skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Personally I find myself radically under-extended by the typical one-thing-at-a-time mentality. One at a time feels like accepted dogma, and pushback feels extreme & immediate if I as a dev attempt anything else. Businesses really want exact control & certain knowledge over how I spend every minute of developer time.

And I think it's such a waste, in my view. When I write code or make designs, usually the first couple cuts aren't great! They usually work, but how I lay out interfaces & how the code is structured tends to be pretty so so. Insight is garnered over time & experience.

Hammock Driven Development (Rich Hickey) speaks to me a lot. Sit back and reflect; consider what we are doing, how it's going. Reconsider the possibilities. https://github.com/matthiasn/talk-transcripts/blob/master/Hi...

Now, if work wants to pay me to spend 2/3rds my time just reflecting & pondering one thing at a time, I think that would work. But what makes sense to me is to have a couple things in flight, ideally staggered at slightly different phases of development, and to shift between them as the whims take me. Give myself time to decompress & reflect on one thing, by picking up another item that I've been pondering for a while.

It feels so unnatural & suboptimal, what we do to developers. The expectation of constant productivity in one task feels like such a recipe for bad code. I have no idea how so many people do it. It boggles my mind seeing folks able to stay to task, able to power through, without these pauses & times for reflection.

I wish so much there was some affordances, some option, something available for those of us who don't work well one task at a time. I want to be juggling more of the world at once, switching on and off tasks, having intervals & spacing between working specific areas of the code. I just don't see this perspective mirrored at all in the world, don't see anything at all that reflects what works for me, that reflects how hard it is for me to feel good about my work when I'm managed down, as though a machine that just has to turn a crank until it's done. My mind just is not that fast & direct, not that quick to settle and resolve the complexities of system; I need some dwell times built in. I don't know what would happen to velocity, but quality would be much higher & I'd be so much better able to flow, to latch onto tasks I was much more primed for. Please, someone, give the Hammock Driven Devs a chance.
As always, it depends on whether a machine can automate the task.

There are people who's core competency is chip layout also; they are rapidly being displaced by automated chip layout heuristic engines, which can do it way faster and (often) better on chips far more complicated than what a human can practically do.
This is mentioned.
Ahh, so if I used an old unix mainframe, it'd count leap seconds differently?
In the US you can be fired with 0 notice or severance, regardless of tenure in most states.
LOL “the company’s new initiative, the Phoenix Project, is critical to the future of Parts Unlimited, but is massively over budget and very late. Bill has 90 days to fix the mess or the entire department will be outsourced”

It’s such a boneheaded ultimatum that you can just tell that it actually happens all the time.
If the Liberal-National coalition takes power after the next election, and goes ahead with this plan, it will be Australia's Brexit.

The owners of the coal fired plants that the Coalition wants to replace have their own plans for reusing those sites, and the Coalition didn't bother consulting them before announcing this plan.

Australia is a federation of states like the US, and the Australian Constitution assigns responsibility for land use planning to the states. The Coalition have said they'll overrule the states, but there's no way for them to do that.

It is a long-standing arrangement that the cleverest and most talented Australians live outside Australia. Consequently, there will be great difficulty in staffing nuclear power plants. The ANSTO reactor at Lucas Heights is for research and medical isotope production; I gather that power-generating plants require different skillsets.

But like David Cameron's Brexit referendum, this isn't a serious plan - it's just a way to introduce uncertainty into the Australian energy market, to discourage investment into renewable energy. The Liberals may likely talk about free markets and the Nationals might like to wear Akubra hats like their constituents, but when it comes to policy, the Coalition is becoming to the Australian Minerals Council what Sinn Fein was to the IRA. Renewable energy is a threat to the Coalition's donors, so anything that maintains the coal-fired status quo - such as a multi-decade nuclear white elephant - is in their interest.
I love much of Chomsky’s writing as he opened my eyes in powerful ways, especially wrt media bias.

I would however hesitate to call him an anarchist after hearing his comments about the unvaccinated during Covid.
This is so common that it is an architecture pattern: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/pattern...

The original post describing it: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/StranglerFigApplication.html
When you understand it you call it "science" or "technology". When you don't understand it you call it "religion" or "ritual".

These are smart people. Just like us. Time is money for them just like it is for us. They probably had a very good, practical reason to do this "ritual". As surely as tapping keyboards.
It's title casing, title case means that you capitalize every word except articles
Explains why none of my job apps were ever acknowledged.
I’m a 15-year SWE. If I sat at a desk or in an office/cube all day I’d lose my marbles.

The software I write and ship also requires me to be able to grab a socket set, take panels off things, fish out DB9 connectors, run wiring, etc. testing also happens in heavy snow in the winter and high heat in the summer. Oh, lots of travel as well.

