skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you accumulate enough levels in D&D, you can destroy entire armies and tackle literal gods.

This is largely an invention of modern D&D, though. This was 100% not the case in OD&D, or stock AD&D 1E. Splatbooks in 1E added significant power level to characters, particularly after the success of the Dragonlance modules, including some truly ridiculous stuff like the power progression in the H1-H4 books. But before that point you were playing adventurers, not heroes.

Even in 2E you could still play more like adventurers, though it was clear the preference for heroic gameplay was the new norm. It wasn't until 3E that the adventuring playstyle was really made impossible.

> where the master would tailor a series of increasingly challenging but killable encounters until you got to destroy an epic, ridiculously powered villain at the end of the campaign.

The original decade or so of D&D really didn't even have the idea of campaigns ending or building up to an epic showdown with the big bad evil guy. Gygax wrote extensively of campaigns as settings, and the sort of campaigns he (and Arneson) ran wouldn't even allow for this sort of showdown, because they were more like gaming clubs. They had dozens of people playing in the campaign regularly at any given time, often across multiple characters, split into multiple groups, etc. They were big persistent worlds. There would be no way to make a specific showdown or progression like this enjoyable for that sort of group - you could never get all 30-50 people together at once, and even if you could, there's no way to make that manageable for actual play, and you wouldn't want all of the players not involved in the final showdown to feel like their years of play had ultimately missed out on the climax.
Well, he rolled up to the same director and was the most senior engineer under that director, so it was a little bit his business.

And, like I said it was only semi scolded: he came to me and quietly said something like, "you guys don't seem very busy", which I took to mean "why are you loudly brainstorming future work when the guys in the next row of cubes over haven't slept in 36 hours?"

My answer was, "All our stuff is working."
Yeah, but the question is really about how the app was presenting it. If it was making anything that sounded like a health claim...
I work more at home, no distractions. Oh and a desk rather than going to get one. And a couple of monitors. And no need for headphones in a meeting.

Your inability to separate work from non work is your problem.
MKBHD feeds the worst aspects of consumer culture.
You don't lose your HealthKit data when your AppleID gets banned. The data is still on your phone.

You can also backup your phone outside of iCloud.
You need to own that or buy someone else's compute to run any LLM. The marginal cost of the open local models is free.
>It's like when discussing communism with some diehard fans - when you point out the flaws, the response is always "well that wasn't real communism that's why it failed".

Nitpicking, but the Soviet Union, for example, never claimed they were already a communist state. They were the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics". Their idea was that, to have communism, you must have a transitional form of government first, "socialist government". The USSR even once had a motto, "we will build communism by 1980".

It's like if someone said they were following some other development process which would eventually lead them to Scrum. But no one does that and just calls it Scrum :)
AppRunner: A Tmux-Based CLI Tool to Launch Multiple Apps Simultaneously
We actually have a lot of data on Ozempic and GLP-1s generally, going back to the first GLP-1 FDA approval in 2005:

• Exenatide - FDA approved in 2005

• Liraglutide / Saxenda - FDA approved in 2010

• Dulaglutide / Trulicity - FDA approved in 2014

• Semaglutide / Ozempic/Wegovy - FDA approved in 2017

• Tirzepatide / Mounjaro - FDA approved in 2022

Ozempic / Semaglutide was FDA approved in 2017, but clinical trials started in 2008. That was 16 years ago. Obviously it's always possible there are even longer term side effects we're unaware of, but generally if this class of drug caused large scale problems for kidneys, liver, etc, we'd likely know by now.
From the same website, other FAANG offers more. For quite some time while I was there, my peers with the same industry experience were earning 50-100% more than myself at Google and Meta.

Also keep in mind Amazon is headquartered in Seattle, which is far from a cheap area, and of the 5 submitters to levels.fyi for sde3 Seattle new hires in the last 6 months, the range is 250k-425k.

