skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The world is chock full of vampires looking to exploit helpers. Don't let them get you.

More importantly, don't let this dissuade anyone from helping. Some caution is needed yes, but cynicism is the greater foe. A life of public service is a life well spent.
Humanity as a whole has never gone back an age. Once we learned to cultivate plants, domesticate animals, smelt iron, we've never unlearned. We'll similarly never unlearn how to build nuclear reactors or microprocessors. I'm happy to entertain such a suggestion, but I don't see a mechanism by which climate change can destroy enough people and infrastructure to create such an effect. Our knowledge is too distributed and resilient.
This is obviously a joke, but I wonder if there's something to it. A recommendation engine to surface interesting jobs to a candidate, and quality candidates to an employer. It seems like recruiters/sourcers are inefficient at doing it. The trouble is getting critical mass.
Friend of mine interviewed there. Left the coding part of the interview with the strong impression that they were using him to train some kind of code LLM.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40414430
For me the design always comes second, their sheer scale is what makes them amazing. Seeing them from the distance, thinking they're nearby, but then you just keep approaching and approaching and they keep getting bigger.

What this slideshow does perfectly is picture them from a POV perspective, nowadays you mostly see drone shots.
Whatever you do, have your own domain purchased by you.
For some reason Arch does not fully handle things when you switch from nouveau. You have to manually blacklist nouveau then set nvidia_drm.modeset=1.
but he could (id say he almost surely would) reoffend...for the US the most important thing is to keep the guy shut
"and have another mil left over for metal" was the part accounting for hardware, infrastructure, etc.

And you can fudge the employee salary a mil or two either way, but the point is that spending that much on a team to build something isn't infeasible or even unreasonable.
Yes - if someone wants you to fix their broken process or company they can explicitly ask you to and pay you suitably for it, otherwise there are plenty of other places for high performers to choose to spend their valuable time.
I spent years in a toxic culture trying to "influence it". I managed to inspire my team but it was just an outlier island in a corporate ocean I couldn't change. Ultimately the stress and exhaustion resulted in medical depression and I needed to leave for health reasons.
I always understood it was to filter out dudes who’d succeed at it: people who have a lot of spare time who would use that spare time to grind really hard for some arbitrary coding test. As an employer, I’d look at that dude and think: this dude could defo do overtime and he likes coding! We’ll take him. But that’s my two cents.
One more piece of the problem: There are headhunters who have low probability of success, and try to make it up on volume. They find your resume, and they find a job opening, and they say "Oh, hey, this guy does something technical, and that job needs something technical. Let's try it!" No, 40 years in embedded software does not make me a good candidate for a VHDL job that wants 5 years of experience. Stop wasting my time with your incompetence. (That sounds harsh, but a competent headhunter should know better than that.)

The way I did it was, over the years I built a curated list of headhunters that I respected. They weren't just low-effort people - they really knew what they were doing. When I was ready for a new job, I broke out the list. Half of the names on it weren't valid any more, but one of the ones that was came through for me.

I'm not sure that scales, though...
I have interviewed dozens of people for fairly specialized roles and the number of people with an impressive looking resume that end up being pretenders is probably greater than 90%. I would much rather interview and hire someone that another trusted party can vouch for. I understand that everyone wants to grow in their career, stretch themself, market themself well, etc. but there is a lot of blatant lying and cheating going on in the labor market nowadays.
ChatGPT isn't very good for knowing how well or correctly code will run
Between expansion and shrinking, their is this razor-thin third option, where you are perfectly breaking even. Which is impossible to achieve in practice, even if theoretically it looks like an option... any unanticipated event threatens to cause unplanned shrinkage. That needs to be repaired immediately, but there is no generalizable plan to expand back to the prior level and then stop immediately, far too easy to overshoot. These instabilities last for decades or centuries, and if another event happens before stabilization, they just continue forever.

Not expanding does risk extinction.
I was laid off over a year ago, and I should finally be starting a new job in a few weeks once the paperwork clears.

I think the following factors contributed to my long unemployment:

(1) At first, lousy market for remote jobs. Big layoffs from major tech companies made it an employer's market.

(2) Rusty interview skills. I wasn't at all ready for Leetcode-type tests, and I hadn't realized that I suck at live coding tests in general. Practice helped somewhat.

(3) Delays from testing the market to determine the new pay rate for my skillset. I.e., for a while I didn't apply to any jobs that paid well below my previous comp.

(4) Indecision about my technical focus area. I was doing DL compilers, which didn't really excite me. I wanted to break into traditional compilers. But I also worked on other skills to apply to specific job openings I'd found. In retrospect, I'd have been more successful just picking one focus area and going deep on learning just that.