I’ve been interested in finding a different job, I’m just worried I would get very bored very quickly, tying together api calls or stitching together libraries.
Honestly, this looks more readable than Python. Noticing whether something is 3 or 4 levels less indented than something else is really really hard. Noticing whether there are 3 or 4 braces is easy.
If you have a bit of time, I'd love it if you stopped by chat.zulip.org to discuss this more interactively.

I don't think we have heard any of them from other users, so feedback including a specific example of an organization or user who struggled with this would be helpful for us to debug your experience with this feature. For the thread, my understanding of the situation is:

- The one-time setup steps for a self-hosted installation to enable web-public streams are a couple minutes of work, and to me seem immaterial compared to the minimum realistic effort for getting a server, getting a domain, transactional email provider, and SSL certificate, and then actually installing and configuring the server in the first place.

- The default stream type when creating a new stream is web-public if the feature is enabled for an organization, for users with permission to create them.

We don't allow normal users to create web-public channels as an anti-abuse measure. Trust me, you don't want it to possible for a threat actor to be able to sign up for an account in your open community, create a secret web-public channel with just themselves as a subscriber, and start hosting malware on your domain.

I hate when anti-abuse concerns limit our ability to design features in the most convenient way possible, but that's life building products for the Internet.

If anyone has ideas for how we can make this better, we'd love to discuss!
I'm at the point where I weight train about once every two weeks, over the course of two days (around 5 hrs each day, super focused on good form / slow movements). Cardio everyday though.

Been doing this for almost two years at this point. Used to do the more normal splits, but this has resulted in the best results / workouts of my life.

I don't recommend it necessarily, since I'm a sample size of one. I wish there were studies on this sort of thing.
> I've got a long list of side projects to plough through. It'll be fun."

Hacker's retirement.
Improving Retrieval with LLM-as-a-Judge
My solution was to start over with a new "root" email address and then keep it private. Having unique email addresses for each service (which then forwards to the "root" email address) is a bit of a pain but it does work for spam and, depending on what else you share with the service, privacy as well.

For better or worse if you want to reliably control who you receive email from you need to control who knows your email addresses and have the ability to disable/filter them.
Multiple accumulators increases accuracy.
See pairwise summation, for example.

SIMD sums are going to typically be much more accurate than a naive sum.
> it's possible that the processor has facilities for bucketing the data such that results from such a dataset are the same or more accurate than the naive approach.

It absolutely is not. Floating-point addition is completely defined (save for some of the bits in NaN results), and no CPU will start reordering your addition instructions in a way that changes the result. Even if it's an ordering that gives you better accuracy. Having SIMD do four (or more) of them in parallel does not change this.
a large organization that can pay stable wages over time is going to look for formal credentials when making a hiring decision. Further from that kind of (big,bureaucratic) group, are quickly assembling and then dissolving entities .. in other words "nice work if you can get it" .. with far less stability. Another term for this is "the Wild West" environment. There are some applicable analogies to the way Hollywood makes movies also perhaps, but with far less grounding.

In the Hollywood example from what I know of.. small "tiger teams" assemble with fundamentals, then quickly farm out the sexy work to disposable contracting firms, who then hire even more disposable people with various skill levels. In other words, lots of fun and excitement but also lots of work place abuses and low stability. Over time, Hollywood formed unions for a surprisingly large number of roles (like writers) because the real truth of business is not pretty. Needless to say, Silicon Valley has moved very quickly, and the Hollywood stories are not exactly applicable.
FORTH was around long before ColorForth
2 features here really mean 2 development tasks however a task is defined for your team. The idea is to have one to work on while the other is in the background (maybe being worked on by your subscience) and to take a new one once one is done, even if it isn't worked on immediately.

The main goal of work in progress limits to get work to done rather than starting new work (that doesn't get to done).

Ideally in Scrum your sprint commitment is a work in progress limit but in practice it isn't treated as such for reasons. Kanban can allow expedited issues to address an "emergency" issue but even that has a WIP of 1 so emergencies have to be prioritized.
Yeah, the literal document by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland that says what Scrum is.

https://www.scrum.org/resources/scrum-guide

Some quotes to keep in mind:

> As Scrum is being used, patterns, processes, and insights that fit the Scrum framework as described in this document, may be found, applied and devised. Their description is beyond the purpose of the Scrum Guide because they are context sensitive and differ widely between Scrum uses. Such tactics for using within the Scrum framework vary widely and are described elsewhere.

> Scrum exists only in its entirety and functions well as a container for other techniques, methodologies, and practices.

