skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I would rephrase this as "introverts are generally uninterested in pointless small talk".

This, I want to talk about something, not rehash the same comments about the weather. I don't even mind when people talk about their vacations or their kids, but I want to know interesting specific details, not nonsense generalities just for the sake of talking. I love talking to people about their careers, but I want to learn the weird minutiae that isn't common knowledge.
> Benefiting others isn't the main metric of a job for the one doing the job.

“for the one doing the job”. We are talking about the importance to the employee here, not the importance to other people. It might have a great deal of importance to other people.
Yeah, this shocked me when I learned it. The actual "deal" is the defendant agrees to plea guilty in exchange for the prosecution giving a specific recommendation of sentence. (In most cases, there are some exceptions of course)
You can find a bar with a band playing. I suggest Kingston Mines if you're in the Chicago area.

Ticketmaster doesn't own have a monopoly on music. You can vote with your wallet.
> And `;` is not an alias for end-of-line, it’s a separator for statements.

And in Python \n is not an alias for end-of-line, it’s a separator for statements.
Funnily enough, 'obstinate' was one of the first words I picked up in ESL, fresh off the boat. I loved throwing it into conversations just to practice and feel smart... And here I am, years later, reflecting on that word.
Toolbird Analytics – Yet Another Analytics Platform (Yaap)
Within the context of persistent people at the top of the decision tree, how often are persistent people labeled obstinate because they disagree with another persistent person (likely their boss) on a decision that will likely lead to 2 separate but nearly successful outcomes?
Line length is a worry because of readability. This is unrelated to the width of monitors. Having to read and visually parse a 200-character line is no fun. In addition, since most lines are relatively short, you also don’t want to have your source code window extra wide just in case, if instead you can use that space for other useful information and controls.

Also, why does your comment have a paragraph break after each sentence except after the third? Because of semantics and the related readability. The same is true for source code. Readable layout does not depend on syntactical structure alone.
When I was asked this (early in an application process) the question came with an anchored scale. That is, each number had a corresponding description. I thought it worked fine.
How hard is it to get access to a database to confirm that a scanned ID is valid, and corresponds to the name written on it?
Mouse brain research is helping us better understand human minds
> People might have tripped over thousands of them

Obviously not, because when these guys tripped over them, they were struck enough to then spend years looking for explanations.

> unlike the unknown but huge number that were not.

The more that are not documented, the more plausible it becomes that vaguely similar rituals which yield the same residue may exist in many times and places, and enter into the sum total of rituals available for birthday-paradox collision. Arguing that it must be the same with zero intervening evidence is like arguing that that because an Aboriginal word for dog is 'dog' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbabaram_language#Word_for_%22...) both Mbararam and English must be descended from the same language which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago and have remarkably preserved one word for all that time. What are the odds?!
As usual, you can do a thing relatively well or poorly. The post is describing the dumbest version of it and attacking it.

iirc, Google recruiters used to (still do? dunno) ask people to rate themselves in a bunch of areas.

* Why are you asking? So we can pick interviewers knowledgeable in the same areas you are.

* How should I rate myself? Here's a reference. 10 means you are the world expert, maybe invented the thing I just described. 9 means you literally wrote the authoritative book or are on the standardization committee. 8 means you wrote a book on it or the like...and so on.

In general, you should expect that you will discuss the things you rate yourself the most highly on with someone at Google who knows them better than you do, or at least (if you really are the world expert) one of Google's most confident people on that subject.

I think this was a useful practice, at least in the context of Google where they have a very wide interview pool and actually sometimes do interview people who literally wrote the book on something.
Rubie | Founding engineer | New York City | Full time | Onsite

Rubie is helping companies with complex software (ERPs, CRMs, etc) launch with their customers faster. We do this by automating the highly repetitive manual tasks that professional services and customer success teams perform using novel agentic infrastructure. This results in a massively faster customer implementation cycle - in the case of one of our partners, 70% faster!

We are hiring founding engineers in person in NYC. The first step in our process is completing our reverse engineering challenge, which is located here: https://ReverseEngineerThisSite.com
The battery is an internal heat source.
I think they have been downvoted because they’ve suggested a solution which is, while plausible, not very interesting, and done so in a tone that could be read as somewhat aggressive. Also, which we could not hope to have evidence for (except in an absence of evidence for any other theory).
Both, obviously.

There's no way one can say the company doesn't also have agency in the matter.
Looks like Conda is still the best package/env manager for ML engineers.
Natural gas has about 5% impurities other than methane. There's no need to change standard terminology when discussing energy.

