skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good points, and eye-rolling stuff for teams thaqt don't understand the intricacies. For instance:

- burn-down / velocity charts: Teams use this at standups to make sure their sprint isn't drifting. That's why a burn-down should be tracked in hours and not points. With points, the data isn't actionable in a reasonable amount of time. The the team sees a problem, they might make use of a pre-determined emergency procedure to address it.

- retrospectives: Yeah most retrospectives are horrible. Retros should be like post rocket test - examine your telemetry deltas to see what changed (edge cases, governance,compliance, desgn, etc.) These conversations are not forced, but good teams always repeat the same data analysis unless they intentionally change it.

- poker sessions: Yeah this is totally misunderstood. Pointing stories is about snap reactions to comparing difficulties and complexity, and that's it, move on. Teams will tighten up estimates when they do an implementation plan in sprint planning. So they don't sweat estimates.

- daily stand-ups: The whole team is responsible for the sprint backlog, nothing is assigned, everything is volunteered. So if you're working on something that is going south, or you have some extra capacity, let your team know about it. The team will work together to scale capacity to get things done, which is how they can disappear on Friday afternoons.

- user stories and related tickets (eg in JIRA): Well yeah, Jira sucks. So do all the other major backlog tools. Jira gets addins, but the fundamental approach to backlog development hasn't changed in a decade. (I'm working on a soln from scratch, btw).

Also, user stories are meant to be work-items with enough signal so they can be executed with certainty in a sprint. So that means a lot of refinement to the left of the story must occur to get rid of the noise (epics to features to stories to tasks). Once a team says a story meets their definition of ready, that story can be scheduled for a (timely) sprint. Team members may be doing hard-core story refinement because of some technical hurdles, so their time outside of development during sprint can be pinned down with the team's capacity plan. BTW, capacity plans and implementation plans belong solely to the team. They're nobody else's business, including managers to CEOs.
The part of "tech" which is ad-driven has become both boring and seriously annoying. Unfortunately, that's where the money is.

There are interesting things going on:

* Self-driving cars finally work. San Francisco is full of them. Next step is to get the cost down and replace those rotating scanners with something cheaper. At least the ones that aren't on top.

* Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations is just, maybe, starting to work. Maybe. We're getting close to Amazon warehouses, at least, going fully automatic. We might get more general purpose automated factories. This has been expected since the 1950s, but this time it might happen. Neural nets are better and cheaper now.

* Electric cars. For new car sales, 10% in US are electric. 20% worldwide. 50% in China. US is way behind.

* Flying cars. The scaled-up drone flying cars actually work. First commercial deployment in China. Range is limited, but good enough to get VIPs around congested cities.

* Batteries. Solid-state batteries still are not available in quantity, because the manufacturing process is hard.
At least five major companies are working on it. Somebody will crack that. They will not be in the US.

* Metals. Lots of sources found for rare earths. Electric powered basic steel has been demonstrated.

* Medical. AIDS drugs are in good shape. Diabetes may be next. There's been real progress on some kinds of cancer. Even obesity can be cured.
If you wanna put people into boxes, I am northern Vietnamese - Australian
$ date +%w
0
$ cat foo.sh
#!/usr/bin/env sh
set -x
set -eu -o pipefail
echo "start of script"
echo "start of pipe" | cat | false | cat | cat
if [ "$(date +%w)" = "0" ] ; then
echo "It's sunday! Here we do something important!"
fi
$ sh foo.sh
+ set -eu -o pipefail
+ echo 'start of script'
start of script
+ echo 'start of pipe'
+ cat
+ false
+ cat
+ cat
$

Notice how the script exits, and prints the last pipe it ran? It should have printed out the 'if ..' line next. It didn't, because the script exited with an error. But it didn't tell you that.

If you later find out the script has been failing, and find this output, you can guess the pipe failed (it doesn't actually say it failed), but you don't know what part of the pipe failed or why. And you only know this much because tracing was enabled.

