skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The standard way of getting "rich" is to get into a good career that

> pays a lot. Before Silicon Valley, people got "rich" by working at

> Wall Street, law or Congress

I'm afraid this isn't really true. Through most of the industrial revolution and after (i.e. after the early 1800's), professionals (lawyers, bankers, accountants, doctors, etc.) made a smaller multiple of unskilled labor wages than they do today. In America at least, the way to get "rich" has always been to start your own business.

This was true in the 1800's and it's true today. There have been repeated waves of change as new technologies spread: textile mills, cotton production, mining, railroads, telecom, electricity, appliances, automobiles, department stores, advertising, aviation, broadcasting, computing, etc, etc. Each wave of innovation saw the creation of thousands of new businesses. Sure most eventually fail, but hundreds did pretty well and a handful got insanely wealthy.

American culture and laws (usually) rewards this sort of risky behavior. One can debate whether it's, moral, just, or good for society. But generally speaking, not much has changed wrt this facet of our culture over the last 200 years.
Ah, your description mentions svg animations.
My first instinct was lobbying spend, but Amazon and Google show up in the top 20 and Equifax isn't on the list (although, I have my suspicions that the numbers here aren't necessarily the whole picture. Financial chicanery is a whole industry, after all). [1]

I can imagine, though, that hiding information is a lot easier when you're less often in the public eye. Amazon and Google, through their ubiquity, have a higher hill to climb when it comes to avoiding scrutiny.

1 - https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
Title needs (2015)
Nah, I don't think Spolsky is responsible. What is really responsible is that computers themselves influence people to think algorithmically. I know that sounds weird, but I observed after doing a degree in math: after a lot of work in mathematics, I started to think much more analytically and algorithmically. I think the same thing happens at tech companies, and that's why Spolsky was so inclined to make the process more efficient: tech companies are themselves reactors to grow the algorithmic way of thinking in people, and that in turn causes people to seek for algorithmic solutions such as the hiring system we have today.

Yes, Spolsky might have created some new hiring practice, but if it wasn't for him, it would be someone else because it is a natural consequence of a large group of people thinking in an algorithmic way for years and years.

If cults can influence poeple to commit mass suicide, surely ten years of math and programming can influence people to become more like machines.
We do actually have a bunch of bigger companies using Causal (incl. public companies) so it definitely works for bigger companies depending on exactly what they need. If they're looking for a great modelling tool with nice dashboards then I think we're perfect, if they're looking for something with more "workflows" type of stuff with lots of stakeholders who need to contribute to things, then we're less good.

Because of this, we're focusing on smaller companies as a self-serve product for a while, and then gradually plan to build out that kind of enterprise stuff for bigger companies.

There's also a lot more competition in the mid-market/enterprise in this space, and 0 competition for SMBs/self-serve, so we thought it would be good to lean in there :)
It would work wonderfully for candidates who don't currently have a job, or at least a job they have much interest in keeping. Examples:

* newly graduated student

* someone who wants to break into software engineering from an unrelated industry

* someone re-entering the workforce after an extended leave (e.g. caring for a child, parent, or one's own medical issues)

For someone like you who (I assume) is currently employed as a software engineer, it's obviously a worse option than the traditional leetcode-oriented interview.
Is it trivial? Nobody owns the Moon, there's nothing, you can just get started building. Often the technological and engineering problems are much smaller than the regulatory approvals and other legal issues it needs to through.

Also, not sure if we - the people - really want to hear the solution to this problem from a super-weapon company.
> In fact, American men like it in a state of continual breakdown so they can fix it

I feel seen.
It isn't a "Sexy" PL change, but a full foreign function interface will be a huge change. In my experience, relying on the old java JNI based libraries seems to be one of the biggest things that break in upgrades. So I am hoping this will reduce the maintenance burden of Java.
I think the idea in this comment -- that users of languages inherit all of the perceived negatives of the community developing the language -- is just wrong. (I say "perceived" because some of the claims in this post are simply incorrect, such as the claim the Rust language developers think "backwards compatibility may actually be considered an anti-goal".)

For example, over the last couple of years I've been re-implementing some of Knuth's typesetting work in Rust. Contrary to your claim, my project is obsessed with backwards compatibility and making sure the output is identical to Knuth's. Last weekend I even discovered a ~30-year old bug in one of Knuth's programs [1] as part of an extensive fuzzing effort. (Of course, I re-implemented Knuth's bug in my Rust code [2].)

[1] https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-k/2024-March/004031.html
[2] https://github.com/jamespfennell/texcraft/commit/e89b7461780...
Unified Time Series Model – pre trained time-series LLM: UNITS
Their collective seems to be thriving: https://kaleidos.net/

But I don't have the expertise to know for sure.
We have possums here too, and they occasionally come up to our front porch to eat our dogs food.