Countries who use coal have even more emissions. 20% of US power generation comes from coal even now. More natural gas now, displacing coal, means less total emissions, even ignoring the particulate and mercury pollution from coal. So right now, natural gas reduces CO2 emissions!
I would advise you to plan out the options to the best of your ability, then have a long conversation with your spouse presenting those options.
Recursive Program Synthesis using Paramorphisms [pdf]
The problem is now you're reinventing the entire software stack of everyone you ever need to communicate with about it.

Consider how hard it is to even get people to use additional symbols, like the APL's do...
You're not the first person I've head of this idea from; it's from the NTSB charter

The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified by NTSB regulation, “accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties … and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person”

But there was plenty of blaming / faulting going around outside of the NTSB. Hence the fraud we're currently talking about where Boeing tried to blame the pilots who rather conveniently for Boeing died and are no longer around to defend themselves.

I'm glad you feel personally assured though your enthusiastic personal connections but that does not work for me. That it works for you actually makes me feel less safe flying.
The only way I'd ever answer “How would you rate your knowledge of techonolgy[sic - but c'mon, is this supposed to be a professional blog?] X out of 10?” with a 10 is if I built the technology myself, and then probably not even then as I know there's someone out there who is going to make it do things I never even imagined.
Thanks, but it doesn't come really close to the meaning I was looking for.

I find it difficult to believe that we don't have a good word for what 99+% of people are doing since puberty and allows also to express the object of the fantasy using a simple subject+verb+object type of sentence.
A manager needs to do their own CYA. If they don't, well, that's on them. But you as an individual should only focus on what you can control.
Shahed is a range of drones from Shahed company. The Shahed 136 is the one your are talking about that Iran and Russia are making thousands. As I mentioned, they are limited usefulness in naval combat.

I thought Iran was selling Russia low-cost long-range cruise missiles but hard to find article with drones and ballistic missiles. The Houthi do have copy of Iranian copy of Kh-55. The fact that rebels can build anti-ship missile, even a few, should be concerning. It means that more capable countries could build hundreds and overwhelm carrier group.

Lots of aircraft carriers have been sunk. Are you thinking of only nuclear supercarriers? Cause of there has been no war where one could have been sunk. The Forrestal fire shows that they are vulnerable to a single rocket (Navy firefighting has gotten better as result). It doesn't matter if they are scuttled if destroyed by fire.
Sounds like a marketing problem. It wouldn't be weird at all to see that at every bookstore in the country. So why isn't it there? Are you focusing on making the product better forever, instead of getting it in front of people, or tuning it to what they are most eager to pay for, or tuning the website to get more sales? What beliefs are causing you to make that mistake? Are you scared of those parts, and therefore avoiding them and convincing yourself they're not important?

It sounds like you wish to be able to live off this work, yet you're not modeling the gap between where you are and where you want to be correctly (clearly, or you wouldn't be asking for help). So yes, you are being stubborn, but that doesn't mean the project is doomed. Just that you need to step back and look at the problems holistically.
I look at something like that these days and ask "How good is it at kerning?"

There was a time when I was setting type for a lot of posters recently, something I'd done a lot in the deep past, but this time I noticed that headlines set with serifed fonts looked atrocious. Today tools like Microsoft Word, Powerpoint and even Adobe Illustrator kern terribly out of the box although I've figured out how to kern manually with Powerpoint and you do have some options in Illustrator that are better than the default.

I see people are mostly using sans-serif today and I am wondering how much of that is that kerning sucks today. I don't remember feeling offended by it in the early 1990s or the early 2000s. I don't know if the algorithms got worse (patent war?) or if I got pickier.
What does it matter? If someone disagrees with their boss on the outcome desired, there is misalignment in the company and the bottom rung will fail
> Even in vaccines this is a solved problem with fewer points of failure if you just add telemetry.

It's not a solved problem, and in fact it's a serious problem, pretty much anywhere outside the OECD.
> We don't have direct access to anyone else's reasoning. We infer their reasoning by seeing/hearing it described, then we fill in the blanks with our own reasoning-to-description experiences. When we see a model that's great at mimicking descriptions of reasoning, it triggers the same inferences, and we conclude similar reasoning must be going on under the hood. It's like the ELIZA Effect on steroids.

I don't think we know enough of how these things work yet to conclude that they are definitely not "reasoning" in at least a limited subset of cases, in the broadest sense wherein ELIZA is also "reasoning" becuase it's following a sequence of logical steps to produce a conclusion.

Again, that's the point of TFA: something in the linear algebra stew does seem to produce reasoning-like behavior, and we want to learn more about it.

What is reasoning if not the ability to assess "if this" and conclude "then that"? If you can do it with logic gates, who's to say you can't do it with transformers or one of the newer SSMs? And who's to say it can't be learned from data?