If tracing is disabled (the default for most people), you would have only seen 'start of script' and then the program returning. Would have looked totally normal, and you'd be none the wiser unless whatever was running this script was also checking its return status and blaring a warning if it exited non-zero, and then you have an investigation to begin with no details.

> IMO it's good defensive practice to start scripts with "-e" and pipefail.

If by "defensive" you mean "creating unexpected failures and you won't know where in your script the failure happened or why", then I don't like defensive practice.

I cannot remember a single instance in 20 years where pipefail helped me. But plenty of times where I spent hours trying to figure out where a script was crashing and why, long after it had been crashing for weeks/months, unbeknownst to me. To be sure, there were reasons why the pipe failed, but in almost all cases it didn't matter, because either I got the output I needed or didn't.

> it's preferable to fail with inadequate output than to "succeed" but not perform the actions expected by the caller.

I can't disagree more. You can "succeed" and still detect problems and handle them or exit gracefully. Failing with no explanation just wastes everybody's time.

Furthermore, this is the kind of practice in backend and web development that keeps causing web apps to stop working, but the user gets no notification whatsoever, and so can't report an error, much less even know an error is happening. I've had this happen to me a half dozen times in the past month, from a bank's website, from a consumer goods company's website, even from a government website. Luckily I am a software engineer and know how to trace backend network calls, so I could discover what was going on; no normal user can do that.
> It’s a communication failure

Ten thousand percent. When I read the article earlier they made the email something to the tune of "CF engineering says your account is seriously messing up our network. contact us to resolve this"

and it was a sales call. scummy as hell to get your kpis
That must be 0.00001% of all people who want a computer language timeline.
correct, it is not
On the other hand, the most financially successful set of films in film history(MCU) takes place in a self acknowledged multiverse.
But Managers as the center of the scrum is how many, many tech companies the outside world wouldn't call crappy run things. They also use Jira, mostly because they want reports that let people two or three levels up think they have any control over anything.

One of my least favorite standups was even worse than a ceremony for the manager: The manager and the Product representative were there in every single one, but they didn't actually pay any attention: Another 20+ minutes of "parking lot" would be added after the 5-10 minute process as they asked the team all the random questions they thought they needed, in which they also proved that they weren't actually paying attention to the actual updates, or the tickets, or anything. In practice, a sequence of 1:1 meetings where everyone was stuck watching, because after inquisition to one person, it'd come after another.

In practice, I don't think I've seen scrum run without a manager in standup, ever.
"We're talking about running Tumblr's back end on WordPress"
The older recordings are not encoded with the Arbitron type artifacts. New ones may be.

When I compare new vs old, this comes up.

Broadcasters put data in band and have done so for what? A decade now? You mentioned out of band tracking data. I am saying there is also in band data.

Sorry to be unclear.

It is perceptually encoded to ride along with the audio and intended to be inaudible. And it largely is!

It is in band so that AD targeting can be done anywhere audio is played aloud. Say a radio station plays the old tune. It adds its signature to the audio stream which can then be picked up by someone using a tracking device at the local fair, for example.

Adding it to the tunes themselves can do the same for someone using a boom box or some speaker and give some sense of play outside streaming counts, like where exactly are those streams being heard? Your local coffee place might be a likely candidate.

I know the part about radio adding the artifacts is real and old news now. Pretty much all broadcast audio contains it.

The artifacts I hear on some remasters sound a whole lot like those I began hearing on broadcast audio. And back then, I asked and was told nicely how it all worked. Pretty clever tech actually.

I cannot always hear it. Usually, it has to be material I know well and have heard sans encoding. Or, a voice I know well from a time before encoding. It is just different enough to notice for me and some others I have talked with.
This looks a lot like FocusWriter which is much more lightweight and doesn't depend on electron, so it is only about 6 MB instead of 60 MB.

https://gottcode.org/focuswriter/
They fracture the granite and prop it open with sand or other materials, it doesn't really erode the same as surface granite, which is extremely slow to erode as is.
like a futurama striptease robot
This is the original report by ReversingLabs:
https://www.reversinglabs.com/blog/fake-recruiter-coding-tes...
They did, until they mentioned they were speaking to Fastly. Then, bye bye proxying and protection!

more of a goodbye than an ask :wink:
I think this is just a case of different people wanting to work differently (and that's fine).

