skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
[1] (2009) Does not disprove hydrodynamic SQS theories of quantum gravity.

A table of predictive error per experiment,{parameters},model might help us understand.

SQS purports to describe black hole internal topology where others do not. GR does not describe the internal topology of merging black hole vortices. Various theories of Quantum Gravity (QG) attempt to reconcile Dirac's pre-"Dirac sea" antimatter claims.

A unified model must: differ from classical mechanics where observational results don't match classical predictions, describe superfluid 3Helium in a beaker, describe gravity in Bose-Einstein condensate superfluids , describe conductivity in superconductors and dielectrics, not introduce unoobserved "annihilation", explain how helicopters have lift, describe quantum locking, describe paths through fluids and gravity, predict n-body gravity experiments on earth in fluids with Bernoulli's and in space, [...]

What else must a unified model of gravity and other forces predict with low error?

Why do I like Fedi's (2015/2016)? IDK. Maybe it's the abstract, maybe it's that nothing else even tries to do fluids and Bernoulli's. N-body gravity solutions with fluid vortices should predict all existing numerical n-body outcomes?

That so many things in space look fluidic - how many spiral arms are there on a nebula, all existing visual representations of black holes look like fluids, merging neutron stars look like emergent patterns from curl, too

Somehow I doubt anyone has even yet left an evolutionary algorithm online even all night to mutate and crossover the expression tree(s) to minimize predictive error according to existing experimental observations
> Does Web development in 2023 not have 2-3 tech stacks that dominate?

no

> Are the existing frameworks/techs so lacking that new ones keep appearing to address those problems?

The existing frameworks are fine. Most languages have just 1 or 2 frameworks for you to build in that language.

The problem child for all of this is the JavaScript ecosystem. A lot of developers in that space just keep proliferating a bunch of heavy-handed frameworks that do not accomplish anything new, but represent some opinionated take on architecture, tooling, etc., and which obfuscate everything behind layers of magic and indirection.

> Is there a high rate of change because things keep improving?

For the most part, I wouldn't say things are "improving" that much. I mean, React and Vue and Svelte are better for front-end development than what came before, for sure, but, speaking at least re: React, it's become a bit of a monstrosity. Pluses and minuses, I suppose.

Again, the problem is mostly in JS land. They are a little like the stereotype of Java devs, in some ways.
Just some random, made up example: say you want to compile an OOP PL that has interfaces and implementations of that. You discover reachable implementations through static analysis, which is multi-threaded. You might discover implementations A,B,C in any order — but they will get their methods placed in the jump table based on this order. This will trivially result in semantically equivalent, but not binary-equivalent executables.

Of course there would have been better designs for this toy example, but binary reproducibility is/was usually not of the highest priority historically in most compiler infrastructures, and in some cases it might be a relatively big performance regression to fix, or simply just a too big refactor.
If they can create a secure government citizen authentication method like this (which I know they can), they can also create a secure online voting platform.

I think extra layers and MFA should be mandatory for a voting platform, perhaps even a physical MFA key that gets assigned and retrieved in person.

I am just tired of the US dragging their feet on digital voting when we have the technology.
I would assume that the silence around Hitachi's product reflected a lack of market interest, so I'm curious about why Microsoft wants to walk the same path.
Nothing I've mentioned is anything to do with product management. The optional "run a team" bit is "team lead". Not product.
Absolutely true. However this comes at the cost of having to not think too hard about issues like "what is a function".

You generally don't run into trouble with 1, x, 1/x, sin(x) and the like. But when you push past the analytic functions, you wind up having to unlearn a lot of ideas so that you can learn an entirely different foundation.
They are terrible anyway. Good ridance.
NYC used to be interesting, textured, unique, rough around the edges, etc. Over the last three decades that personality has been squeezed out in favor of a safe, mall-esque version of a once leading and creative city. The color beige comes to mind.

True story: Approx 10 to 12 years ago I met a friend (from London) in NYC. "Let's grab a coffee". We walked a good 40 to 50 blocks before we found a *not* Starbucks (or similar). Apparently, only Big Franchise Inc can afford the rents now.

Why wouldn't NYC join the rest of the country in the homogenization of consumer taste?
"Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much."

This. That's a good way to put it. I've mentioned Fred Hoyle's line on that, "Science is prediction, not explanation" (which is from one of Hoyle's novels), but Sagan's line is better.