Take into account that an L6 who started from L4 normally has the scope and competence of a Staff engineer at Google, it makes sense to me.

If all you wanted was money, you could do even better by going into finance or OpenAI and work your life away until you can't anymore. It's just not sustainable for most people long term, no matter what the pay is, which itself is less than many contemporaries in the same "class".
> Does that mean I should be fired for their decision to move to a lower cost jurisdiction when I can provide the same value?

No, but if you think you can ask for more money for providing the same value, good luck to you. Or you might’ve been lowballing yourself up to this point and you’ll get a yes. Who knows.

> I think in practice it ends up being "is this a hot job market or not" and if yes, then the employee gets to dictate, and if not the employer does. This doesn't really resolve the underlying issue though

I guess I just don’t see an underlying issue. If you want something ask for it and then decide what to do when you get your answer. That’s the resolution.

> I think a simpler model is just to allow employees to expense commute costs at the ~IRS rate.

You can do this already! Submit an expense report to your employer. If you’re valuable enough, I guarantee it’ll get paid. If you’re not, it won’t. If you think, “But I am that valuable and it still didn’t get paid” then you’ve learned you’re not as valuable as you think.
“I’ve termed”? People have been calling him that for 20+ years.

I disagree with the characterization.
> It takes huge amounts of money to get people to try something new, and this invariably leads to amazing conservatism on the part of publishers.

This is purely the fault of enshittifying the mobile gaming experience.

I moved through various genres like Puzzle and Dragons, Clash of Clans, Clash Royale, etc.

Each one of those games was a lot of fun because initially they left a path to play them with skill instead of money. Putting together a set of characters to beat the tough bosses in Puzzle and Dragons required a lot of skill to get the big combos you would need since you were underpowered. Clash of Clans was neat because you couldn't make a castle to protect against everything and someone with some skill could probably get an extra star off you with some work (I was really good at timing the placement of dragons against the algorithms to exploit seams and make higher leveled players cry). I had a Clash Royale deck based on Golems and Lightning that would win about 30% of the time even against players who had super powerful decks (I was casting things before stuff even hit the field in anticipation of what players would do and timing the delay from the system--sure it was high risk but also high reward).

Alas, the siren call of the microtransaction is strong. People who spend money expect to win and complain when they don't. Those games eventually all nerfed any skill-only paths. And then they expanded to make massive purchasing the only real path toward higher levels.

And that led me to stop playing mobile games altogether. There is no point. If a game is money or gacha, it's completely not interesting. If a game has a skill path, it will get nuked post haste as soon as the publisher figures out that it exists.

The only winning move is not to play.
Seems plausible, from what I know of management.

Why do you think tech workers have upper-middle pay but not upper-middle social class or perks (until wfh, partially)? Tribal us-vs-them behavior. Not reductive, just what it is. Can’t let a new group rise into that class just as the MBAs and finance guys are wrapping up kicking doctors and lawyers out.
I think the point is that anyone can enter the AI cloud market to compete with the fat cats if they get too pricy. NVIDIA's de-facto standards are the closest thing to a market moat. If AI ends up highly tied to NVIDIA's standards, then NVIDIA could become the Microsoft of AI. It's hard to know how tool chains will evolve to answer that though, it's new territory. (It could be all moot if the bots take over and eat us humans. I taste like chicken.)
I think GameCube GPU was ArtX bought by ATI then ATI bought by AMD.
The author of this paper recently won an ig nobel award for this research. Here is an interesting interview with him:
https://theconversation.com/the-data-on-extreme-human-ageing...
You watch too many Marvel movies it seems
Example of the sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agShdo4yxxA&t=36s
It’s not that execs have investments but if a company spends hundreds of millions of dollars on half-empty buildings, they look bad and are losing money on the investment.
Is this why I see the “Something went wrong - Retry” dialogue about fifty times a day now?
While your guess is as good as mine. I can see that the screen sharing feature goes beyond what is currently possible with 3rd party mirroring tools, including apple's own earlier tools. For example right clicking brings up extensive contextual menus that aren't accessible in iOS, and I can see these also leverage the continuity features between the platforms.
The bus test isn’t supposed to apply to new projects. All of them fail the bus test, that’s illogical. Also, it’s not a real test, it’s a thought exercise.
Because working in an office at most tech companies sucks, and now that it isn't the norm, there's no good reason to accept that it should be.