I can only tell this is wrong because I fully understand it -- and if I fully understand it, why not just write it myself rather than fight against an LLM. If I was trying to solve something I didn't know how to do, then I wouldn't know it was wrong, and where the bug was.
FocusWriter: simple, distraction-free word processor
> Like what, you want giant sloth pets in Texas?

Is that so much to ask for?

It’s not like it’s going to run loose in San Diego eating people.
Its extreme in comparison to what the rest of the Elite are tweeting about daily.
Look up Fervo Energy, I think you will be surprised how quickly their method will grow and expand as they gain more experience with their current projects.
You call out 2d and mention mills and routers, so after reading the page I'm thinking I wouldn't be able to design a piece to be put in a CNC lathe ala the hub in the lower right of https://canev.com/cdn/shop/products/CEV5205_1024x1024@2x.png..., which has multiple holes (sometimes threaded), including threaded setscrew holes tangential to the primary axis.
One of my favorite moments was when my non-developer friend at a tech company asked me what scrum masters did because she could not figure out what the scrum masters did at her company. I told her the answer which is nothing.
>Years ago, a project idea I was really interested for a while was to try to write a shell in Rust that works more like PowerShell.

So this whole conversation and a different one about python and it's behavior around `exit` vs `exit()` sent me down a rabbit hole of seeing if I could make the python interpreter have a "shell like" dsl for piping around data. It turns out you sort of can. I don't think you can defeat the REPL and make a function call like `echo "foo" "bar" "baz", but you can make it do this:

netstat("-ln") | filter_by({"state":"ESTABLISHED"}) \
| group_by(["local_port"]) | count_groups \
| sort("count", descending=True) | limit(10)

And only ever parse plain text once on the input from netstat. For your amusement/horror I present "ShPy": https://gitlab.com/tpmoney/shpy
This makes no sense, there are problems that 'brilliant' programmers can solve and no number of mediocre ones ones. Just like you can't substitute Mozart with 100 mediocre composers.
Re: using your brain -- I've noticed that a lot of well-known US television news commentators seem to work in some capacity and be sharp well into their 80's. It seems like the fact that they are constantly plugged into current events keeps them going.
You might like this site:

https://evkx.net/models/hyundai/ioniq_5/ioniq_5_long_range_a...

https://evkx.net/models/volkswagen/id.4/id.4_gtx_4motion/cha...
It is always fascinates me how far people could go in a pursuit of their definition of a beauty. I'm not surprised at all when someone builds a keyboard from scratch because they do not like the arrangement of the keys: whether they are right or wrong, they see the problem and they try out a solution to it. But when people just create problems for themselves out of a thin air and insist on keeping these problems as pets, I just cannot fathom what goes in their heads.

People are wonderful beings with an infinite individual variety, one cannot claim to truly understand it.
Yeah — for God's sake I wish tech was even "all Jobs and no Woz." At least under Jobs, Apple came up with the iPod and the iPhone!

The 101 billboards are endemic of no Woz and no Jobs. Just... blandness. Beige. Cubicles updated for an open office plan.
CCI Finds Samsung, Xiaomi Colluding with Amazon, Flipkart: Report
They get paid pretty low wages so it's not even clear that AIs will be cheaper. Consider also that you still need a human to evaluate their output, make adjustments, etc.
Well, you could export enough triangles to get less than 0.0005" variance, but in practice actual CAM software will choke on it is my impression; I sent some circular objects out to be machined, but they just treated by OpenSCAD-exported files as a secondary reference for them redoing it in real software.
I appreciate the drive for a peaceful place to work, not to mention the price and weight of a MacBook.