We also have a lot of deer here and they carry ticks that get huge on them, so they're spreading them around wherever they go. We're surrounded on 3 sides by Army Corp land that's forest and filled with critters that spread them around.
Agreed! By the way, guess what else is paywalled by Figma https://tokens.studio/

edit: there is a free tier but core functionality like "create a variable" or "reference a variable" is Pro-only :P
How much are you willing to vouch for Arch? Will you give me $10k next time my Arch breaks at update?
I'm not aware of any AI detection tools that are actually effective enough to be interesting. Perhaps Google has some super-secret method that works, but I rather doubt it. If they did, I think they'd be trumpeting it from the hilltops.
I think we should "invert, always invert", as Charlie Munger put it. Why do we expect a N-session by M-hour interview be a reliable signal that a candidate is someone you want to work together with for at least a month or two. And many companies not only have an ineffective hiring process, but also an ineffective firing one. Well, what about work together for a month or two and see how things go
You can decide not to do it in the first place.

A 15-year-old hearing this talk from Graham as-is might take from it, "wow, if I learn programming, work on things that interest me, do well in school, and go to a good university, I'm guaranteed to build a Google-scale successful startup!"

Telling that kid that there's also a component of luck involved, and that the vast majority of startups fail, would temper that enthusiasm in a much more honest way. If that means fewer kids decide to start companies, that's obviously a negative in Graham's book, but may not be a negative for those kids themselves.
Having my job security dictated by an LLM (which is what most AI enhanced products are right now) sounds like a dystopian hell.
It should be in the LaTeX sources on the website. This does look much more compact though.

Just to now push it a little.
I wonder if I can make the `1/(d+1)` in the superscript be not a real fraction but inline fraction.
"It's all just 0s and 1s."
It's basically overriding its instructions. An LLM typically "believes" whatever you tell it. It's not that hard to break LLM sandboxes.
Microsoft hires DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman to run new consumer AI unit
I am curious about your comment on 100-1000x fewer formulas. Is there a simpler example you can show how your product will do it relative to Excel? When I read your comment, I was thinking, SUM in Excel operates over many cells. You can have Arrays, etc. in Excel. So I am not sure how formulas work in your product that is fundamentally different. Is this like a function that I can define and call that function so it is easier?
If the weight is zero it doesn’t need to exist
Yes, starting with the M2 Airs last year: https://9to5mac.com/2023/06/15/look-inside-apple-new-70w-gan...

Not as small/cheap as other GAN chargers, though.
Never underestimate the power of soft/social skills.
> In my well balanced life, I love interacting with LLMs. I also appreciate the things I have all of the time, without needing to slowing down technological progress to do so

Okay that's fine, but you are not the rest of the world. While you enjoy the ultimate fruits of capitalism, there are people in developing countries suffering because of it through a lack of freedom and a destructiom of the landbases that they could once depend on. When climate change comes because of consumerism, it is you and other well-off people that will be able to move first.

OF COURSE, you will disagree with me, because you are probably at the apex. (Just the very fact that you have a well-balanced life means you are close to it, proportionally speaking to the entire human population.)

I don't claim that all capitalism is bad BTW. Rather, what I claim to be bad is global capitalism where other considerations have been eliminated or decimated.
Of course it is a monumentally bad thing for the UK economy it doesn't have any big tech companies! I actually don't understand your point at all.

To say nothing of the lost revenue from tech export do you think it is better for the UK that it depends on AWS cloud for running the majority of its public services, Apple for almost 70% of the phones used by it's citizens, Google for the other 30%?

Which midsize company is going to be able to compete with AWS on offering cloud computing services, Apple on developing smart phones or Nvidia on GPUs?

Actually the UK has the worst of both worlds: US big tech opens office here leading to well-paid executives and engineer, while all revenue (and none of the taxes) from selling the products these engineers develop goes to the US.
Let's create a Tree-sitter grammar
Maybe we should spend the r&d money on r&d for how to improve regulatory approvals.
It's always worth reading Against Railway-Oriented Programming[1] before you commit to using it.

Personally I've dealt with enough Trailblazer code now that for business logic I think I'd much rather work with a simple ruby class with a procedural interface.

I like the use of a Result object but not at the expense of exception handling or bloated stacktraces full of library code.

Being lightweight, easy to debug and upgrade is underrated IMHO.

Having said all that, I still think this is a really interesting article and great food for thought depending the usecase.

