorter
Anyone who has written any tooling that works with Go code saw issues because almost everything changed in this regard. I was maintaining vim-go at the time, and quite a few changes were needed there too. I don't have a list of issues at hand because it's been a while, but generally speaking the only reason things went "pretty seamless" is because people spent time updating the tooling.
I would speculate they are measuring the decline in visual processing in the brain and optic nerve in this case, not the impactful of poor sight on cognitive decline.
I imagine two devs could maintain the app.

What about backend and database etc? it’s not that simple app
I've been using this $32 15m one for a few weeks:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B098QC6XWS

It claims 8k60, but I've only used 4k60 though.
> Calling myself a prompt-engineer sounds weird.

I'll be honest, someone calling themself this sounds to me like someone with no self respect.

> The only difference is that I can start trusting a human to improve, but I cannot expect ChatGPT to do so. Not that it is incapable, but because it is restricted by OpenAI.

Sounds like a good reason to hire juniors.
Also worth mentioning Idris, although its tooling and ecosystem are still pretty much nonexistent.
When you work in a company that requires reliable software
I didn't want to move away from Sublime Text, so I made a continuous sync tool for remote editing. I've been using it for quite a while now and it works pretty well. https://unisync.sh/
They may not be shadowbanned. Many of those comments are just low quality and likely downvoted.
“Hippocampus of AI” in a readme is a yellow flag
as an aside i once called the FCC to get a definitive answer about a part 97 rule, and they put me on hold, and gave me the answer i was suspecting they would, which i am nearly positive is the wrong answer.

In the context of your post, if asked, i wonder if the FAA (or whoever) would say "the pilot has final authority, even if it goes against what the ATC commanded", even with the nuance and additional information that would be required in 91.3c.

for the record, it was 47 cfr 97.405 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-97.405 - and it states clearly:

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.

My question was simple - one has a radio what can transmit clearly on a police frequency, that is, if one pushes transmit, police radios and scanners in the area can hear the audio being transmitted. Can one use said radio in an emergency, if they are a licensed part 97 operator?

FCC: "no"

me: "yes, obviously."
Not sure how it fares nowadays, but I used to employ Mercury Reader/API for this, now called Postlight Reader[1]. While not perfect, I found it to work for most daily reading needs.

[1]: https://reader.postlight.com/
No idea, but I am impressed by the clarity and preciseness of the question
They end up in a difficult situation because they ignored earlier RTO announcements
Ever heard of Android? It's not JVM per se (it's ART), but given your comment I'm pretty convinced that you don't know the difference anyway.

I would take JVM every day instead of those crappy web-based ElectronJS apps.
I have a vault set to open when GRRMs Winds of Winter comes out. I feel pretty good about it.
Digital puzzle games good for memory in older adults, study shows
1969: Biologist Paul Ehrlich claimed that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.

1970: Professor James Lodge Jr of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that "the demands for cooling water [in electricity generation] will boil dry the entire flow of the rivers and streams of continental United States."

1970: Professor Kenneth Watt predicts a global mean temperature drop of 11 degrees by the year 2000, "About twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age."

1970: Senator Gayloard Nelson of Wisconsin cited Smithsonian Institutes Dr. S Dillon Ripley who "believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

1970: Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

1970: Biologist Paul Ehrlich claimed that due to climate changes, food shortages would have the result of hundreds of millions of people starving to death in the 1970s, the US population would be reduced to 23 million because of pesticides, and England would not exist in the year 2000.

1971: Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University claimed that the fine dust from fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight over the next 50 years to cause a temperature drop of up to 6 degrees, and if sustained over the next 5-10 years it could cause a temperature drop sufficient to trigger an ice age.

1975: Biologist Paul Ehrlich claims that 90% of the world's original tropical rainforests will be gone by 2005, causing the extinction of up to half of the organisms living within them.

1978: New York Times writes an article about how global cooling was here to stay with "No End in Sight".

1979: New York Times writes an article of how the North Pole might melt.

1982: UN Environment Program official Mostafa Tolba says "By the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust."

1989: Noel Brown, UN Environmental official, tells the Associated Press that unless global warming is reversed by the year 2000, entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth.

2008: Dr. James Hansen of NASA predicted that in 5-10 years the Arctic will be free of see ice in the summer.

2009: Vice President Al Gore repeats Dr. Hansen's claims to a UN Conference.

2009: Then Prince (now King) Charles states that the planet had 96 months to avoid decimation.

2013: US Naval Postgraduate School Department of Oceanography student/scientist claims Arctic free of summer ice by 2016.
> Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc.

or we could just use a train
The problem isn't knowing it might go down, it's knowing when it might go down, and how far.
I believe at uni they called that 'exams' :)
Have had coworkers in USA and Ukraine. I didn't notice a difference
At first glance, yes, and that reduces the hazard ratio, but a substantial gap remains.
Check out https://simplify.jobs