skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would say "Kati's Ecke" (urks) should look modern (and fails at that, looks like cargo cult to me) or is an unintentional error of the owner because they don't know better (maybe obligatory English lessons in school compromised the actual rules of German). I am sure it doesn't look exotic to most Germans. We actually use the apostrophe in cases where adding the possessive s is problematic. E.g. "Felix' Ecke"

There is a very ugly mix of German and English we call Denglish in German.

And there are many "English sounding" things that are not English or also a horrible mix up for marketing purposes.

E.g. Handy for smartphone. It doesn't look exotic, but English which is usually considered to be something modern.

And then there is a similar concept as the Idiotenapostroph which is the Deppenleerzeichen which is a space between combined words that are usually and famously not separated by space in correct German.

All those things are usually used in amateurish marketing and look just like that to the average German grammar enthusiast.

On the other hand especially in many professional fields English conquers the professional slang with gusto of the participants. A very hilarious take on such Denglish for software developers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c2V4bOL1jgM
"President Walt Disney Pepsi Comcast has done wonders for the economy! Being that it now is...the economy."
A) Do you pay them?
- No: then yes it is free

“But my data”
Have your ever sold your data? Would the value you could ever possibly receive for your data ever equate to the value you get from the free services?

Likely No and No.

Is the free ad supported city newspaper free? Yes it is in fact free, just like FM radio is free, and broadcast television is free, and sidewalks next to billboards are free

Someone creating something appealing and giving it away for free in order to make up for it through ads in front of eyeballs does not in any way mean that the free thing isn’t free
Pretty sure they can sue in theory. Don’t think most employers bother. But would rather not burn my bridges.

(I’m in the UK, laws may be different in your jurisdiction, etc.)

Edit: https://uk.adp.com/resources/adp-articles-and-insights/artic... says that

> Employers can take legal action if an employee breaches their notice period by leaving without providing the required notice period. They might pursue a claim for breach of contract, seeking damages for the cost of hiring temporary contractor replacements or loss incurred by a sudden departure.
No functional programming is about programming as if your code is a math equation.

In math people never use procedures. They write definitions in math in terms of formulas and expressions.

If you can get everything to fit on one line in your programming. Then you are doing functional programming.

The lack of side effects, lack of mutation and high modularity are the beneficial outcome of fp, it is not the core of what you're doing. The core of what you're doing is your defining your program as a formula/equation/expression rather then a list of procedures or steps. Of course, why you would write your program this way is because of the beneficial outcomes.

By coincidence if you write your code in a way where you just account for the side effects like deliberately avoiding mutation, IO and side effects... then your program will become isomorphic to a mathematical function. So it goes both ways.

Another thing you will note and most people don't get this is that for loops don't exist in FP. The fundamental unit of "looping" in fp is always done with recursion, just like how they would do it in mathematical expressions.
Mine has keys on all sides
Having said that... :)
... GD are very much above average musically when it comes to the popular music of the last 30 years. With those songwriting/performing chops, it's almost surprising they are a punk rock band.
I see no backlinks, no "what links to here" section.
> Suffering is the default state of man, and our current system has done far more to eradicate said suffering than any other.

This seems like gaslighting. Of all the takes, "You were meant to suffer, so if I made you suffer and then I did stuff to reduce the suffering you should be grateful" is certainly one of them.
So are parents to blame for RTO then? I’m starting to wonder as the child-free folks I know are producing more WFH than they were pre pandemic.
I’d read that…I’d love to hear an Acquired podcast on the path of Long Distance Discount Services -> WorldCom -> MCI -> Verizon. They laid down a lot of fiber.
This particular case is probably not the best example, though, given that the lack of apostrophe for "its" is inconsistent with its use for possessive case for regular nouns in the same circumstances. If we really wanted to maximize readability, we'd use apostrophe for possession everywhere (including "he's" for "his") and use something else entirely to denote the contraction of "is" and "has" - preferably two different markers since these can also be ambiguous in many cases. Or vice versa, use apostrophe for contraction and e.g. hyphen for possessive: "it's" vs "it-s" etc.
Because of the twisted mentat?
class MyException extends Exception {
@Override
public Throwable fillInStackTrace() {
return this;
}
}
Your argument is exactly a central part of the point that I raised.
This is a good point. When I started working remotely, I was really clear with my spouse that this doesn't mean that I'm suddenly available to supervise the kid, do work around the house, go pick things up at the store, and so on, just because I was physically at home. I'm still working just as if I was in the office, just without having to drive to a separate building.
I'm kind of surprised it is not still the norm. Apple, Google, MSFT have all done quite well with their non-founder leadership.
I don't see mention of someone working full-time while also doing full-time child care. I see people who have part-time child care who now need full-time, like:

> A sales-team member who's a parent said they started searching for additional childcare arrangements

and

> Under the hybrid model, one worker was able to leave the office at lunchtime to manage pickup times and shared childcare duties with their partner, who worked from home. The worker said managers were flexible about people signing on later from home to complete their hours.