In some sense, ELIZA was reasoning... but only within a very limited domain. And it couldn't learn anything new.

> It might be the case that neural networks could theoretically, eventually reproduce the same kind of thinking we experience. But I think it's highly unlikely it'd be a single neural network trained on language, especially given the myriad studies showing the logic and reasoning capabilities of humans that are distinct from language. It'd probably be a large number of separate models trained on different domains that come together.

Right, I think we agree here. It seems like we're hitting the top of an S-curve when it comes to how much information the transformer architecture can extract from human-generated text. To progress further, we will need different inputs and different architectures / system designs, e.g. something that has multiple layers of short- and medium-term working memory, the ability to update and learn over time, etc.

My main point is that while yes, it's "just" super-autocomplete, we should consider it within the realm of possibility that some limited form of reasoning might actually be part of the emergent behavior of such an autocomplete system. This is not AGI, but it's both suggestive and tantalizing. It is far from trivial, and greatly exceeds what anyone expected should be possible just 2 years ago. If nothing else, I think it tells us that maybe we do not understand the nature of human rationality as well as we thought we did.
Hi - I'm the developer who built this with Guillermo. We started an open source org (ai-ng) to play around with ideas that use cutting-edge AI products.

I'm 16, and have only been programming for a few years, so it's a good opportunity for me to learn a lot about web development and engineering.
If a company requires you to use Authy you can't just put that into another authenticator. Yes, you the Authy app can ingest a normal TOTP QR or secret and be used the same way as those others, but their special weird 7-digit OTP thing is proprietary to them, and businesses which choose "Authy" as their only OTP solution are locking people into using this crappy, SMS-linked app.

Another reason it's terrible is for business. Lots of businesses have an account that several people will need to access (yes, it's great to have multiple user support, but not all things do, or sometimes you need a 'bot user'). With something that supports real TOTP you can put that secret into 1password (or heck, scan the code into 7 different people's phone authenticator apps). With Authy you have to pick some random person's cell phone to tie that account to, and hope they don't go on vacation.
If someone responds with “10” and fails to answer basic questions about that specific topic you know that the person is either lying or is overly confident.
Ouu good catch!
I use pip. I plan to continue using pip. If I need an isolated environment, I use conda, but then I install everything with pip. If I need to guarantee versions I pip freeze.

There's a lot of cruft and desire for a one-size-fits-all solution but the base tools are probably good enough. My setup is not the one-size-fits-all solution but it works for me, and my team, and lots of other teams.

Beware anyone who tells you that thirty years of tooling doesn't have a solution to the problem you're facing and you need this new shiny thing.*

*Playing with shiny things is fun and should not be discouraged, but must not be mandated either.
as inane as asking people their biggest weakness

"me? my biggest weakness is that I work TOO HARD!"
I see candidates putting skill level bars, e.g.

------- 1 ------- 10
C++: xxxxxxx
Python: xxxxxxxx
SQL: xxxxx

I'm not seeing any upside. Are you someone that did this, why?
> vast category of other crimes he may have committed

Which curiously have never been charged nor manifested in any form besides conspiracy theory disinformation.
I'm in a ski share house in the northeast. Last winter I organized a ski tuning clinic put on by the local ski shop that does race tunes. I thought that only the expert nerdy skiers in the house would be interested, but everyone was fascinated. Most of the attendees won't tune their own skis, but they will know what to look for in their skis, and when to take them in.

Also, in the north east, tuned skis absolutely matter, whatever level you are. My wife has been learning to ski and had trouble with ice. So I put on her beginner skis, and said, ahh no wonder, went back and tuned them. Then I put her on my slalom skis because she didn't trust her skis to initiate a turn (slalom skis are famously quick to initiate), and she could turn them quickly. Then I tuned one edge of each slalom ski with a more aggressive tune, but she could swap back to regular if she wanted. Finally, she was skidding her turns too much, so I put her on my GS skis, which forced her to patiently start the turn then follow it through. She now has a good idea of when she's having trouble with the ski shape, the conditions or the ski tune after 35 total days of skiing.

If you put a beginner or intermediate on race skis, make sure the tune is mellow enough. Slalom skis at 0.5 and 86, will hunt when not turning, and can grab an edge throwing you to the ground. At the steeper angles (86/87 vs 88/89) it is much harder to skid the ski for speed control. When you head out with a beginner, you can always bring a diamond stone and detune the tip/tail, on the mountain even. They will notice the difference and appreciate it.
I don't have enough passion to work in an industry notorious for underpaying, overworking, and exploiting passion. To make matters worse your customers can be horrifically toxic and abusive.
You should ask the following about every interview question you are considering asking:

1. What answers would lead to a hire and what answers would lead to a reject

2. Does this align with someone able/not able to do the job.

Without these the interview question doesn't provide you the information you need as an interviewer.
Seems true [0] -- as does dog. But the etymology of "boy" didn't come across as fully uncertain [1].