If you work in-office for an American tech prime, there's a good chance your office is in one of the following cities: SF, LA, Seattle, NYC, Chicago, Houston, DC. Commuting in all of these cities is absolutely miserable. It benefits neither you nor your employer to spend multiple hours per day not working, not tending to personal matters, but simply getting to and from a job you could just as easily do at home.

If you're a parent, working from home makes it easier to be present as a parent. Commuting can be exhausting, and the energy saved by working from home can be put towards your kids.

It makes the logistics of everyday tasks easier. Because I no longer piss away 20 hours a week on the L going into downtown Chicago, I now have 20 more hours per week to work out, do the laundry, buy groceries, and cook healthy meals. This is a flat-out benefit of remote work that simply cannot be offered by any employer that demands in-office work. Paychecks can't buy time.

Tech companies are also are prone to the most backwards forms of "modern office design," which universally result in a distracting and uncomfortable work environment. There's also research to suggest that they result in higher rates of illness among workers [1]. So, even if your commute doesn't suck, there's a good chance your office does suck.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't be allowed to work in an office if you want to. I sure as hell don't. I'm happier, healthier, and more productive than I ever was in an office environment.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10269830/
Why are there so many people obsessed with this.
Internet killed local newspapers. They lost the geographic monopolies
playstation 6 already?
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act law of 2017 that created this mess was passed during the Trump admin and went into effect in 2022:

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/tax-and-accountin...

Just in case folks weren't sure who the parent comment was accusing.

(Parent was telling folks not to vote for Trump, right?)
Yes, I think there's a big distinction between "Execs think being in office is better for culture/productivity" VS "Execs have data that proves being in office is better for culture/productivity."

I believe the first one is true, but not the second.
This sounds much more likely to me than the revenge narrative.
As you might expect, it's an exceptionally effective cough suppressant.
Those are all Google, argsnd is talking about Apple. But I'm sure one can get randomly banned by Apple as well.
wow.. that is messed up.
I've also found this useful: https://ahmet.im/blog/minimal-init-process-for-containers/

And this looks really good: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems
I can't figure out why you would approach the problem this way. If you want arbitrary HTTPS connections to be verifiable and provable, why not just propose an edition to the spec which does this? This seems easier than the proposed solution, which is to introduce a trustworthy middle man to all of your online purchases. It also seems to imply the request query path is public data when this is encrypted under HTTPS afaik.
FYI: The story title should be "Opensourcing Reclaim Protocol" not "How to make HTTPS verifiable"

> All data is routed through an HTTPS Proxy, which records the direction of data transfer without reading the encrypted content.

squints

> Certain parts of the request and response that are publicly known are revealed: For responses: HTTP response code and Date headers. For requests: Domain, Path, and Connection headers.

Um, domain (the Host header after establishing the connection), path, and headers (including Connection) are all encrypted. They claim this is public information but it's not.

I need more time to read into things but I'm skeptical thus far.
JohnBooty, you sound like someone I'd enjoy working with. Sounds like you have your head screwed on correctly.
I'm sure there's a sensible middleground between never using big words vs. using them only to add complexity.
People have finally realised having non technical managers in charge of highly technical systems is a waste of time. Hook AI up to a Jira board and let the engineers do their thing.
> If anything, under Cook, Apple more consistently achieves near-perfection. Tolerances are tighter. Ship dates seldom slip.