> Their productivity numbers had not fallen, they added.
Playwright (and axe) is a good option, but how do I have confidence it's performing the test correctly and repeatably? If the test seems flaky how do I know it's the software and not randomness of the AI part? I want tests to be predictable.
I think right now that's not as much of an issue as the 80/46 numbers suggest. If, say, the Democrats had 80/100 votes just from representing that 46% of the population, that would be bad. But that's not how the two parties distribute right now. Big states can be Democrat (California, New York) or Republican (Texas, Florida). Small states can be Democrat (Vermont, Delaware) or Republican (the Dakotas).

The Republicans do end up with a small (up to 5%) advantage in the Senate but that's it. Nothing remotely close to the Labour party getting a near supermajority in the Commons from 34% of the vote. It's simply much much worse in practice than the situation in the United States.
For fun, I just tried to create an account and used WPEngine.com as my email domain.

I got the following error: "You cannot use that email address to signup. There are problems with them blocking some emails from WordPress. Please use another email provider."
We're in general agreement about the purpose of unit tests. I disagree on a couple of points.

Tests do not document the API. No test is complete, and for that reason alone can't completely document anything. For example, a good API might specify that "the sender must be non-null, and must be valid per RFC blah." There's no way to test that inclusively, to check all possible inputs. You can't use the test cases to deduce "we must meet RFC blah." You might suspect it, but you'd be risking undefined behavior it you stray from input that doesn't exactly match the test cases. And before anyone objects "the API docs can be incomplete too," well, that true. But the point is that a written API has vastly more descriptive power than a set of test cases. (The same applies to "self-documenting code". Bah humbug.) There's also the objection "but you can't guarentee cases you don't test!" Also true. That's reality. _You can never test all your intended behavior._ You pick your test cases to do the best you can, and change your cases as problems pop up.

The other thing I would shy away from is including throwaway tests in the framework. Throwaways are a thing, developers use them all the time, but don't make them unwanted stepchildren--poorly (incompletely?) designed, slapped together, limited scope, confusing for another developer (including time-traveling self) to wade through and decide whether this is a real failure or just bogus test. They're tech debt. Less frequently used tests are another matter. For example, release-engineering tests that only get run against release candidates. But these should be just as much real, set in stone, as any other deliverable.

Which I guess is a third viewpoint nuance difference. I treat tests as being part of the package just as much as any other deliverable. They morph and shift as APIs change, or dependencies mutate, or bugs are found. They aren't something that can be put to the side and left to vegetate.
This approach has many problems; in particular, it lacks an intelligent backoff. A looping service will get continuously restarted.

It doesn't handle service dependencies. What if I only want my service to run when I'm on network and VPN is disabled?

And I can think of a lot more. All these things have been implemented in init, or in systemd, for decades.
Making currencies a concrete implementation is a terrible idea. There is no benefit to it at all, except throwing OOP into something that doesn't need it. A single Money class covers all needed cases, the difference between USD and BTC is... everything. Different smallest denominations, different formats, different everything. You don't even need concrete implementations

private data class Money<T>(val name: String, val amount: Int) {
operator fun <U : T> plus(other: Money<U>): Money<T> {
return Money(name, amount + other.amount)
}

fun <U> plus(other: Money<U>, converter: (Money<U>) -> Money<T>): Money<T> {
return converter(other) + this
}
}

private object EUR
private object USD

val eur = Money<EUR>("EUR", 10)
val usd = Money<USD>("USD", 20)

usd + eur // error

This gives you entirely user defined currencies, does not pollute the global scope with unneeded currencies, allows you to plug in any conversion technique (pop off, make a network call), and fails if you try to add USD and EUR without converting one into the other.

Currencies should always be the user's responsibility to provide.
It does sound like we're hindering the model a bit by allowing negative weights to exist instead of sending them through, say, a ReLU. But, dealing with this might be an easier problem than you think for the model.

In the first diagram with the attention weights, there actually are some negative scores in the noise section. But, the attention to that section is very small anyway. All the second attention map needs to do is predict the noise in the first one -- a task that can be done very accurately, because it has full access to the input of the first.

To refer back to their real-world comparison, noise-canceling headphones have access to what your ear hears through a microphone, so they can output exactly the right cancellation signal. Similarly, the second attention map knows what's being input into the first one, so it can output a corresponding cancellation signal. It's not perfect -- just as noise-canceling headphones aren't perfect -- but it still gets you 99% of the way there, which is enough to boost performance.
> allowing smaller brands to compete

to name a few: LISEN, Qifutan, Loncaster, YKYI, Holikme and SXhyf. And who could forget VWMYQ?
Hanging all day in meetings also feels like not working full time…I have to admit, there are meetings where I sit with my child’s and build legos. Those are the most productive meetings I have…
> The aim of Open Source is not and has never been to enable reproducible software.

