skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You could really say this about anything, the only moral to the story is that people have to work to pay the bills and the work that pays is the unglamorous stuff that needs doing.

I believe this has been true throughout human history. The greatest artists and thinkers throughout history have earned their keep by providing services to the wealthy or teaching paying students (also often wealthy).

There are upsides, the artists get to eat but they also have all the benefits of being connected to their employer/patron including time spent practicing their craft. If they were to quit and focus on pure art then they would likely earn far, far less and possibly spend less time making any kind of art commercial or not.

It reminds me of this survey that made the front page not long ago about author's that contained this illuminating paragraph:

> While 80% of respondents considered themselves to be professional authors, only 35% said they were full-time authors while 53% said they were part-time authors (with the balance being one-book authors or undecided). The primary writing occupation of part-time authors outside of publishing books was professor/academic (8.5%), followed by book illustrator/author (4.2%), editor (2.9%), poet (2.4%), journalist (2%), teacher (2%), and entrepreneur (1.5%).

So even people who consider themselves professional authors are unable to work at it full time. It makes sense, there's only so much one person can produce and it's quite difficult to find an audience willing to pay for what you make. This likely holds true across all professions i.e. you have to do the work that they want done and not the work that you want to do.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...
Yes, I think that an engineer who can navigate (to some extent) human and organisational minefields will be much more effective than one who is merely super-smart
Tekuti
> My name is Drew, I’m the founder of SourceHut and one of three SourceHut staff members working on the outage, alongside my colleagues Simon and Conrad. As you have noticed, SourceHut is down. I offer my deepest apologies for this situation. We have made a name for ourselves for reliability, and this is the most severe and prolonged outage we have ever faced. We spend a lot of time planning to make sure this does not happen, and we failed. We have all hands on deck working the problem to restore service as soon as possible.

Drew, you're great, Simon and Conrad are great, you'll get through this, and you will be fine.

Keep doing your great work, forever.
Can Cloudflare not afford a communications director that could have maybe edited this for the CEO before he put this tone-deaf screed out on the internet?

>"We fired ~40 sales people out of over 1,500 in our go to market org. That’s a normal quarter."

If firing 40 people every quarter is normal for you then your company culture is fucked.

>"Sadly, we don’t hire perfectly. We try to fire perfectly."

Oof. It's bizarre to me that any CEO would read that second sentence and think that's some kind of virtue worth extolling publicly.

>"Chris Paul was a bad fit for the Suns, but he’s undoubtedly a great basketball player."

Comparing now unemployed folks with an elite NBA athlete who makes 28 million a year? It's hard imagine that statement made anyone affected feel better, assuming they understood the reference.
Not really. It's shiny. It's like a real life ding/chievo/whatever you call them these days.

It's important enough that you can write it on like headed notepaper without seeming like a complete jerk. If I see somebody sent me a letter from "A Smith CBE" that seems reasonable I guess they have a CBE, how about that - if they write "A Smith BA(Hons)" I know they're a terrible person - who cares that you have a fucking undergraduate degree? Am I supposed to be impressed?

One more notch up makes you a knight. So, if you're collecting and this is early in your career that's a good sign you could get there. For example when I was a research student 20+ years ago, my Head of Department was looking to get herself some Honours, and these days she's Dame Wendy.

But like, it doesn't come with a heap of money or anything as far as I know. You briefly get to meet Charlie I guess, but I met his previous wife once (when I was a kid) and she was just some woman, so I doubt he's any different.
My point was simply that the technologies we use are established, and haven't changed much. The age matters, because the current dominant players have been dominant for longer than jQuery was at the top.

Your counterpoint was instead that React changed a lot, but I counter argued. You are free to disagree with that, of course, but instead chose to answer with "Come on man!!"...

I understand that it might seem overwhelming to see lots of "new things" here at HN and other sites, but the reality is that those things are pet projects or new incumbents that haven't been adopted at large by the industry, if at all. In reality, movement in frontend has been slower after 2015 than it was in the 10 years before.

And sorry but you can't preemptively call my response illogical. This is not cool.
Better late than not at all. I welcome a stringed regime of regulation for aircraft manufacturers and operators.
Same thing regarding the utilities -- we need home electricity switcheable with a key/knob, not browsing it for a minute in a smartphone (yes, with phone full of running apps, and network hickups, it may take a minute). And we need public transit usable without any smartphone, not to make people look for the buses on a smartphone map (try pushing a stroller with a kid on a cold winter day and search for buses in an app).
Game modding is going to go away almost entirely soon. The vanguard here is Capcom. They have gotten a bit uncomfortable with modders who do things like put Chun Li and Cammy in bikinis, not to mention the possibility for cheat mods. Accordingly, they now consider modding to be the equivalent of piracy and have implemented mod-preventing DRM in their back catalog of PC games.

