skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would love a study, which compared how well a company did, and what their overall expenses were:

1. For paying a team of N people the going wage.

2. For paying a team of N/2 people, double the going wage. Aiming for the best workers it could find.

3. Paying a team of 2*N workers, whatever the bottom of the market is.

This would be for teams where high functioning workers resulted in high value results, i.e. creative/design/technically challenging work.

I have no idea how a study like this would work, but the more challenging the work, the higher likelihood that you save money going high salary, high talent.

Some AI researcher seem to be falling into this category, with really high salaries. Researchers certainly have 10x talent. But I bet there are a lot of 2x, 4x engineers, designers, whatever, that are being overlooked and/or under motivated. That would be cheaper to pay, and produce more value, in small numbers, than others in larger numbers.
And Apache will not give up Open Office or kill the "project".
Did they even have the trademark for those two. AFIK They got it in 2010 when they bought Sun.
> the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative

There is no necessary connection between entropy and morality, it is actually you who has put that connection there, hence proving the parent's point that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder; this is your personal view on entropy, not a universal one.
> and programmers coming out of diploma mills, and all they know is Unity/Unreal, so companies hire Unity/Unreal, so universities teach it, etc.

There is a similar phenomenon with ArcGIS.
> But they already have that if you always use the same debit or credit cards like most people do.

Don't they have only the last 4 digits and the issuer of the card? It is likely enough but there will be some noise.

Not to mention any potential legal trouble if they used the card details without explicit consent. App contracts will get around that.
>> I've known multiple with glucose monitors and all of them told me they saw no increase after drink a diet soda. I think the "aspartame causes sugar spikes" is an urban legend. I never get the sugar rush from them like I do if I drink a sugary soda.

IANAD, but my reading of Dr. Jason Fung's book "The Obesity Code" suggests that while artificial sweeteners do not spike glucose immediately, they elicit an insulin response, which over time causes insulin resistance, which over time increases glucose.
This is the problem, you are clearly biased. She brought up the Charlottesville issue that has been widely debunked; it is blatantly false and well-known to be false. She was not fact-checked. That's the issue.
Those mini apps are built on the same web stack. I believe the main advantages of creating mini apps are that the platform provides identity (allowing you to know who the users are upon permission approval) and payment APIs.
"Now we have five inconsistent coding conventions..."
isn't that like saying that rocket motors or inertial reference units don't kill people?
>> Wouldn't the insulin w/o sugar cause a drop, instead?

In the short term, but as I understand, the constant insulin response would also cause insulin resistance over time.
pastries also have fat though and parent was talking about enjoyment per kcal.
Leaving my last job (2024)
Citation?

Is this a normal soda consumption levels in humans or when feeding it to rats at some obscene rate?

I'm not saying it is good for you, but we need facts not blind statements with no context.
why is it so common to talk about how SAT-solvers work _inside_, but there's almost no texts about how to work *with* them?

with all respect to Knuth's volume 4b (which felt like the only congregating text even touching the subject, when I looked into it some years ago) - but even his work doesn't go into loads of nooks and crannies of SAT encodings that gave invaluable speedups in specific contexts, so are useful as "ideas" - not as recipies

(and Knuth's descriptions of counters' encodings would've been greatly improved by pictures, imo)
Nothing improves skating more than getting them sharpened if you haven't already.
Related: https://www.wheresyoured.at/never-forgive-them/

"You are the victim of a con — one so pernicious that you’ve likely tuned it out despite the fact it’s part of almost every part of your life. It hurts everybody you know in different ways, and it hurts people more based on their socioeconomic status. It pokes and prods and twists millions of little parts of your life, and it’s everywhere, so you have to ignore it, because complaining about it feels futile, like complaining about the weather."

"It isn’t. You’re battered by the Rot Economy, and a tech industry that has become so obsessed with growth that you, the paying customer, are a nuisance to be mitigated far more than a participant in an exchange of value. A death cult has taken over the markets, using software as a mechanism to extract value at scale in the pursuit of growth at the cost of user happiness."
I'm very much in the "reduce carbs" camp. Long-term high carb intake leads to many health issues, and reductions lead to improvements. I'm not sure that science is behind on this (there's plenty of literature on the topic) but man-in-the-street understanding seems to be behind.