Okay, well just because you have the domain name "opensource.org" doesn't give you the ability to speak for the community, and the community's understanding of the term.

opensource.org is irrelevant.
I just spent a stupid amount of money for a chance at getting Teddy Ruxpin. I’m feeling remarkably dumb right now but your words make me feel better.
You could be like Doug Hopkins here in Arizona and start a firm to buy hauses.

https://www.doughopkins.com/
Thanks. I’ll look it over
Wow, so what's the mechanism here? It seems like layered or nested stepper motors, with the magnets and coils replaced by liquid surface tension and electrostatic impulse to move droplet from one electrode to another?
Are those other deep-pocketed suitors not under antitrust scrutiny themselves at the moment? Maybe they would be first in the firing line of the DoJ if they had bought DeepMind instead?
A reinforcement of definitions is needed. Open weights is NOT open source. But there are people like Meta that are rampantly open washing their work. The point of open source is that you can recreate the product yourself, for example by compiling the source code. Clearly the equivalent for an LLM is being able to retrain the model to produce the weights. Yes I realize this is impractical without access to the hardware, but the transparency is still important, so we know how these models are designed, and how they may be influencing us through biases/censorship.

The only actually open source model I am aware of is AI2’s OLMo (https://blog.allenai.org/olmo-open-language-model-87ccfc95f5...), which includes training data, training code, evaluation code, fine tuning code, etc.

The license also matters. A burdened license that restricts what you can do with the software is not really open source.

I do have concerns about where OSI is going with all this. For example, why are they now saying that reproducibility is not a part of the definition? These two paragraphs below contradict each other - what does it mean to be able to “meaningfully fork” something and be able to make it more useful if you don’t have the ingredients to reproduce it in the first place?

> The aim of Open Source is not and has never been to enable reproducible software. The same is true for Open Source AI: reproducibility of AI science is not the objective. Open Source’s role is merely not to be an impediment to reproducibility. In other words, one can always add more requirements on top of Open Source, just like the Reproducible Builds effort does.

> Open Source means giving anyone the ability to meaningfully “fork” (study and modify) a system, without requiring additional permissions, to make it more useful for themselves and also for everyone.
The goal of almost all search engines is to direct people to adverts, not to give them the results.

Even when you do get the results your after, and get sent to the page you want, the goal of that page is to serve you adverts, not to give you the content you want.
PatternFly 6 Beta
Right now we are constrained to using the DOM of webpages. This is because we need some reasonable way to detect what parts of a UI are interactable or not (though we do some magic to do this); this would be a bigger challenge for arbitrary desktop apps. Also, there would be new security aspects that would have to be meticulously considered if we were to allow an agent to control arbitrary desktop apps. Constraining the agent to the browser has nice alignment in this way.
Lots of legit reasons. Some I have seen:

- kids do remote school for whatever reason. This works when parent is at home, but not if parent is at the office.

- kids are < age when it's okay to leave them at home, but > age when it's okay for them to walk home from school.

- Have to be at work at 9, school drop-off starts at 8:35. School is 45 minutes from the office.

There are a lot of ways people organize their lives.

The cool thing about sales teams is you don't have to micromanage them in the office as they are one of the few teams in the company where results are unambiguous.
Big tech is very good for the US. They're far more difficult to compete with in terms of scale and the resources they can deploy, than small companies. It more easily enables the US to suffocate the tech efforts of other competing nations. Giving this advantage up is extraordinarily moronic by the US. There is no benefit to the US by making it easier for the rest of the world to compete with the US golden geese. The DOJ isn't thinking that far ahead, they're playing a game of agenda.
Yup. Dogfood everything you can. Too often I've seen things that could never have made it out the door if whoever designed them actually used them or worked with those who used them.
Corn sweat is real, and it's made heat in the Midwest even more uncomfortable
Tesla has transcended future expectations. Everybody knows FSD will be ready by the end of the year. I mean next year. It's the world's biggest meme stock.
Your newest team member sounds like someone worth holding onto.
They’ll probably justify it using some outdated Gartner shit anyway.
Belongs to members of your family? Nickname yourself ‘Hop’, and it's Hops' kins'.
There's nothing wrong with caring for your child. The cause of this situation is insufficient paternal leaves, not having and raising children.

If you as an employer provide a leave of just 15 days for the father (I've seen really big companies do this), and just a few months for the mother, don't be surprised if people lose productivity or just straight up leave when they have children.

Most EU countries have great paternal leave policies. Most other countries could learn something from them.