Other companies will soon follow. There's too much risk to a company's bottom line and reputation to allow or encourage modding. Mods compete with official DLC packs, and if someone streams with, say, a mod that puts a swastika on the main character or something, that harms the publisher's reputation.

I would say hang on to your old copies of Doom and Quake... but Doom and Quake are Microsoft products now, and Microsoft doubtless has ways to make the asset packs unavailable except to official ports which require a Microsoft account to play.
I didn't understand the point of OP's own goal either. seems pretty unlikely that someone who lived that experience as described would not notice the obviously bad tradeoff they are making, and that this would hardly be something to be (apparently) proud of. But he got a chance to portray himself as a Senior Somebody making Important Decisions, so there's that.

All the people I know, whose circumstances I don't share except by second-order family relations, and who are indeed well paid senior engineers, actually do have live-in nannies or au pairs. Which is why I mentioned that possibility.
It’s interesting to me that both threads on HN discussing this DDoS incident have new accounts claiming that Drew supports DDoS, without sources:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38966629
Related story: https://futurism.com/amazon-products-ai-generated
I've heard people describe the corporate travel platform I work on described as a "simple CRUD app" so I'm not sure I believe this is true about almost any software company.
They don’t speak english. Or it’s via their automated supply chain adding in “AI” features nobody asked for. We don’t need a model to say Black Dresser. However, providing a service that says “give me your inventory and we’ll list it on Amazon” is probably what’s at play here. Random brand name, AI generated description, midjourney images, real cash sales, no goods shipped.
They were bullied and given leniency if they didn’t speak ill of the shortcomings
I agree with all of this with one minor quibble. I'd never tell someone I'm in a position to mentor / coach / lead like this that I'm swamped. It's probably true, but that's my problem not theirs. I don't want them to avoiding talking to me because they think I'm too busy. I know that was in an example statement and not necessarily something you're endorsing, but I thought the point worth bringing up.
Why does a spinning egg stand up? (2018)
You realize this would have nothing to do with phones right? It would be for long term low energy devices. That's like saying the solar strip on a calculator would put calculator makers out of business so Big Calculator won't let it happen.
Nobody uses bug screens on cars anymore because the bugs are fewer.

Bee populations are in decline.

And we're killing off birds.

Have a nice day staring at the smart tablet in your car.
Your business goes bankrupt but you’ve still used the bank provided cash flow for payroll & the like.

For personal investments it can work out the same way because the interest rate on the loan can be negotiated to a much smaller level than what is available to normal people if you have a lot of money. So as long as you make a reasonable bet that your fairly liquid investments (stock in a public company is really liquid) can return more value than your loan repayment. There’s some risk but it’s not that insane and it’s manageable.

> At the point of consumption is where the best place to tax occurs.

Keep in mind that sales tax still exists but it’s a flat rate and is thus what’s called a regressive tax (vs a progressive income tax). So a rich person using a collatorized loan against their stock portfolio is going to pay less relative tax than a normal person receiving income who paid both income tax & the same sales tax amount. Yes there can sometimes be a luxury sales tax but all that means is that goods that normal people wouldn’t even be able to afford in the first place have a marginally higher tax rate.
I'm a strict materialist in terms of like 'where consciousness comes from', but a strictly "bottom up" model, I think, is the wrong way to think about mind, because while yes, mental states are caused by physical changes in the brain, but you can very well reverse it and show that mental states cause physical change in the brain in return. When you learn how to add 2+2, that surely corresponds to physical changes in the brain, but it would be very weird to think about that as the physical changes causing the learning of 2+2, rather than the other way around.

In computer terms, while yes, everything that happens in a computer is a result of the physical activity of its components, if you try to understand the activity of the computer while completely ignoring _the code_, you are going to have a very incomplete model of what the computer is doing and what it's going to do in response to changes.

The idea of trying to reduce "what psychedelics do" to strictly the action of chemicals causing physical changes in neurons and the pursuit of psychedelics that don't cause a subjective experience seems to very much misunderstand what the mind is. Surely you can cause physical changes in the brain with a chemical change, but it's the subjective experience itself and the mind that drives a _particular beneficial change_.

It's like trying to teach someone math without cracking a textbook or something. The fundamental thing the mind does is _learn_, and I don't think that you can learn anything beneficial from the psychedelic experience without the actual, you know, psychedelic experience.

For me, the big thing I took away from psychedelics was a new understanding about the nature of how I perceive things and the nature of reality and my place in it. It was like a conscious learning process based on experience. If you take away the experience, what are you learning?
LOL, I'm reminded of a Futurama episode from over a decade ago where one of the presidential candidates during the debate, when asked "Environment: Yes or No" replied:

Two words: Condor attack. Don't want that. Got to say no.