Key point: unfalsifiable theories do not lead to useful technology. Engineering requires predictability.
I agree and disagree with the author

my take about all this and every other role is, it doesn't matter what roles and titles and processes you give people

if they suck

or if they're all great at what they do but cannot work together as a team (VERY common in tech where everyone has superiority complex towards everyone else)

the output will suck

teams composed of people who are good at what they do (they don't have to be tremendous) AND can work well together as a team kind of run themselves and don't reaaaally "need" pms or any other formal role - they just need goals that make sense to them and they will execute with speed, quality and efficiency

meanwhile not even the best PM/tremendous individual in the world can save a team composed of people who suck or are great but can't work together as a team
> (...) a lot of boost made it into the standard. FYI.

Some components that have been proposed to be admitted to the C++ standard were also contributed to Boost, but that's about it. There are far more components in Boost that were never even considered for the standard than the ones that were.

Nevertheless, the relevant part is that Boost is not nor it ever was C++, or representative of C++. Conflating third-party libraries and frameworks with the C++ programming language is at best a pointless straw man.
Agreed, PjM and PdM are what I use when referring to them.
In big companies there is not even a way for engineers to reach out to users. They come to you through feedback.
Passkeys are a great idea, but they are like passwords generated for you and stored in a given implementor's system.

Until passkey systems support key export and import, I predict that they will see limited use.

Who wants to trust your passkeys to a big corporation or third party? Vendor lock-in is a huge issue that cannot be overlooked.

Let me generate, store, and backup MY passkeys where I want them.
I've rarely seen a company went downhill because of engineering. And at all places, engineering wasn't marvellous rather quite the opposite.

But have seen companies from inside that totally went downhill because you could sense that product tier is totally clueless. They know nothing of the domain and if anything, pretty superficial. Have no spark, interest or intuition of what will work and what not.

May be this was limited to my own sample size. Great products are out their and they didn't fall from the sky.
You could write exactly what this is and what you’re supposed to do with it on a big stone plate outside…

Then in 10,000 years, find that an entire religion, culture, and wars were built around the simple maintenance instructions.
There are other statically typed languages that are more pleasant to work with.
This might make sense for a company with one product, but for a larger company with many products, there's a lot of benefit in having one person per product who understands their product deeply, and can put on any of these hats when required to make the product better.
For once, it’s a legit apples to oranges comparison.
Pytorch can use the 'cuda' device on AMD GPUs, not talking about HIP. It works as a drop-in replacement if your ROCm API level matches your target CUDA level. (i.e matmul on fp16 won't be supported on old AMD GPUs for example)
It's sad you mucking in the details and ignoring the genocide.

Reducing? Beats ignoring
"But the more somebody is mediocre, the more likely they are to be put off by this intensity and passion. The more they’re willing to compromise, to lower standards, and to cut corners."

There is IMO no correlation between being mediocre and being put off by intensity and passion.

Overall I think this article generalizes a lot. I can't say for sure that the article is not applicable to a certain part of the industry, but it certainly doesn't in any way represent my experience.

PMs can be good, bad, or anything inbetween. I've never experienced that a good PM was not a benefit to a project.
> Everybody runs just to stand still.

Ahh Red Queen strikes again! Such is life
> A bigger population just hasn't been trained properly. We have no controls for that, so people get lucky with disparate learning being just enough for their first job, then that turns into experience towards the next job.

I agree, but I am also hesitant to advocate for controls in the form of certification (degrees, licenses, etc) because it just adds a layer that provides a strong positive signal for a while until it’s just inundated by grifters yet again, so now we’re back to square one.

We see this take the form of degree mills and accelerated trade schools initially, which ends up creating more problems, more barriers, and ceases to benefit the companies looking to hire. Everything can and will be gamified, and I am also hesitant to tie people to former employers so heavily as that creates an unhealthy power imbalance.

Then how can we control for talent? I don’t know the answer to this question or if it’s even the right question to ask, but I’m fairly confident that we cannot solve this using 20th century nor modern hiring and screening processes.
> Short answer: Because when you leak state secrets the media is actually not standing behding you.

They (the media) will lose their sponsors by doing so or end up in a British prison.
So you're saying PMs are powerful.
Heh. What radio?
Maybe? It has never asked for credentials when I do that, but I’ve also never not been an admin on my computer (which is default), so I don’t know.
You should get to know more women instead of crafting fictional models in your head.
With great need for revenue comes great foolishness. Like the idea you could squeeze the 1% of the population who could, if hostile, easily undo all your drm defenses in a bang and help the rest of the population to do that too. Another unity moment, created by well incentivized management.
Is YouTube (Partly) Down?
I can browse, it plays ads, but no actual video starts playing.

Edit: A few minutes after finally asking, it works again...
I’ve read this sentiment in the thread multiple times, but it just feels backwards to me.

At scale you can afford to not give a shit. I don’t think you get to scale by not giving a shit, do you?