But I want to point out a key feature of both raw macOS TextEdit and Pages.

Simply, it’s the Macs document model of “never” having to save an file and backed by a versioned file model.

Barring some disaster, you just type. If you close the computer, it picks back up where you left off (because of the battery backup keeping the memory intact). If you reboot the computer (and you have it restore your open apps), it comes right back where you left off. Finally, if you simply quit the program, it just quits and reopens, again, where you left off. No dialog boxes. No “Are you sure?”. None of that.

The key point to all this is you don’t have to manage the backing file. Your next Great American Novel can have the working name of “Untitled-1”.

At least for me, this is a great QoL feature. One less thing I have to deal with.

And it’s always there, it’s pervasive, and it’s backed up (I assume) to Time Machine (another mostly incredible set it and forget it system). I admit the relationship between this system and Time Machine is fuzzy to me because these files are system managed and not really visible outside of the application. I don’t know how to recover “Untitled-23” from Time Machine. But since it’s versioned, there’s less need for that.

Google Docs kind of has to work like this, and I don’t know how many other Mac apps adopt and leverage this subsystem. But, notably, Office, et al, don’t.

And, if I can just Shut. Up., it’s, to quote Forrest Gump, “That’s good! One less thing”.
Not yet though. I would be curious how easy it is to have both an ice and ev next gen vehicle. It’s a waste imo to have both platforms.
I like running a debfoster session every once in a while.
That's covered by guilt by association, no?
The Tip Project
When the post came out, for the first time in a long time I found myself nodding my head with Graham, because I feel like basically everyone who has worked in a company that has found some form of product/market fit and started staffing and and delegating has had the experience of watching pasteurized process cheese food faceplant trying to understand and further a sane goal a founding team got some traction with when it was smaller. Everyone has. There was something to it. But now, as usual, everyone has overindexed on everything, so we're sitting here comparing Aaron Swartz to Sam Altman as if either of them would be successful parachuted into the median immediate-post-PMF company.

As is so often the case, these stories are just vectors along which we recapitulate our existing beliefs. Woz vs. Jobs! We'll be talking about this 50 years from now, as if there was anything to learn from it.

Of course, this means the original post, the "founder mode" post, was bad. The first cut of most things is bad! I've talked to 2 people now who saw the AirBNB talk that prompted it, and both said the talk was way better than the "founder mode" post, which left both scratching their heads. Maybe someone (maybe Graham) will find a better way to distill the talk? Neither of my friends will go into more detail about that talk, so I hope someone does.

In the meantime: this all feels like drama for its own sake. Certainly, if we're talking about business and invoking aaronsw, it seems safe to guess there isn't much trenchant in this particular story. "Tech has become all Jobs and no Woz". For fuck's sake.
Could you explain this in more detail?
How to fix the recent Google Search issue
Hmm. Maybe like the group holding your assets has a centralized check and control system? Like they could operate physical locations and have staff? A novel concept.
If you ask about opinions, sure. Because there are no "true" opinions.

If you ask about the capital of France, any answer but "Paris" is objectively wrong, whether given by a human or LLM.
I never said I didn’t update my investors. I talked to them, hung out with them, and had board meetings. But I never sent formulaic investor updates.
I was trained to do waterfall in school (and also Agile). But I suppose if you are under a certain age you would have never done it.
There’s a world of difference between checking back in 6 months and daily standup meetings + a host of weekly meetings.

If you don’t trust your team to be productive for 2 weeks without communication something is deeply wrong. Individuals should be in constant communication, but few things need to be said to everyone. Scrum style management may be useful for highly dysfunctional teams, but it frequently adds a great deal of unnecessary overhead.
Right, in my experience the time it takes to verify that the code it wrote for you is correct is more than just to write it in the first place. A big exception is if you're working in a new domain (e.g., new language or framework). Then it's obviously much faster, and I do derive value from it. But I don't spend a very large % of my time doing that.