It feels like "Condor" is a trigger phrase that's been around and programmed into people for years
Some related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38971012
Isn't it little clownish with funny looking characters spouting cheesy dialogues.

A lot of Asian pop movies and shows are exactly this. Child of Korean immigrants here, married to a Chinese wife. Lots of stupid fun that plays in one culture is just a non-sequitur in another.

It makes perfect sense. The only exposure China had to Star Wars when it came out, were bootleg comics where they drew the Star Destroyers as Space Battleship Yamato.
I personally know of that happening twice. In both cases it was used to patch a bug in the super old Qt version that was being shipped.

I'm sure it doesn't happen often, but IMHO that doesn't really matter. It's preserving the freedom to do it that is important. I rarely use my right to free speech (that is, saying something that somebody in power would find offensive and want to jail me for), but it's a right I would fight to the bitter end to preserve.
What does that have to do with getting DDoSed? Because "you don't like them" they deserve to be DDoSed? Or is this just, "BTW, I am salty." Nobody owes you a centralized location for your distributed source code repositories.
Even beyond entertainment, interacting with things that are aesthetically pleasing is fundamentally good for individuals and society.
Take a random sentence I pulled from Kaufmann

>> Verily, you who are good and just, there is much about you that is laughable, and especially your fear of that which has hitherto been called devil.

Which could also be said as:

>> Those of you who are good and fair, there's much about you that's funny, especially how you're scared of what's always been called the devil.

The average modern english speaker would say the latter is easier to understand. I'd personally love for the entire book to be this digestable.
If it is reproducible, then it shouldn't be reproducible, as per the crisis. If it isn't reproducible, then it has reproduced itself in the form of not being reproducible. Therefore, accurately answering the question, "Is the Reproducibility Crisis Reproducible?" is equivalent to solving the halting problem ^_^
I've dictated a post on how to dictate a post with ChatGPT
In this class of devices, I would be interested in 1024 QAM and OFDMA support, not MIMO.
At work. I think it’s not very good most of the time.
Nothing always ends up well every time, it's about making the balances and allocating resources where they best serve. This is the perpetual policy problem around things like OSHA and other regulatory bodies.

One question might be if the airlines should be able to inspect their own equipment, or be required to pay the government to do the inspections, instead.

Way more planes have fallen out of the sky due to bad airline maintenance/inspections than have crashed because of Boeing stupidity.
$ cat ~/bin/f
#!/bin/bash
if [ "$1" != "" ] ; then
find . -type f | grep -v '\.git' | grep -i "$1"
else
find . -type f | grep -v '\.git'
fi
So be it. That would still be fine for some applications.
This is pretty common in aerospace, defense and, I imagine, alot of other government facing industries. For something like this the inspection procedure is likely approved by the government and verification it's being performed properly is done with lots of submitted and retained paperwork. So maybe less judge and jury and more private vs public attorney filing the same motion. Yes, they could have biases but they both are performing the same task, based on the same laws.

Of course that doesn't always stop mistakes/negligence (see this incident) or bad actors (see below):
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/19/navy-has-mitigated-risk-of-...

I will also add that just because something is inspected by the government does not insure quality. Usually failures in inspection are due to inexperienced and/or overworked inspectors, higher ups pushing to "get things through" or to reduce costs, or other banal reasons just as possible to occur whether it's Uncle Sam or Boeing writing the inspectors checks.
Fwiw, this is the route most academics take, but it is still not easy to publish in this domain. I've seen workshop papers get rejected from very clearly academic work because they don't use real world or large datasets. I've seen theory papers get rejected because they don't have experiments. Yes, read that last one again. And mind you, these big companies also do a lot of theory and foundational work too. The process is just noisy.
I'm the author, first post in a while. Feel free to ask me anything!
A vector v = (v[0], v[1], v[2], ..., v[100]) is exactly the same thing as a function v taking a number i and returning a value v[i].

Since you can sum scalars to functions, it is natural to sum scalars to vectors.
Advice to my younger self and you after 20 years in programming
Medium recommended me this article. Reading it made me realize that I've wasted my youth on useless side projects that don't generate revenue and that realization filled me with dread, despair, and self-hatred - I hate myself for not spending my youth more wisely. But I wanted to know what you guys think. Do you agree with it?
They had an informal dual mandate to maximize employment and minimize inflation before then, but the purpose of the Federal Reserve as created was to preserve financial stability, avoid financial panics, and maximize employment. In other words, they had half of the dual mandate, the half that involved injecting money when times were bad to stabilize the system. The government codified the inflation mandate in response to the 1970s inflation.