I'm also a little over 50, so maybe there was some ageism at play, I don't know.
Isn't there also an aspect of non-human scale to Brutalist architecture?
Yeah in one quarter from a quick google it looks like Uber profits $1.6 Billion. Basically why I never thought about cost savings projects after I learned to put things into perspective.

People really struggle with large numbers in business I've noticed.
This is unfortunate, but so is the quality of seafood these days. Between chemicals in the water, plastics, and overfishing, seafood is just not something people should be eating.
Hire (and work) only in High Trust environments.

Until this general expectation is restored in "western civilization", you'll need to apply ideological filters to where you seek employees, and where you are willing to work as an employee.

Some in society may find this ... undesirable. However, one may ask whether these are the same people who wish to enjoy the benefits of High Trust environments, without the corresponding obligations.
With regard to a separate account, I would consider having one of these, in order of most preferred to least preferred:

1. An investment account to move money into, even if it's not invested.

2. A savings account at a second bank from which transactions or even withdrawals cannot be done, only transfers to your checking account at the first bank can be done.

3. A CD (Certificate of Deposit) at a bank, although this locks up your funds for the designated time.

Any checking account leaves you most at risk.
Thought experiment. I have a machine that produces a standard normal distribution. I know this because I built it and tested it a lot (alternatively, have God/divinity/an oracle/whatever build this machine).

You sample from it 100 times and get the number 3000 every time.

What can you say about the machine? Did it follow a normal distribution? Really?

How much was your statement about normal distributions able to predict what happened?

What does it mean for something to follow a law? The word law comes from a legal background for rules in human society. If society makes a law, can that law be broken following a normal distribution?

> I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction.

In my daily life I do not. However, given that the inner workings of the human brain are not explicable in our current understanding of physics, I don't need to 'bet against classical laws' there. We already know that something is going on.

> Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook?

There are several competing outlooks in physics right now. One is the 'shut up and calculate' approach which admits there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable 'systems' (for lack of a better word) and all we can do is make colloquial statistical claims about them. Another is that the universe is always predictable and quantum choice is due to the branching of the universe into many observable worlds (although they never explain why my conscious experience only follows one path... one is forced to conclude they believe some quantum process is in play). Another is that quantum physics is just completely wrong (unlikely). Another is that consciousness (which is undefined) is a crucial feature to quantum mechanics and is necessary to cause collapse of the wave function. There's pilot wave theory which requires there to be an unseeable aether (and again, admits no way to measure the aether, so I'm not sure that exists).

There's a whole list of spiritual beliefs about quantum mechanics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...

Depending on your belief in what takes place (and it's really truly a belief, and in some systems, it's going to stay that way), take your pick of scientists who should change their outlook.

> How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point?

They shouldn't. Most physicists do good work explaining the way the world works, but they also admit that there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable systems that govern it. The comment I replied to claimed otherwise.
I was going off of this chart[1]. It's true that some people sit relatively close to their TV, but in most of the living rooms that I've been in, the TV has been more than 6 feet away.

---

1. https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-televis...
I don't think you are getting downvoted for sharing your life experience. You're getting it for projecting that single experience onto an entire institution, without evidence that your single experience is representative.
> It’s not clear how many Starship launches it will take to refuel HLS. Elon Musk has said four might be enough

Has Musk once NOT lied about such figures?
I've toyed with doing writeups of some of my demos, but one aspect I've struggled with is how the explanation of how it works is often severely departed from the process of creating it.

The writeup here appears to be fairly natural, and maybe this is the true process for something as large as 64k, but I mostly do 192 byte demos, the largest I've ever done is 512 and 1024 byte. I think there is a difference at this size where the size very much takes charge of the creative process - and that can be quite interesting because you end up doing a lot of experimentation and accidentation and discover things you wouldn't normally be pushed to and can pivot the entire demo. However when deconstructing the result in order to explain it, this juts gets lost and I've struggled to figure out how to convey this duality. To only post a "how it works" would omit the part where all magic happens, yet that's hard to explain on it's own, and hard to combine with the "how it works".
>is that it's not a real digital document as in: simplistic digital things like selection&copy&paste are broken "by design"

Copy paste mostly works fine for me. I only have trouble when it's generated in a weird way (eg. scanned from a paper document then fed through OCR), or has complex formatting (eg. math equations) that have no hope of working correctly in any system. In those cases, I don't see how it's the fault of the PDF format, any more than HTML (or whatever you think is a "real digital document" format) can embed a picture of a scanned document that totally breaks copy-pasting.
On top of that, we've had around 20-25% inflation since pre-Covid times in the US and the EU. And that's just the CPI, which underestimates inflation for most people. So if you made ~80k before Covid and don't make 100k+ today, you salary has effectively decreased.
In the 90s, I learned D'Nealian cursive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Nealian
Assuming you're talking about the tech market in particular my observation is that 2020-2022 was an absolutely wild aberration of runaway compensation driven by low interest rates and VC frenzy. In 2024 there are lots of well-paying line of business tech jobs asking for on-site time that seem like a prison sentence by comparison. Even though they are still high-paying and low stress compared to average workers. Basically, we've got a job market that is very good by any historical comparison, but market expectations are now completely unrealistic.
Management that's open to influence is / should be a magnet to high performers.