The concept that sugar leads to diabetes is not exactly news at 11. But articles like this are helpful in moving the popular mindset.

Personally though I'd avoid the term "poison". Mostly because it's a very long-term effect, whereas people use "poison" in general usage more as a short term thing (rat poison versus feeding rats carbs till they get diabetes).

Secondly calling it "poison" is far outside normal understanding and so you become the "nutter" in the conversation. Which then devalues the valid points you have to make.

I say this as someone in your camp. While your body certainly needs some carbohydrates its safe to assume everyone is getting enough. Nobody needs sugar though, and removing as much of that as possible from daily diet will have big impacts in the long term.

For me that doesn't mean 'never sugar'. It means cake at celebrations, ice-cream once a month, eating "normally" when at restaurants (which is probably less than once a month) and so on.

The goal is not to be "perfect" the goal is to improve one step at a time. Coffee without sugar? Check. No daily, or weekly, sugar sodas or fruit juice? Check. And so on.

Small changes introduced slowly over time become the new normal, and that leads to sustained improvements.
> Trump says the unemployment rate for African-American youths is 59 percent.

> In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.

> Mostly False

Crazy
> Can you explain how sugar tax is an issue about body autonomy?

Simply put, you are arbitrarily punishing those who consume these products (which I will repeat I do not purchase myself) in often high cost areas (eg Seattle, San Francisco, Boulder) to align with a specific ideology that these areas ascribe to, at least on the surface.

I feel like a boomer saying this and it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, because it's something that on the surface makes sense to a degree--relying on the old adage of tax it and you get less of it--and even appears to be well intentioned way to make people make 'healthier' choices, but from what I've seen in practice is a bureaucratic way to modify behaviour in people's everyday lives that ultimately only causes a minor inconvenience/friction for those resolved to circumvent and the initiative's results seem dubious at best and over-reaching at worst.

I genuinely don't think in practice it's about health either as you can easily go around the other aisle and buy all the high sodium, poly-saturated chips with as much or more HFCS and MSG and countless amounts of dyes and food preservatives to your hearts content with no tax implication and are often encouraged to be purchased in bulk, so it seems perplexing that this is really the success they make it out to be.

It seems to me like a bike-shedding initiative if I have ever seen one as it avoids the much bigger issue of how un-healthy the American diet really is.

> Do you consider farm subsidies (e.g. maintaining US corn production)...

Because as you have mentioned, the obscenely lucrative farm subsides of corn for mega farms is the crux of the issue here and by extension all of the lobbying by big business that takes place for these chemicals that are actually shaping what the American diet itself is; I believe we would be better served addressing that obvious and glaring problem, and forcing producers of these products to have to do without these highly subsidized and addictive chemicals in their products and letting consumers decide whether to consume them of their own volition at actual market rates rather than this window dressing approach.
Exactly! They simply used lawfare in an attempt to bankrupt, sieze the assets of, and imprison their main political opponents rather than keep the scale balanced (for the sake of democracy) /s
Exactly. I can’t believe they published something if we can’t buy it and use it right now.
I encountered this weird issue yesterday[0] (forum post is not mine but I also could not log in with Safari). It made me think I had somehow forgotten my master password for a while.

maybe its time for a new manager. Any recs?

[0]https://community.bitwarden.com/t/cannot-login-to-vault-by-s...
Silicon Valley's shrewdest talent spotters
Meet Silicon Valley’s shrewdest talent spotters
An elite group of early-stage investors make supersized returns
It feels unstoppable, which is why the best I can do is try to mitigate its impact. Some mitigations that come to mind:

The development environment where I'm downloading random libraries is on a completely separate physical machine than my primary computer. I generally spin up a short-lived container for each new coding project, that gets deleted after the resulting code I produce is uploaded somewhere. This is completely separate from the work-supplied machine where I hack on my employer's code.

On my primary computer, my web browser runs in an ephemeral container that resets itself each time I shut it down. My password manager runs in a different, isolated, container. Zoom runs in a different, also isolated, container. And so on.