I'm surprised that Gruber doesn't mention the fact that Apple is now in the habit of announcing products or features 6+ months before they ship, both software and hardware (not talking about things like the iPhone which have to be submitted to the FCC). And sometimes, they never ship at all (see AirPower). This would never happen under Jobs.

Also, while Steve Jobs straight up lied in order to protect future announcements (i.e. 'we're not making a video iPod', Tim Cook will say things like 'we are very interested in the AR/VR space' for close to a decade before announcing any products).
Are those tears really from laughter, or are you laughing through the tears?

The original post I was responding to was about people who get upset about Ozempic who "show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs." Maybe the poster did include HN as a place of those discussions, but I interpreted it as in general, in other internet spaces and in meatspace.

I then posted a similar fallacious argument that I felt paralleled it because ultimately they're both arguments out of a perceived lack of personal responsibility being "rewarded" by a quick fix.

You chose to introduce logic and reason by arguing that opposition to student loan debt forgiveness is motivated by the complainers becoming bag-holders. I agree that might be a (strong) motivation, but it is not the only one, because many people become busybodies when it comes to attacking others' personal (ir)responsibility when those others receive a windfall. "Taking the easy way out."

This subthread might have been a meandering road, but we have arrived right at where we started, with you bizarrely attacking a critique that I do not believe in, out of sheer pedantry perhaps.

Now, are you going to attempt a defense, a refutation, or whatever, or continue to hurl insults that both flout the guidelines of this forum and only serve to demean yourself?
"Get a quote." Cue Bugs Bunny: "Nooooo."
What's the upside for them?
Fair enough but that's not fantasy.
I don’t care about references from that dog shit place filled with micromanagers and corporate grinders working on projects that have no meaning and add zero value to company and the world. Hence, silent quitting. RTO just gave me the push to move on from the bullshit.

> From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work

Corporate profits tell another story

> People aren’t as invested in the company and they produce worse results

Anecdotal. What backs up this claim? Just your personal experience? What’s your data?

> companies could figure out how to keep productivity and quality up while not paying rent I’m sure they would, it’s just nobody has figured out how to do that on a large scale yet

What do you think happened during COVID-19…

Have seen many companies reduce their corporate building costs due to shift to remote work. In some cases, it was eliminated entirely the following year.
But it’s not changing the world. It seems to be doing very poorly, at least partially due to Apple’s policies. The price obviously doesn’t help.
Their email server likely signs their emails using DKIM.
I replaced my old Thinkpad T530 that has been my daily machine for software development (Python, Docker, Java, workflows, some HPC work) by a Framework 13 AMD about two months ago.

So far everything worked fine. I've limited the battery at 60% as I work with it plugged into power most of the time. I use earphones most of the time, but when I had to use the speakers they were alright.

Camera, keyboard, and trackpad are good too (better than what I've been using). And I haven't had any issues with the monitor hinges (not sure if lucky, or newer batches have the problem fixed).

Once my CPU fans got really excited with some containers and kernel upgrade running in parallel, and wouldn't go off. I restarted it (I had a decent number of tabs open too, to be honest), and then it quieted down.

I limit the CPU performance as I use it for programming (have IntelliJ, WebStorm, and PyCharm open at the same time sometimes, with Firefox with 20 to 40 tabs, and sometimes containers running in the background, and SSH connections to servers. Everything works fine. If I open Blender or something else like a game, then the fans definitely wake up and kick in.

But otherwise very quiet, and the performance is good enough for me. It came with the latest bios installed, and I had no issues installing drivers (Ubuntu 24.04, and using XFCE BTW, everything working OK). So, so far a happy user.
>empire building

I've been here about the same amount of time. Also L4-L6. I'll echo your "empire building" comment. That, above all else, seems to be the root of the evil. Managers need "scope" to get promoted. They get scope by building an empire. That leads to programs and initiatives and new processes without any connection to customer value. They only exist to be a line item on a promo doc. It is a topic of endless and open complaint that ICs get sucked up into some manager's "promo project."