0: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kill

1: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boy
It's bullshit psychological gaming. Obviously 1–6 are right out. Can't pick any of those. 10 is also out. (You're not that arrogant, are you?)

So the question becomes: "7, 8, or 9?"

Still some strategy to think about here. If you answer "7", then you're saying, "I'm not that good but even I know not to answer lower than 7". Answering "9" is similar, except you're saying you know better than to go full self-aggrandizement.

Yup. Nothing of value is gleaned from this question.
Maybe my dist-upgrade got it into such a state. I'll try to check that out.
Some programming languages such as ColorForth require colours in order to work, that the meaning of a word depends on what colour it is written with.
chuckle back when I worked at Intel, a question we'd ask candidates for a C++ programming position was, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your understanding of C++?"

Anybody who gave an answer of 5 or above was an immediate no-hire :-) Because nobody is more than a 4 out of 10 on knowledge of C++.
to me,

* obstinate: same responses/approach even when presented with new information

* persistent: updated responses/approach when presented with new information
>India and China have said FU to the world and increased their coal usage.

China is building an unbelievable amount of renewables and nuclear, more than the rest of the world combined. Like every other part of the world, they're backstopping these variable power sources with fossil generation -- mainly by building modern coal power plants that can be spun down when renewable generation is high. They've also developed a framework to pay coal plants not to generate. And of course they're leading the world on the deployment and pricing of battery storage, pumped hydro and HVDC grid upgrades.

I'm posting this because your conclusion ("China has said FU" to the world) is almost the polar opposite of what's actually happening. If we survive the climate crisis, it's going to be because of what China is doing with renewable buildouts and manufacturing.
But it's still a useless question isn't it? If someone literally wrote the book on the subject then you should probably know that if you're interviewing them. And anything below 8 feels meaningless. How do you differentiate a 5 vs 6 vs 7? Why can't the answer just be "what do you know about X" instead of having to use an arbitrary number?
Huawei is ditching Android compatibility via AOSP completely and their version of Google Play Services and switching to their own ecosystem called "HarmonyOS Next" which will be pure.

The big China players like Tencent QQ support it but there is no incentive for Microsoft.
Don't really have much to add other that this is the best PG essay I've read in years, and it feels like a return to form.
there are so many other ways to figure out if a person is not an expert. like just asking them basic questions without the bs.
Live animal + tissue sample? Is that anything?
I get that crazy ideas can spread, but what is the actual concern? Are you worried about people believing the ideas, or people acting on them? If the latter, are you worried about them acting in ways that aren't already illegal?
Nice to see this writeup. Entering text into the terminal, and copying output out, is a huge barrier to entry for beginners. Windows terminals in particular feel downright antagonistic to use.
Thanks for the reply. Maybe I just don't know enough about all the scenarios. I don't know what "the domain search list" is or what user action would involve it.

I was looking more for specific dangerous use cases; for example, "The user types such-and-such in the address bar, and instead of getting this he gets that." In other words, how is this a problem in actual practice.
> I recall one cold-chain company being well known for its back-up battery because medical products are often stopped in customs, and the boxes cannot be plugged in.

This is very interesting. Is there not a problem with battery-powered devices operating in a cargo plane? The whole point of batteries is that they have a lot of energy in them, which is why they get hot while operating and sometimes simply catch fire. I thought there were a lot of restrictions on transporting them.
“Help with investigation” after the fact is why we found out Boeing buried shit. It has nothing to do with initial assumptions.
[Original poster here] I agree in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. If you really think knowing the package visibility of a static variable in Java is the critical thing to succeed in your role, then you have bigger problems.
I'm fascinated by one file solutions.

Anyone have more examples?
Do you mean "have" as in to possess a thing or to experience a thing? If someone possesses a fantasy or desire for someone it is common to say that they "lust after" that person. A person may lust after a supermodel, but that is different than a reference to that person experiencing a specific daydream about that supermodel. So it might all depend on tense.

Metaphor is also common in this area where direct description many be impolite. A person can be smitten or enchanted by someone. Or they can carry a candle.
I did this. I was a freshman in college, didn't know better, and needed to pad out my resume somehow.
I think at some point this started spreading around on blogs as "a thing you can do to separate yourself."

A lot of resume advice floating around is not good.
I chose ArangoDB because I intend to use some of its graph functionality for other projects that I have in mind. It has been a pain to use but at the end of the day it's not so bad. Copilot seems competent in writing AQL code, its native language and they have improved their documentation.