I would speculate it's a productivity boost for programmers specifically working in areas that they are new to (or haven't really mastered yet). One question I have is whether overly relying on LLMs will reduce the ability to master a domain, and thus hurt your long-term skill. It might seem silly, like complaining that no one knows assembly anymore because of compilers, but I think it's different than just another layer of abstraction.
Or drop a pin.
One hill I will utterly die on: Many people (including some in these comments) are fully able and happy to go their entire career mistaking high performing individuals with a high performing work framework.
> In big tech it's the team manager who decides that standups should happen and when (maybe this is an expectation from higher-ups).

Then it's not a SCRUM process at all. Case solved.

https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#scrum-definition

https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#daily-scrum
First consider that the internet was designed to withstand and endure attacks upon it. So long as at least one connection remains, the nodes thereof remain accessible.

Next, consider that the authority of US sovereignty ends at US borders. The US legally cannot unilaterally do anything to anything outside of its own borders.

Next, consider that both North Korea and more importantly China have no damns to give about what the US wants.

Next, consider the first point again. Any actions made domestically can and likely will be circumvented by people who do not agree with them. An obvious example is people running their own DNS servers configured in defiance of US government orders.

So to answer your question:

Is it legally feasible? No.

Is it politically feasible? No.

Is it logistically feasible? No.

Is it physically feasible? No.

Is it good that this isn't feasible? Yes.
The faintest of ink will outlast the best of memory.
> essentially the same game

Exactly the same game. All of Infocom's text adventures ran under a bytecode interpreter, with the bytecode being shared across all platforms that a game was released on. There are a number of modern interpreters for that format, too; you don't need to emulate an Apple II to play those games (unless you really want to, of course).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-machine
Have you ever seen soldering THIS close?
How do they know how many?
Yep, I get that. I was from there. My NAS is almost 10 years old now, and there are just above 60 TiB data on it, there is nothing I cannot really lose on it. I don't really have a reason to put a 20 bays NAS at home, so simple volumes turned out to be a better option. Repairing a RAID is no fun. I guess most of the ordinary home user like me should probably go with simple volumes. The cost and effort required for a RAID just doesn't justify the benefit for most home users.
Were the young latinas from the Bronx typing on MacBooks? ))
On the on hand you are right, but when you go from a max charge rate of ~70 kW (which I have actually gotten on occasion), to a max charge rate of ~170 kW (the advertised rate of the Buzz), you are going to get a very noticeable and real change in charge time.

When peak rates are similar, I agree that they don't tell you that much. When one peak rate is triple another, then the specifics of the charge curve don't matter that much, it's going to charge a lot faster.
If your goal is simply to look smart then absorbing the subtlety of what is said to you before you reply should be top of list.
That's normal nowadays, even in the most ridiculous of situations.

I once found that a system was getting a little expensive. As, AWS was billing us a million a month expensive. I figured this out, and came up with a plan that would cut it down to 80 thousand by spending 4 days: You know, a mild, 11 million a year of savings. Management insisted that the work had to go through scheduling, and intake, a process that would involve zero developers looking at anything, but would delay doing the task a month and a half.

And no, nothing the team was working on came even remotely close to that ROI. Following the process just cost an extra 1.5 million dollars.
What were they coding on in 1924?
“If that bothers you, don’t read it”

Ah, refreshing.
It's one partner for every 1/10 mm of nail.
Not as-of-yet --- it's 3-axis at the moment --- hoping to eventually add support for additional axis/axes.

Have you looked at grblgru.com ? Not opensource, but does have CNC lathe support.
Excellent point. I did not think about hallucination in this manner before.
Unfortunately since most of our jobs can be done remotely, that would likely drive a ton of software jobs overseas.
Snap-on sells a good hammer, but I've never seen their nails.
Soviet planning was based on 5 year waterfalls.
I believe this is the farthest anyone has gotten: https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/ai-solves-imo-problems...

No FLT yet, but as someone who was initially quite skeptical, I’m starting to be convinced!
In the 80s one long nail was a sign of someone who often would need a small spoon at hand.