But once you’re there? Well the money is just rolling in and well you can’t care about everything, can you? So you let some stuff slip and before you realize it you’re halfway down a slippery slope, claiming giving a shit doesn’t scale and forgetting in your panicked slide that it was your choice to stop giving a shit in the first place.
I've worked with exactly 1 exceptional product manager. The rest were all horrible and had a negative impact on the product/team.

The simplest thing I can boil it down to is how they respond when asked a question.
With the exceptional PM, when you asked a question you got an answer.

With bad PMs, you ask a question and you get "Good callout! I'll try to get some alignment with our stakeholders on that". Every decision point spins out into this web of stakeholders and cross-functional team buy-in. And no decision is ever made, everything is always in flux and uncertain.
During this process they have produced an entire literature of documentation, each version contradictory to the others. "That feature was only in the original doc, we got rid of it in v2" but also "That feature was in v1, I forgot to copy paste it into v2 but we never canceled it. Sorry!" Every variation of every feature exists somewhere, a kind of superposition of the product out there somewhere.

It consistently amazes me that they never seem to be able to grasp how self-destructive this is to the product development. Or maybe they do, but they just don't care and they are just exploiting their evaluation framework. Probably the latter.
Skill issue. Most product managers suck. A great product manager is amazing.
Mega thread issue on GitHub tracking this https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976

Reddit is not and should not be considered a tech support site.
>As an older dude who has seen the games that young men play at work, I understand that the hormonal drive for guys is absolutely saturating, but you will fail and fail again if you think that #metoo stops you. If it did, you were misbehaving to start with.

Quite the contrary. I don't want to misbehave or be construed as misbehaving so I never tried anything at all. You see the most negative examples so of course you won't see the ones who don't want any risks at their workplace and put their head down.

Even on HN you will see a lot of people who hate conversing with coworkers and simply want to clock in and clock out, with no interest in making friends. And I feel that's a minor factor that leads to such behavior.
I'm currently looking for a good IT consultant after going through a few bad ones that for lack of better words didn't give a shit. Want to chat?
Never heard of it. I use fastmail and I have been 100% satisfied. Been about 4 years now.
> multiple girls who said that my message was "unfair" or "selfish". When I enquired why, it was because it "created an obligation

Oy, another reason why online dating is so terrible. They're purposely on a dating site, looking to meet people; they created a detailed personal profile describing themselves, which attracted someone's attention; yet it's "unfair" or "selfish" to write a non-generic message? WTF!

I guess that's a case of bullet dodged. Not sure I want someone with that attitude. But after you dodge all the bullets, what's left?

It should actually be a lot easier to say "not interested" online to strangers than it is to say it to someone's face in person. On the other hand, it should also be a lot easier online to be at least semi-interested and have a little conversation before you judge someone as a hard no.

I think this goes back to my point that a lot of people seem to be on the dating apps without having any serious commitment to dating. They're just waiting for their knight in shining armor or prince with glass slipper to come along (who never does).
I don’t dispute that the occurrence you describe is exhilarating — I remember even the hopes of it happening being thrilling, and chatting up a girl I just met was even more exciting. But it’s sad in my humble opinion that it takes a tremendous amount of bravery (and extroversion) for this to work. And not only for the asker — the “recipient” also needs to overcome their own risk aversion too (they could be a creep!)

My point is, if that is the primary way we meet partners, it leaves those with anxiety, and introverts, etc, tragically excluded.

I’m grateful I happened to find my partner before the era of high-effort dating sites dissolved and was replaced with Tinder (etc.) We actually write stuff about ourselves. I bet nobody would swipe the correct direction just based on my face.
Principal Product Manager here. I agree... Way too many people took advantage of this role over the last 20 years, IMO, in the name of FOMO. Too many I avoided or fired because they just could never, never, understand the tech.

I wont hire a PM now that isn't also a contributor during work or in their spare time. Not only should they be excellent leads, they should be able to get down and dirty actually move the needle, design something, write code. Run their own damn prototype and test.

A big part of my current role is just empowering more Jr PMs to contribute more by educating them on certain skills, but it doesn't scale and none of them have the drive to study the subjects on their own.

I envision a shift coming. Ive never subscribed to the bullshit, but Im personally moving away from much of the "PM activities" and spending more time on my original skills, design and engineering...
> Because the feature for the adaptive cruise control stopped working, it disabled ALL cruise control functionality.

Better be thankful that you could still drive :-)

Failure modes seem to have gotten so much worse during softwareization. I suppose it's something about software culture and the expectation of "that can't happen" and expecting fixes to be simple ("if this happened they'd just have to re-install").