Burndown charts can be used in Scrum, but are not Scrum. Backlog refinement is an ongoing activity in Scrum, but its precise form is left undefined. Story points can be used in Scrum, but are not Scrum. The Scrum Master is a role which is explicitly defined in the Scrum Guide, but there is nothing there claiming they are there to "drive" anything, only be "true leaders who serve the Scrum Team and the larger organization." The retrospective is defined in the Scrum Guide, but its precise form is left undefined.
> A vicious alternative is to make using side channels harder

If people are looking to side channels, that is a signal. Ignoring that, ignoring that people are trying to find ways to do their jobs effectively - I think seems to be missing the point.

> If some team members already have experience with code reviews - adjust their workload so that they can do more reviews. They are effectively training others by example.

This can backfire. Suddenly it's just a few (potentially just one or two) team members doing all of the code reviews. They feel pressure to not be the blocking part of shipping, their reviews are then done hastily. They LGTM rubber stamp stuff from the other seniors and probably punt on reviewing the other reviews until the next day. They struggle to get their own work done, 2 hours a day code reviewing is a huge impact (if reviewing work from 2 other developers, who have been jamming out code for 6, 8, 10 hours in one day - it will take 2 hours to review that the next day).

> - Make sure that code changes under review are reasonably sized. Encourage submitting changes for review early and often. "Here is the feature I worked on for 3 months, and it's due on Friday, please review" won't make anybody happy.

On the other side of the coin, "Hey, review this really quickly so I can give you a series of 4 more changes in the next two hours, before finally sending the update that does the thing."
I agree that false advertising would upset me...what on that Proton "impact" page is actually false, though?

And in what way would FastMail not be impacted by analogous events? https://www.itnews.com.au/news/fastmail-loses-customers-face...

I do agree that the value of email encryption for 99% of users is overstated, given the fundamental nature of email communications to begin with.
I had to do a quick check if python do have teeth and thus use braces. My initial thought was that they do not as the most prominent teeth on snakes are fangs and python are not venomous. They do have teeth for holding their pray as they constrict it.

Pythons use their sharp, backward-curving teeth, four rows in the upper jaw, two in the lower, to grasp prey which is then killed by constriction; after an animal has been grasped to restrain it, the python quickly wraps a number of coils around it. Death occurs primarily by cardiac arrest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythonidae
Yeah if you need this it's definitely a sign you shouldn't be using Bash.

Can you give a concrete example of when this is the sanest option?
Negative leap seconds will mean that there will be UNIX timestamp value that is invalid. What should systems do when they encounter such value? Generally UNIX time -> UTC conversion is considered to be infallible, negative leap changes that.
The brighter the light the darker the surrounding darkness. And Chomsky's light is so very bright.
My team is kind of a miniature qntm fan club. We include copies of antimemetics as a new employee gift.
Please do.

We need renewables, yes, but we also need an almost-zero-pollutant power source that can be ramped up and down as needed when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

And yes, modern non-breeder reactors produce very little significantly radioactive waste. That even trends to zero when you recycle those leftovers through Thorium reactors - the waste from those reactors is only mildly radioactive for a few hundred years.

Let’s have solar and wind and hydro (where possible) first, sure, but an extensive network of nuclear power plants must be our well-implemented backup plan.
> ULTRA has been deployed to an undisclosed location

Says the subtitle of the image with the very distinctive view of the Al Dhafra Air Base's control tower.
Not the least that you should get the same result from your code every time, even if you compile it with a different compiler. Doesn't matter if that result is somehow better or worse or “difference is so small that it doesn't matter”; it needs to be exactly the same, every time.
> And what's your proposal for getting that energy to the EU from Australia?

Are you trolling? Obviously the same. Why would it possibly be anything other than the same?

> And who's providing your day if you're busy providing someone else's night?

Again, are you taking the piss? Because the only way you're not trolling here, is if you're guilty of what you accuse me of: You underestimate the size of the Earth.

There's plenty of room to do both.

As in, several thousand times over.

> Oh, I doubt it. I keep seeing how people keep pretending that night doesn't exist or how it's easy to provide EU's electricity from Australia during the night.

If you're constantly arguing with a whole host of other people, which is more likely: that they're all idiots who don't know about one of the more fundamental aspects of living on a planet, or that you're misunderstanding their points?

Hint: I did not say "easy", I said "I don't expect anyone will do in the next 15 years" and priced it at hundreds of billions of dollars and even then requiring political collaboration.

15 years is the minimum time in the best case, not the default.

> I'm still waiting to hear an actual solution to getting continuous 107GW of power from Australia to the EU.

You've already got one.

> Oh, at the same time keeping up with fluctuating energy demand, frequencies etc.

DC.

> And not a fantasy of redirecting Earth's entire aluminium output to building a single 40 000-kilometre cable.

Output for one year for something that, from other examples, lasts about a century.

> Something tells me those cars need to be charged somehow, this is probably done by another 40 000 km cable from Australia.