Wherever possible, I avoid letting my computer automatically sync with cloud services or my phone. If one is compromised, this avoids spreading the contagion. It also limits the amount of data that can be exfiltrated from any single device. Almost all of the persistent data I care about is in Git (I use git-annex for file sync), so there's an audit trail of changes.

My SSH and GPG keys are stored on a hardware key so they can't be easily copied. I set my Yubikey to require a touch each time I authenticate, so my ssh-agent isn't forwarding authentication without a physical action on my part. I cover my webcam when not in use and use an external microphone that requires turning on a preamp.

I try to host my own services using open source tools, rather than trust random SaaS vendors. Each internet-facing service runs in a dedicated container, isolated from the others. IoT devices each get their own VLAN. Most containers and VLANs have firewall rules that only allow outbound connections to whitelisted hosts. Where that's not possible due to the nature of the service (such as with email), I have alerting rules that notify me when they connect somewhere new. That's a "page" level notification if the new connection geolocates to China or Russia.

I take an old laptop with me when traveling, that gets wiped after the trip if I had to cross a border or leave it in a hotel safe.

I have good, frequent backups, on multiple media in multiple offline locations, that are tested regularly, so it's not the end of the world if I have to re-install a compromised device.
Can you clarify what you think the paper says that's correct? If you're unwilling to provide an opinion on the paper's literal headline claim, then I don't know what we're discussing here.

> because subjects are not biased by priors they don't know about

It feels like you want the subjects to be "unbiased", "without any prior"? That concept doesn't exist, though. If no prior is supplied, then the subjects will make their best guess based on general past experience; but that's still a prior, just an idiosyncratic personal one. Very few people would put numbers to the forest vs. supermarket mushroom, but it's the same general thought process.

If that prior matches the actual distribution, then good. If the actual distribution contains more machines than expected, then the interrogator is more likely to misjudge a machine as a human. By analogy, if I think mistakenly that a mushroom came from a supermarket but it actually came from a forest, then I'm more likely to misjudge it as non-poisonous.

The binary choice version makes it obvious that the prior is 50%, and forces the interrogator to respect that. The paper's version has sent us into this epistemological tarpit, which seems strictly worse to me.
With the Louisiana decision, protections are noticeably, gradually being demolished.
This is really impressive.

Rather disappointed to see that my condo building is flat despite being 4 floors and a nearly 20 year old renovation of a 100+ year old building. How does stuff like that happen? In the mean time the repo looks like good readin'
Paul Graham from "The 18 mistakes that kill startups": #1 Single Founder

Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence.

What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best.

But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.

The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder.

From: https://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html

Edit: also he writes in "What we look for in founders":

5. Friendship

Empirically it seems to be hard to start a startup with just one founder. Most of the big successes have two or three. And the relationship between the founders has to be strong. They must genuinely like one another, and work well together. Startups do to the relationship between the founders what a dog does to a sock: if it can be pulled apart, it will be.
A friend's family had one of these on their boat when we were kids.
“Facts is facts” works for counting words in a sentence.

It does not work for anything with nuance or context, or for unprovable propositions. It is a fact that there is no elephant in my house. But if you want to doubt that fact for the lulz or for profit, I will be hard pressed to prove it.

That’s where our modern populist / fascists have weaponized disingenuousness to prove that “up is down” is just as valid a statement as “up is up”.
In the examples you provided, they mostly deal with hotly-contested information around Covid-19, where there exists countless amounts of incorrect information, politicized reporting, and straight up propaganda. I'm not surprised that Facebook's fact-checkers got a couple articles mislabeled, especially if they blended in with the wave of genuine disinformation that accompanied the pandemic.

Given that there seems to only be two articles that are listed as falsely reported as misinformation (the Reason article and the BMJ article also mentioned in the Telegraph report from today), I have to assume that there actually aren't that many large errors on the part of the fact checkers. If there were more than two or the mistakes were much bigger, then the free speech advocates would never stop mentioning it.