One example that comes to my mind often since I learned about it is the Subaru module that would drain cars' batteries because it got stuck in a re-connect loop, costing many millions in repairs, brand damage and "inconvenience" (it literally bricked the car). It could all have been avoided by thinking about failure modes for a few seconds, yet the software team (likely one tired guy in the middle of the night) didn't.
From the preface. "You cannot read mathematics the way you read a novel. If you zip through a page in less than an hour, you are probably going too fast." Sadly, he's probably right.
Interesting.

Apollo lake, 2xGB Ethernet, mini DisplayPort, 2xSATA, 2/4/8GB RAM, 32GB eMMC, passively cooled. 6W TDP.

Zima. I remember seeing that sign on Babylon 5.
product manager role is ubi.
Is it not possible there are multiple extremes at work here? The boomer example you provided is something I think is generally agreeable: it's not acceptable to go around slapping asses (man or woman) in the way you describe.

However, when the (alleged) "victim's" interpretation of something is given as much weight as it is in these laws (and it is--anyone who's had a corporate sexual harassment training course knows this), it greatly increases the risk of even more mundane interactions being reported as harassment. Even if the real rate of reports is tiny (or even unchanged from an era prior to the existence and refinement of these laws), the perception of risk still matters.
I'm 5'8" on a good day, and my dating app experience is pretty meh. But in real life, my height never seems to matter. Literally last night I was approached by a woman over 6'.

It's wild how people's real-world preferences can be completely different than their more superficial online ones (I'm not excluding myself from this, or is this aimed at any gender/group in general).
I love Nvidia. Sure it's "closed" in that there's no alternative that uses the same API. But they have wonderful developer support, solid APIs, and are primarily responsible for the rapid rise in GPGPU computing. And the costs aren't _that_ bad. I've been around a long time. The amount of computing power in a 4090 consumer GPU is mind blowing.
At some level, I think this is orthogonal to technological progress.

One possible way of getting at this is to ask if people were more ‘happy’ when there wasn’t this level of tech available - and I’m not sure the answer is yes - I mean, there’s the mythos of ‘a simple life’ and ‘noble savages’, but from what I’ve read of life even a 100 years back - I would surmise folks were as unhappy / miserable then too - but likely for different reasons.

I think expecting just tech to make us happy is framing the wrong problem space.
YouTube will "lose" the war, but they'll make adblocking difficult enough for a while that it might get some premium subscribers in the short term in exchange for the loss of goodwill.
Customer Analyst is the actual badly-needed role, while “Product Manager” is a double category error. The misleading title causes a lot of dysfunction

Project Managers can also be very useful in a complex project that spans departments but that’s a completely separate role
For one, it isn't. Also, most people aren't paid to run.
all this machine learning and big tech still can't detect when my mom is watching with me to auto skip the sex scenes.
Live queries & change-feeds! Reactive data stores are great; neat to see.
This adds to the confusion since Project Management Professional is a certification for a Project Manager that specifically uses that acronym and not all project managers have the certification.
I wish I had more upvotes to give you.

We have the people and resources to to this, and the payoff is literally astronomical.

A big question would be how to divvy everything up.
This is explicitly a startup focused forum run by a startup incubator. But I do agree with you, I wish there were more discussion of "boring" businesses here as much as there was railing about using "boring" tech.
I believe these are notes that you are referring to

https://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/linear-algebra-...
Unless all charge is stationary, you'll have both electric and magnetic fields.

Moving charge generates a magnetic field, and interacts with external magnetic fields. Charged particles will accelerate while spiralling around magnetic field lines. The aurora is caused by charged particles bouncing back and forth along magnetic field lines between the pinch points at the poles.
Africa and Australia describe areas, and the word "chunks" implies volumes... I have no idea whether you mean to imply those chunks are very flat, or that they are in fact volumes with a diameter similar to the width of continents.
Ah, great hypothesis.
The scholarly debate about Semmelweiss is whether he had syphilis or young-onset dementia. He was not committed to a sanitarium out of pique over his demands that people chlorinate water. Again: you can just look this stuff up!

These points might seem kind of nitpicky, but Semmelweis has become a sort of patron saint for brooding nerds with strong but iconoclastic ideas, a shibboleth for "history will show I was right all along". Semmelweis was not, in fact, right all along, and his evident failure to persuade his peers --- stemming from what was in a sense an opposition to the germ theory of disease --- probably set science back a little bit, on margin. Not by much, though; Semmelweis was in his time one of several people expounding the same intervention.
Surprised he doesn't mention that No Country For Old Men won the Oscar for Best Picture, and is generally considered a masterpiece. That alone seems like it would boost Cormac McCarthy's legacy considerably.