The phenomena of dropping rates when a recession is impending is congruent with the "maximize employment" portion of their mandate, which predated 1977. Indeed, their failure to do this in 1929-1930 led to the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke's pre-Fed-chair academic career was devoted to studying that.
Isn't this the whole point of the "defund the government" approach?

Deliberately sabotage the regulatory authorities, then use the fact that they no longer have the expertise and staff as a justification to outsource the regulation function over to the companies that were supposed to be inspected.

And when it goes wrong, which it always does, make shocked pikachu face and claim that nothing can be done because we no longer have the capacity to regulate industry.

This would be less infuriating if this was the first time, but it keeps happening again and again and people keep falling for it. It is immensely profitable for the few though, that might be why it keeps happening.

The fix is easy, just requires time and budget: rebuild that expertise and refuse to certify anything until you have the necessary capabilities.
That's great! (If only a good writer could make all my points for me)

It's not all programs, but the ones that last (you know, the ones people actually use) get more and more like this over time, no matter how they start.

It's out-of-date though... allow me to fix it:

> ...with comments like “TODO: FIX THIS IT’S A REALLY DANGEROUS HACK BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S WRONG” that were written *twenty* years ago.

(It was written in 2014, after all.)
What if I tell you everything around us is actually magic, we just understand some of it well enough to call it technology?
> What other industry is allowed to inspect itself?

Movies. The ratings you see before a movie starts is assigned by the industry after inspecting the movie [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association
It's 100k in combined assets at BofA / ML, so if you have 100k in a brokerage account (or an IRA or a HSA or ...) you're eligible. It's not restricted to the super low yield savings accounts.
At that scale, they likely aren't typing the prompt into ChatGPT manually and then copy pasting. The generated title is in fact shorter than the prompt. Most likely they automated the task of asking ChatGPT and bulk generated the titles.
A website you must visit NOW:

Trigger Warning
http://saturday-october-seven.com

I strongly advise Israelis not to watch it.
Playing around with things to tweak more is hobby time to me.

Setting it up for others to use it is another. The comment about Apple Homekit "just working" has some merit. If it's not automated in the background on a schedule, and on demand, there's some merit to it.

Maybe there's a sweet spot of not having to hack every little thing.

My smarthome setup for example is centered around becoming an appliance of the home that stays with it, and making design considerations for that.
> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position

I think the quote is in Scott's opponent's voice, not his own.

> Instead of doubling down on one, let go of all of them

Yes. We don't need better ways to form opinions - the world would be a better place if we all just had fewer opinions
Sounds like Apple and Google should fix their broken app stores then.
Those smart locks are a clear and obvious Bad Thing for renters all around. I would absolutely not rent any place that uses them, if for no other reason than that they are a strong indication of the attitude of the landlord toward their tenants.
Changing bash history retention wouldn’t affect scripts. Scripts don’t write to the history log.

And bash has already changed numerous features over the years.
You are probably thinking of the case described in GP, which is the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court on this issue.
You need to socialize the problem; to broadcast that you are trying to solve something. Some sort of internal discussion board could work. It serves the same purposes as the water cooler.

If anyone can think of a way to make software better serve this end I'd love to hear.
Self regulation would mean that the org should face much stiffer penalties for failing in its regulation related duties. The increased agency needs to also come with increased responsibility.

Something like notaries, guilds or unions that can speak the truth without retribution ...

No, we need independent regulation. We don't have the societal norms to pull off self regulation.
> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position.

I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words - i.e., the author's argument fits together, the opponent says "it's just wrong" and gets frustrated.
Getting sucked into a dream-world/story/abstraction is a feature, not a bug.

It's an attention-conservation strategy. Looking at an abstraction takes less precious attention than looking at reality. And abstractions are so malleable, so useful.

You can do it with a page of text. You can do it with no technological augmentation at all, just thinking.

It's so easy and useful that it's become a habit. The border between dream and reality is so blurred now that we've forgotten that there's a difference.

Maybe this is what the Buddhists call "Samsara".
> and I would not think of them very much after a few days

To me, it sounds like the definition of a fungible cog, where "fully" depends on whether a replacement with the same skills can be hired. One is expected to be functional at some point after losing their mother, but the mother's name and role in the org/family is unlikely to be forgotten, even after decades.
> Have we considered that maybe we're just spending too much time on entertainment?

No, I doubt it, unless you have some data that the advent of digital entertainment has changed our entertainment habits. (I think it's a separate question when it comes to social media + smartphones, which work very very hard to steal our attention.) People don't work all day long. Before we had digital media, people entertained themselves with social visits, theater, drinking, reading, meditation... basically all the things we still do outside of digital entertainment.