There can definitely be bias when it comes to fact-checking, I wouldn't deny that. I also think that education and knowledge sharing can be greatly harmed by social media incentives to provide the most "engagement". Having an actual human in the process somewhere introduces some error but also cuts down on a lot of the dumb crap that would otherwise spread.
How do you interpret the most recent results differently?

(Feel free to read some sarcasm / blind adherence to democracy into the earlier post, but its hard to interpret the election results in another way.)
ScriptyJava?
the 4 story building I live in is rendered like a basement only dwelling which is actually growing on me the more I look at it ...
I was unclear; I bundle them per-module; each module has an asset route with attached middleware. So for a users module, there will be users/assets or some such route, to which various static-related middleware gets attached.

The link gens inherently accept relative paths (foo) and output relative links with appropriate adjustments (foo.png?v=abcdef), though they can generate fully-qualified links if circumstances warrant (eg I often have a global shared css file for theming, though that's all I can think of offhand other than "/" for back-home links). The module can then be mounted under /bar/blort, or wherever else, and the links remain relative to wherever they are mounted.

On occasion I do hardcode links for whatever reason; my rule of thumb is relative links for same level or deeper, or root-anchored if you're referencing a global resource outside the current path, but there aren't many of those in my apps. A rare exception might be something like an icon library, but I tend toward font-based icons.

To put the rule more succinctly, I never use "../foo". Going up and then over in the hierarchy strikes me as a recipe for bugs, but that's just instinct.

I also never use fully-qualified (including hostname) urls to reference my own assets. That's just madness, though I vaguely recall that WordPress loves to do crap like that; there's a reason I don't use it anymore. :)

So the main difference if I understood your link correctly, would be that I would have maybe one or two items in /static/assets by root-anchored urls, and the rest accessed as /path/to/module/assets/whatever (edit: or just assets/whatever from within the module).

Because I'm doing this in go, the module's assets live where the code does and gets embedded in a reasonably standard way. I actually tend to use git commit as my cache buster to avoid having to hash the content, but full hashing can be done as well very easily just by changing the generator functions.

I can then just import the module into an app and call its associated Route() function to register everything, and it just works. Admittedly it's very rare that I reuse modules between apps, but it's easily possible.

For background to my thought process, I originally started using the link gen paradigm long ago to make it easy to switch CDN's on and off or move between them, back before whole-site proxying was considered best-practice. The rest is just a desire for modularity/encapsulation of code. I like to be able to find stuff without having to spelunk, and keeping assets together with code in the source tree helps. :)
I was using Gameloop to play COD Mobile last year and I kept on getting BSOD until I uninstalled it and then it never happened again. Wonder what was going on...
Embedding model with Matryoshka learning and quantization-aware training
I don't think insult should be socially accepted, it shouldn't, it's not a nice thing. Rudeness, impoliteness, offense, why would we socially accept them?

Freedom and cencorship is another thing. You have the freedom to be rude and impolite, and it shouldn't be censored. But yeah you shouldn't expect people to like you or listen to you.
I refuse to use any service that only supports magic links for auth. It is incredibly user-hostile, and absolutely worse from a security perspective than passwords (with a password manager). Most critically it simply does not work in my personal setup where I do not have access to my email account from the machine I am using to login, precisely for security reasons and the safety of my accounts.

Anthropic has been the once exception to this personal policy simply because Claude is the best LLM out there. But it's a mountain of pain every time I have to re-login, and I've complained to them multiple times about this.
Why would working in tech shield someone from our healthcare system?

“Most bankruptcies occurred in middle-class citizens with health insurance”
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93430900525-7/fulltext

If you haven’t been harmed by our system, it’s not because you’re immune. It’s because you’re lucky.
Favorable to the poster, if we assume they are posting flamebait to get others enraged or to get more clout among followers.
Maybe. There's a lot of dragons hidden inside enterprise code. Only if you know all of them can you really succeed the first time around.
I do not trust Sam Altman and I believe his sister. Simple as that, I’m hard pressed to think of someone I believe less than him.

I also don’t understand why someone would defend him. He has the resources to defend himself, he doesn’t need a white knight.
This just isn’t true