But the weed-common presence of conservative management is what makes disruption possible.

Swings and roundabouts.
You said that science does not behave like a religion at all (zero faith based thinking, as just one example).

You also said: "If reality changes science will adapt". If this is not essentially a claim that science ~"understands reality", then what is it claiming?
Employers don’t want job seekers, they want people who can do the job.

What I am finding of late is most people are woefully under prepared and under skilled.

In the other hand everybody has a degree and wants six figures because of it.

The job market is tight, but not fucked. When tight it does not have the stomach to employee warm bodies.

The fix is lowerred expectations from job seekers and the long term fix is schools need to become hard again and stop being a product.

We need weed out classes, the goal is not to graduate as many as we can, it’s to educate. Maybe if they hard class was hard, it was hard for a reason, and dumbing it down so people don’t drop the class is only doing them a disservice when it comes to the work force which will demand results, not attendance.
I'm in a similar position to you, but from singler friends, I've heard two reasons. Firstly, all the other single people are on the apps. Secondly, some are concerned about being seen as a creep when flirting or approaching the "normal" way. Thus, online dating is the new normal, and the old-fashioned talking in person is less common.
Then I believe that’s quite the feat of engineering and we should all rejoice in the birth of AGI
[dupe]

Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40414430
And that would not be me, because at no point did I say we needed a 'mystical' explanation. I'm just pointing out the universe is not always predictable, but -- just as it did many years ago -- this often causes a lot of distress, especially on pop science forums.
Yes, but nobody is lobbying for worse interview processes and if anyone has an incentive to make it better, it's employers (for whom it is disproportionally more expensive).

People love to poke fun at it, but employers are not trying to make it bad. It's just a hard problem.
Nothing magical about them except:

1. They work for far less money.

2. They designed the equipment that's being managed.

Those two reasons are sufficient on their own to make them inherently better at managing 5G networks. The first reason in particular is lost if you relocate the jobs to the west.
Don’t forget the elderly and children
Over half of the stock market is held in the retirement accounts of everyday people. This is just a tax in a roundabout way. I don't have a solution, they all suck. But I'm not convinced this is any better.
Networking. We need more speed dating with employers and networking opportunities. Every job I ever had came through meeting with people. If every employee would be encouraged to meet with other people once a week it could scale. Maybe you would quickly lose people as well, also a risk.
We advertised for a junior developer role in April and got almost ~1700 applications in a week. we gave up after reviewing around 100.
The Great Tech and People Hypocrisy
> It’s better than the risk of trying to carry on long term short-staffed

Companies don’t feel that way. They feel they can just ramp up the workload on existing employees “until we can hire more.” What are they going to do, leave? Where do they think they’re going to go? They’ll be met with the same situation at another company, except they’ll be on the other side of the table this time.

If there are companies with money, no employees, and the urgent desire to hire them, that breaks this equilibrium. The overworked employees jump ship to the startup, the incumbents become more desperate and finally relent.
You can have all the skills and education you want, if employers are unreasonable about their hiring and requirements, you have no control or recourse. You have to be lucky (including knowing someone, ie networking), not necessarily good.
As someone who does a ton interviews and is usually the one who gives the technical thumbs up on hiring decisions in my group, I've summed it up as Joel Spolsky famously did a long time ago... "smart and gets things done"

I just need someone who can learn stuff and has shown technical competence at some point in their career (even new grads). It's definitely harder as a new grad because hey, you have no experience. But show me how you've done something technical in school or an internship. Or have gone above and beyond in a class project. For my more experienced roles, I need to see some passion for what you're doing in addition to knowing what you're talking about. I don't do whiteboards or coding interviews. I don't ask those stupid interview questions either. I don't need the best of the best of the best. But I have been pretty successful for what I've been looking for and the quality of the coworkers I've been a part of hiring has been great from my perspective.
Since you are so certain that the data is available there, please cite the net income for YouTube that is supposedly in it.
Companies want “the best of the best”. I’m not talking about faang. Any tech company out there believes they can only succeed by hiring the best only.