1. https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/against-railway-orie...
The first line from the article seems to answer that:

> New research estimates that nearly half of people globally are living with a condition like Alzheimer’s, stroke, or epilepsy

And taking a look at the full scope of diseases in the methodology seems to yield a "no" to your question.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4...
You should check out https://www.stacksync.cloud/ (YC W24) -- they do a bidi realtime sync between CRMs and databases. Not sure if that scratches your itch!

We are definitely looking to make our API public. We've built our core data model in such a way that business users can't accidentally break API users by, for example, making backwards-incompatible changes to their objects. It baffles me that everyone else in the space gets this wrong. But still, I want to feel really good about making an API that can stick around a long time before telling people to use it to run their business, and we're just not there yet.
1959

Transistor oscillation and rectifying converter power supply system U.S. patent 3,040,271 is filed by Joseph E. Murphy and Francis J. Starzec, from General Motors Company.
Pretty hard agree here, but I think there’s space for a gripe.

Our default state as humans is pretty awful and materially deprived, so I think making technology to improve our conditions is good. Making technology that does powerful things in the real world is difficult partly because of the vast quantity of data in its structure. If we make powerful AI systems equipped to handle that scale and built to make our lives better, it would be good, but we’re failing to do that which is the issue.
Conversely, repeated failures can give you the experience needed to increase the odds that your next attempt could be successful.
Yes, ive played professionally. To be charitable I’ll explain it to you. In poker you play a massive number of hands and if you are good you play a preplanned strategy and sometimes when following that strategy you lose but over the long run, assuming you are playing a winning strategy, you make money.

The luck is seen in the short term fluctuations but over the long run when executing your strategy there is no luck.

This requires proper bankroll management among other things.

Also starting a business is easier than poker, poker is zero sum (more often negative sum due to rake).

Business is positive sum. What this means is people will gladly hand you money if your product generates more value for them than holding that money does. In poker, every single hand is like a fist fight because there is always a loser in every hand.
2023 IQAir World Air Quality Report
I've certainly seen the phenomena you describe, but it doesn't seem like that belief is completely universal.

"Humanists often contend that machines tend to dehumanize people by forcing them to have rigid personalities, but really, the contrary is true. Because the machines are rigid, the people who use them must–if they are to be successful–supply more than their share of flexibility."

– Gerald Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming, chapter 11.
It might be possible for a company like Google, which is so buried in qualified applicants that they could decide to only hire left-handed people born on a Monday and they'd still be able to fill all their open positions.

Especially if you're the kind of company that doesn't need to make many experienced hires, but recruits a lot of people straight off college campuses.
How is it charging as fast as a charger 3 times more powerful?
I wouldn't use Google or Meta as reasonable examples in the hiring space.
Would you prefer for it to be dictated by the power-hungry suits running companies and giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses after mass layoffs?
Couple questions:

1. Where does the name come from?

2. I’ve seen a lot of startups with the business model of serving other startups. These remind me a lot of derivatives in the stock market in terms of the “risk” of their business model, and there have been instances of companies having to pivot when the economy goes down (i.e. Brex)… Do you have a contingency plan for this?
Yes, and of course you cannot just move to the USA especially if you're a young guy in the UK. I know, I faced the same issue. 2006, recruited by Google before I'd even graduated. I wanted to go to California but... they hit the H1B cap that year and I wasn't important enough to get one. So I ended up in Switzerland.

If Google in 2006 wasn't powerful enough to get someone as culturally unthreatening as a Brit into the USA, it cannot be easier to do so as a startup founder.

That said I did know someone later who was able to make it in and become a startup CTO there (a German guy). Hilariously he did it by making a viral YouTube video. And by "make" I mean he hired an agency to make it. This was sufficient to get him in on an artist visa, which was easier than getting in on an H1B.
Furno bets that super-efficient, modular kilns will overturn the cement industry
This feels like a leptos conspiracy
Stepping Up – Reinforcement Learning with Spot – Boston Dynamics [video]
The version input makes sense, I could also see some developers disliking that ux because of it's verbosity. But to deliberately invalidate you have to make a manual effort in either case.
Paul Graham sounds like a boomer telling their kids to go apply in person or go door to door for jobs. Especially talking about Software startups, which will increasingly have a lower and lower barrier to entry (aka lower profitability)

Theres simply no way to get away with what Google, Facebook or Uber did today. You will not sneak your software into enterprise customers, you will not be able to skirt regulations.

Hell the big money pot of getting acquired may be dead too, e.g. Figma.