The big shift seems to be that only a subset of people are talking about producing value. The majority are talking about being seen as producing value.
Amazon Tells Corporate Workers to Be Back in the Office 5 Days a Week
You can get a second hand MacBook Air 16GB with Apple silicon from a couple of years ago for about $1,000 and get a decent performance from Llama 3.1
>This one's a silly conspiracy theory, most executives don't have heavy investments in commercial real estate, at least not directly... residential has been so much more profitable for decades now

What you're replying to doesn't specify commercial.

If you know any executives, you know they own multiple homes. You can connect the dots here between a rise in real-estate prices in tech hubs and RTO directives.

Plus this isn't even about individual executive investments. It is about corporate investments, and duty to shareholders.
So long as they don't take my stapler.
Yeah. What I've seen personally is that normalizing rarely coming into an office means that a lot of people essentially stop coming in even if maybe coming in half the time and doing off-sites actually makes a lot of sense. People just make coming into an office an exceptional event and if other people they know aren't there, why bother? Latterly, if I came into my nominal work location 30 minutes away, I would not know or work with a single person there.

And it may even be understandable to the degree that they end up moving a couple hours away so now it's a huge pain for them and their co-workers to get together. You don't need commercial real-estate conspiracy theories.
If the work doesn't produce a viable business then the org is most certainly in trouble no matter where people are.

If the work does produce a viable business and management just wants to squeeze more out of people then I think it is a different problem.

I agree a good business operates on trust. I also agree with other posters that the current business norms of mass layoffs during record profits, PIPs, "managing out", clawbacks, and all the other abuses have clearly shown the trust isn't there the way folks claim "the good old days" used to be.

I dont think lying about your employment, intentionally sandbagging, or cheating your employer are ethical behavior but I sure see why folks feel like being the nice guy is a surefire path to exploitation.

I personally would like to see a normalization of very different employment contracts that do a better job of balancing the two sides. I assume this means a return to strong unions (although plenty of issues there as well; certainly no silver bullet).

tl;dr With "make us enough profit and we'll probably fire you tomorrow" always looming over your shoulder I understand why loyalty to a company has dried up.
> invoking seasoned professional authors is just silly when the topic is amateur blogging

It's all communication. Obviously there is nothing wrong with someone blogging haphazardly, just as there is nothing wrong with writing a web app in Brainfuck.
The problem with choosing Nvidia is that they can't make an x86 processor with an integrated GPU. If you're looking to maintain backward compatibility with the Playstation 5, you're probably going to want to stick with an x86 chip. AMD has the rights to make x86 chips and it has the graphics chips to integrate.

Nvidia has graphics chips, but it doesn't have the CPUs. Yes, Nvidia can make ARM CPUs, but they haven't been putting out amazing custom cores.

AMD can simply repackage some Zen X cores with RDNA X GPU and with a little work have something Sony can use. Nvidia would need to either grab off-the-shelf ARM Cortex cores (like most of their ARM CPUs use) or Sony would need to bet that Nvidia could and would give them leading-edge performance on custom designed cores. But would Nvidia come in at a price that Sony would pay? Probably not. AMD's costs are probably a lot lower since they're going to be doing all that CPU work anyway for the rest of their business.

For Nintendo, the calculus is a bit different. Nintendo is fine with off-the-shelf cores that are less powerful than smartphones and they're already on ARM so there's no backward incompatibility there. But for Sony whose business is different, it'd be a huge gamble.
One big difference is Uber only has a few peers and became instrumental before the realities of market size caught up to them.

But every hyperscale data center owner is investing for themselves, major companies capable of the R&D are investing in their own science, and the market for LLMs is slow to materialize relative to the hype. That's money that might have gone to OpenAI if their situation was similar to Uber's.
What Does the Longest-Running Study on Happiness Reveal?