It’s unrealistic. But I don’t see the paradox (companies say they “can’t find talent “ but what they mean is that they can’t find top talent according to some dubious tests).

On top of that, if you have years of experience in, let’s say Go or Python, but the company is only looking for Java or Kotlin devs, you’re out of the question. Ridiculous.
Because employers have incentivized this behavior by not paying employees what employees know they'll get when they've attained the skills and experience they need.
You forgot the middlemen: recruiters.

I have yet to find more than 2 or 3 recruiters who actually know the space that they're working in, don't make unrealistic demands, and have basic empathy for the job seeker.

As an example of this, I was messaged by a recruiter last week asking if I was interested in a potential position, and when I asked him about the position, he asked if I was willing to send over not only my portfolio (I'm a UX designer), but also do some free work on top of that. Nothing about the actual responsibilities, nothing about location, nothing about salary. I responded to him, asked a few questions of my own, and he ghosted me.
> Her father was one of the company’s star engineers and was even inducted into its hall of fame in 1979; he had helped to create Scotch-Brite scouring pads and Coban wrap, a soft alternative to sticky bandages. Once, he molded some fibers into cups, thinking that they might make a good bra. They turned out to be miserably uncomfortable, so he and his colleagues placed them over their mouths, giving the company the inspiration for its signature N95 mask.

Just a little reminder about forever chemicals in N95 masks: https://www.eenews.net/articles/pfas-are-in-face-masks-shoul...

One of these days, once all the people involved have profited and died, we will then know the true impact of the COVID lockdowns.
Having multiple logical buckets per physical node doesn't fix this problem. It does help ensure that the bucket sizes are closer to uniform, but not that items hash uniformly into the available buckets. Even if all the buckets are exactly uniform (as in some of the simulations on this page, if I understand correctly), to inconsistent hashing of items to buckets leads to inconsistent load.

Multiplicity does help with a major operational concern, though: when a node fails and recovery is needed, the recovery traffic can be spread uniformly across all cluster members rather than hot-spotting a small number of neighbors. Incidentally, this is a classic congestive collapse scenario in consistent hashed systems: a node looks failed because its overloaded, which starts recovery, which adds load to the neighbors which makes them look overloaded, and the whole thing collapses.
All lists need to be alphabetically sorted. Please don't force me to eyeball members of a list by scrolling up and down in a big random-ordered list (like country selection, for example).

Also, the service search filter currently does not change from step 1 to step 2 making it useless for country selection.
the studies are described in the article

> What Hansen didn’t know was that 3M had already conducted animal studies — two decades earlier. They had shown PFOS to be toxic, yet the results remained secret, even to many at the company. In one early experiment, conducted in the late ’70s, a group of 3M scientists fed PFOS to rats on a daily basis. Starting at the second-lowest dose that the scientists tested, about 10 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, the rats showed signs of possible harm to their livers, and half of them died. At higher doses, every rat died. Soon afterward, 3M scientists found that a relatively low daily dose, 4.5 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, could kill a monkey within weeks. (Based on this result, the chemical would currently fall into the highest of five toxicity levels recognized by the United Nations.) This daily dose of PFOS was orders of magnitude greater than the amount that the average person would ingest, but it was still relatively low — roughly comparable to the dose of aspirin in a standard tablet.

the only propaganda about PFOS was made by 3M, telling us these chemicals were safe, when they knew they weren't.
I forgot to mention the difference in function passing, the fact that Matlab passes arguments by value (unless it's a `handle` class) makes it really hard to do in-place transformations, as in passing an array to a function and modifying it, since the modifications are not visible outside the function.
For reference, the paper mentions the term "homotopy" exactly once, in this sentence:

> The set-theoretic definition is too strong (Cauchy reals and Dedekind reals are certainly not equal as sets) and the homotopy type theoretic definition is too weak (things can be equal in more than one way, in contrast to Grothendieck’s usage of the term).
It is a tounge-in-cheek term derived by english speakers who were well aware of the double entendre. Sometimes even architects have a sense of humour.
Yes, technically they are avoidable, but it sounds like you are an outlier - doubtful that lots of people spend precious travel time (especially if with family/kids) registering on government web sites. Very doubtful that many people have checklists for this purpose.

> But how would that work with open road tolling?

For one, both companies also operate GPS services so perhaps it could all be integrated. Or just have one or two lanes available for people to slow down and tap to pay (still benefit from no staffing the toll booth). Or you could have a pull-off area right after the tollbooth with QR codes to pay by PayPal, Venmo, etc.
Maybe you should look at the research before commenting. Try google scholar.