Again, are you trolling? Because that was an alternative to a global power grid.

If you've got those batteries then because the battery is itself the storage system it doesn't care when it gets charged, so it doesn't matter if you can only charge them in your own local daytime as they last through the night and to the next day (and for most people, days plural) anyway.

> This also assumes that all of those cars and busses and trucks are somewhat continuously and consistently plugged into energy grids, with no disruptions, which is not true:

It's not making any such assumption, it's the capacity to build that much battery in the first place, not where the batteries actually are.

> Quick googling didn't reveal any such proposal for a ~12000-kilometre cable.

15,000 km, not 12,000:

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/building-a-2...

> The longest proposal is to connect Morocco to Britain with a 3800-kilometre cable, and even that will be an engineering feat of epic proportions if it's not scam/vaporware

Epic, yes.

That's why I'm setting the minimum time for a global grid as pessimistically as 15 years, even if it's made by a government that has a history of using this kind of project as a soft-power projection policy, that already has a project of this kind in planning, and using (1 year/15 years = 6.666…%) ~7% of the aluminium that the world would otherwise be expected to produce in that timeframe.
> I'm not sure whether being able to forcibly wake up is typical or not for people dreaming lucidly, but I've never had much trouble doing it.

REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep has paralysis on every part of your body except one part: Your eyes. As such, anyone can indeed force themselves away by attempting to open their eyes. Note though that you can "open" your eyes and it still be a dream, so you have to be sure open your eyes in real life, which requires actually physically moving the muscles.

There is of course also other ways of doing it, but this is probably the most universal and has an associated logic to it.
Your understanding of these issues seems entirely colored by incendiary headlines and the communities around them.

If you want a deep dive into Supreme Court rulings and what they actually say, give the Advisory Opinions podcast a chance. Seriously.

I'm not sure yet that I agree with the decision on presidential immunity on official acts, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Ultimately it categorized what sort of presidential act is immune from future consequences and what is not, and punted the decision back to the court. It never said that any of Trump's actions he's on trial for were considered official acts.

The other two decisions - Chevron and the Jarkesy/SEC one - literally weakened executive power and strengthened the legislative branch and the right to fair trial. This seems counter to your point. I mean, how do you even defend the SEC side that you shouldn't have a right to a jury trial before significant financial penalties are levied on you.

Chevron allowed every new president place new administrators in charge of the regulatory state and reinterpret guidance on a whim every few years. This wrecked chaos on stable business-making. Chevron made sense originally, but today it's been abused by every president. I can't imagine a better outcome than to force congress to make laws that set a clear course for regulation.

I cannot emphasize this enough: Chevron being overturned weakens executive power. Full stop.

The court isn't nearly as ideologically split as you think. Erlinger v US had Kavanaugh, Alito, and Brown Jackson on the same side in dissent, which leaves you a clue about who the other liberal justices sided with.

Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, sided with the majority in support of the Jan 6th defendants on the obstruction case, while Barrett, a Trump appointee, was in the dissent.

If the majority of what I told you was new information to you, what does that tell you about the journalists who produce the information you consume? My solution: stop consuming news, and start consuming critical content, so you at least start to understand the reasoning behind the decisions that you feel so inflamed by.

Project 2025 is a wish list in the form of a very boring book from Heritage Foundation. Have you actually read it, or have you been told about what's in it? I disagree with the vast majority of it, but it's not an anxiety inducing, democracy ending document as headlines make it out to be. It's a policy proposal wishlist. Speaking of Chevron, Proj 2025 becomes way harder to execute with Chevron overturned, as it relies on the unchecked power of the administrative state to succeed.
If you downshift with RPM too high, UI breaks off and falls to floor of screen

Whole Page turns red when you hit RPM limit

Shift score. Can you pick the perfect shift point based on sound alone?
This has no weight to it but is just sort of my anecdotal perception, my feeling from googlers I know directly or indirectly feels like, I guess I would say a lot are really vigilant of career risk?

The vibe I always get is that they won't hesitate to abandon stuff that doesn't get huge fast, but a big part is that the manager or teams don't want to get stuck with something that isn't a juggernaut or obviously on its way.

And heck, maybe that is just everywhere, but anecdotally at google, from an outside observer, it looks like the culture dictates being on the 'Big Thing' is how you succeed there.
Broadly, what marketing is saying is “AI.” There is huge value being created with deep learning today on internal systems. Recommenders, machine translation, computational photography… it is huge, improves people's lives, drives revenue.

None of that is marketed as "AI." It's just a thing the computer does. The single most valuable application of deep learning so far (content recommenders) is a cultural phenomenon, but it’s not referred to as “AI” but rather “the algorithm.”
Is significant whitespace good or bad? Maybe 3/7/2024 is finally the day we get to the bottom of this.