For most startups, you will fail. For the top 1% of companies you can hope to at best make a comfortable living at a multi-million dollar valuation. Only the .0001% will become a Google.
Requiring explicit error handling instead of exceptions makes it not brief. Lots of things will fail, and every single time:

f, err := Sqrt(-1)
if err != nil {
// handle error
}

Probably async/await would make things briefer too, idk, haven't used Golang enough to tell.
I ran across this paper recently which conveys it better than I can:

"[refactoring], defined traditionally as a set of program transformations intended to improve
the system design while preserving the behavior. Refactoring studies are expanded beyond code-level restructuring to be applied at
different levels (architecture, model, requirements, etc.), adopted in many domains beyond the object-oriented paradigm (cloud
computing, mobile, web, etc.), used in industrial settings and considered objectives beyond improving the design to include other
non-functional requirements (e.g., improve performance, security, etc.)." [1]

I've been having a lot of thoughts lately that we should stop calling things 'refactoring'. There is no incentive to do refactoring for anyone other than a developer (users don't want it, PM do not want it, QA do not want it, peer Dev's do not want to review it). Instead, we should probably be more direct in the language, "this was an update to existing module X so that it would be consistent with the updates in module Y. The two modules were previously consistent, this is an update to maintain consistency." Rather than "Refactored module X". That latter phrasing invites the very leading question: "you are working on Y, why did you touch X?"

At the end of the day, the ideas, tools & techniques are useful, the vocabulary can get in the way. (I am guilty of letting that vocabulary get in the way. At the same time, it is troubling. How are we to share ideas without the starting point of a shared vocabulary?)

[1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/1558...
no more money left..
Same as it ever was, I think. It's just that when you look back in retrospect, you spend all the time talking about the paths that turned out to be successful. The history of science is littered with now-forgotten theories that, in their day, dominated their fields.
There is a problem though. You cannot pay billions to develop a concept for terrestrial railroads. /s
Some of them just detect your IP and dump you in an endless loop. Sort of like a captcha shadow ban. I suppose they might let you through after 30 loops or something, but only a bot would last that long.
There must be so many people who give up on the "fire hydrant" ones. In my country they're all underground. The knobbly ones they expect you to recognize as such are a distinctly American phenomenon.
According to the article:

> As of now, all 49M impacted email addresses are searchable within HIBP.
I edited the parenthesised part of the first sentence from "and very lucky" to "and/or very lucky" to make allowances for your objection. And sure, you can always point out exceptions.

The real point is that it's misguided to try and compare percentages of tech company employees with percentages of founders; they're very different things.

Of course, out of all the founders of all the companies, a relatively tiny percentage will be vastly rich. And out of all the employees of all the tech companies, most will be quite wealthy and comfortable, and a small percentage will be vastly rich.

But that doesn't tell you anything about what is the most reliable path for any given individual to get vastly rich; it entirely depends on whether you're the kind of person you are how well you can learn how to build successful products and companies.
> But there are substantial reasons to believe that the phone number does not provide the same level of independence and convenience as does the website and the mobile app. In particular, as the district court noted, "callers may experience delays and be placed on hold." Pet. App. 24a. Ambient noise may distract from and interfere with the accurate taking of orders. See p. 8, supra. And giving a credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy than does submitting that information through a secure website. See DCt. Dkt. No. 33 at 15.

This is pure nonsense. So what if you may experience delays or be put on hold. Just because something exists doesn't mean you're obligated to provide it.

"credit card number to a live human being over the phone may create a greater risk to privacy" is absurd, it's the way people been taking credit cards from inception to very recently, either it's not good enough and should be banned all together or it's an acceptable means of charging a card. Plus there is protection from the CC company.
Maybe don't start a startup, because you do not have the connections or resources necessary to make it successful. Same with any other "speculative" venture: it's dominated by insiders who know how to minimize risk to a point it no longer becomes speculative.

Maybe start an actual, scaleable business that makes money. It's not sexy, but it's within the realm of possibility to get it off the ground yourself; and usually those within the gilded class are not interested in such things.

If you're a regular schmuck, maybe take a page from the countless immigrants in the U.S. that start various businesses (trade, real estate, etc.) that make them enough money to allow them to live like kings back in their home countries.

There's something to be said about the severe glaucoma of understanding class in the U.S. Very few (notably the middle class) are willing to internalize they're serfs, whose current comfort is more a product of luck than anything more. It's a precarious situation, and any notions of aspiring to "life satisfaction" or other leisure-class values is just foolish, in my opinion.
You're mixing up percent that succeed (a statistic) with percent chance of success (a probability). IOW, the fact that 1% of businesses succeed does not mean that a particular business has a 1% chance of success. The reason is that business success is not a function of pure random chance (like a die roll). Sure there are random factors but there are also non-random factors (which, IMO, dominate). The problem is that there is no way to determine what your business's chance of success actually is.
Mustafa wasn’t exactly on his best behavior at DeepMind, if the allegations are to be believed. It really is surprising that Microsoft would hire him.