Somehow, it has become acceptable to forget raising a family for the sake of working, and it's disheartening to see people actually defend companies when they set these policies.

Edit with some more thoughts:

95% of all the time you will spend with your parents is gone. [1]

If your child is raised by a caretaker, you're losing a huge chunk of all the time you'll get with them. On your deathbed, would you feel proud of having delivered another feature instead of spending a bit more time with your family and children?

[1]: https://seeyourfolks.com/
And then on the other end of the spectrum you have Ice-cold Handoffs as practiced by Microsoft.

Good luck to any poor soul caught in the spider-web of microsofts online support as they play hot-potato with you while denying culpability, and forcing you to do all the legwork. Sending you through multiple github repos / discord / support forums where it becomes increasingly obvious these teams do not get along and want little to do with each other, let alone you.
You're implying that none of them are on part-time daycare because they should easily be able to convert to full-time daycare now. That is false. You cannot simply convert up if the daycare does not have capacity, to say nothing of the associated costs.
CPython doesn't, but there is Mypyc [1] which compiles statically typed Python to faster C extensions leveraging the type information. As usual, this comes with tons of limitations [2]

[1]: https://mypyc.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

[2]: https://mypyc.readthedocs.io/en/stable/differences_from_pyth...
It was big blind luck that the laws of planetary motion turned out to be so simple. There's no reason to think that protein folding can similarly be reduced to some elegant description without needing large blackbox models.
Lake Michigan Stonehenge – What have researchers learned?
Can you explain how that works? Why would either the for-profit entity or the executives get a tax deduction because one of the stakeholders is a nonprofit?
For running the axe test itself, once the agent has decided to run it, is a dedicated tool to run an off-the-shelf axe script. The axe script itself does not change from run to run, so assuming you are running the test on the same page, you should get the same result.
That works for people like you or me who are good faith applicants and wouldn't want to waste anyone's time. But people like you or me aren't really the problem.

The real problem is spam. Of those 2,000 I bet at least 75% are just useless time wasters (no work authorisation, wrong TZ, complete mismatch in what was asked for, outright fraud, etc.) They're just shot-gunning everything. Much of this is probably bot'd.

Like most spam, you can't really lose by sending it: it's free to send and there is no global "time wasting shitdicks" blacklist to put these people on (many companies don't even keep internal list for this). So you can endlessly vomit in everyone's face and never suffer any consequences.
The implied assertion with that metric is that every individual taxpayer should pay the same amount. That seems like a hard sell.
20 Years of Gym Rat
I wrote this for myself so it's mostly rambling but figured I'd share in case someone finds it useful.
Bad things happened because tool, tool bad , very good argument.

Put yourself in the mind of someone making a THING, how do you plan to reach your possible customers for THING?

THING is the best in class, better than the competition but how would you make the world aware of THING existing?
NBC News Lite Version
Software Engineer Pay Heatmap Across the US
Don't play their game where they pretend that their net worth is proportional to their achievements.
> You can, in theory use very strong lint rules (disallow `as` operator in favour of Zod, disallow postfix ! operator), but no actual codebase that I've worked on has these checks. Even the ones with the strictest checks enabled have gaps.

That's surprising. I've worked on a few codebases with reasonably mature TS usage and they've all disallowed as/!/any without an explicit comment to disable the rule and explain why the use is required there.
a good linter rule would have exceptions for loop variables by context by just by name like i, j, k. Often just by name is good enough at least for a solo dev or small team. I require them to be at least 3 chars EXCEPT those.

For example: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability/i...
Other groups doing this too doesn't make it okay. Nobody should be forming exclusionary groups where all the shots are called and business decisions are made.
Why should the “old guard” not have to have the say when they came up with the idea of open source? It is misleading to adopt terminology with well known definitions and abuse it. People like Meta are free to use some other terminology that isn’t “open source” to describe their models, which I cannot reproduce because they’ve release nothing except weights and inference code.
That's just a lesson that capitalism is insatiable. Early on, Google didn't have personalized ads and they were still making money hand over fist just because search queries are an excellent signal into stuff you may want to buy. But in "line must always go up" fashion, there is even more money to be squeezed out if they surveille everything you do to personalize ads. Same thing happened with Facebook. They had a ton of data about what ads to show you solely based on your interactions on Facebook's (now also Instagram's) site and apps, but they could make even more money if they tracked you everywhere online in order to increase their ad click-through rates.
I agree.

"never been to enable reproducible software"

I'd say, sure "Never" is a big word.

Having open code that everyone can read and run, was partly to allow for reproducibility. In the closed world, how is anybody reproducing anything, being open does enable that.
"RTO" honestly is better characterized as "RTO+H" because there is no expectation that people will _stop_ working at home after RTO, just that they will have the same amount of work to do and now fewer waking hours to do it.