B-Con

That isn't a license to misuse words in a way that forgets your agenda whenever you want.

This is an interviewer fishing for trivia knowledge.

There are better ways to gauge knowledge competence, but this is an easy way, so people do it.

How much of the R&D was financed by taxpayers? Seems like it should be a proportional ownership stake, not all or nothing.

While interesting, not too surprising, right? Their heart rates will be low during the calm parts, high during the tense parts, etc.

I think of economics as having the classic two sides of theory and practice, but with the quirk that the practice is grossly inefficient because it's a dynamic feedback system based on itself.

Engineering takes theoretical principles and pits them into practice. Here's what the free body diagram of a structure might be, but how do you ensure it stays up with abnormal conditions and a client who's going the extra mile to cut costs?

Imagine if in engineering, constants changed the more precisely they were measured. pi is different in the USA because China measured it more precisely yesterday. Or if weather patterns changed to exploit the weaknesses of a building to maximize damage.

I don't think econ is theoretically irrational, it's just that the application in the public eye is seldom isolated to simple, static systems. When applied to simple systems, I think econ is quite reasonable and makes accurate predictions.

cgpgrey's concise overview: https://youtu.be/nQHBAdShgYI

Note particularly:

> However, YouTube retains the top spot for overall time spent - not per user - as it has many more users overall.

The HN title directly implies this, not the real start. It's misleading and needs to be changed.

This kind of training is incredibly standard practice at large companies.

Every now and then I'm reminded of a) how much of HN has never worked for a large company, and b) how unfamiliar much of HN is with common business and legal practices.

Too many thought leaders masquerading as engineers.

I see a reasonable amount of political/social content. I think it's there, you just didn't engage with it enough to get it in your FYP.

I must have accidentally liked a couple things to trigger it, so now I'm ignoring it going to train the algorithm.

The three "S"es. Sleep, sex, sickness.

> 41% of women and 44% of investors of color say they bought and sold crypto over the last year, compared to 38% of women and 35% of investors of color

> 13% of Americans bought or traded crypto over the past year, compared to 24% who invested in stocks.

These numbers don't add up at all. I suspect there's some group sampling shenanigans going on.

Looking at the data[0] the article links to, it's interesting that, percentage wise, the bottom 50% have 4x more than in 2011, yet half what they had in 1991.

If the 1% share is gaining, then who is losing? It looks like the 50-90% class has lost the most ground, jamming lost about 8% over there last 30 years while the 1% gained about 10%.

[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

What I find interesting is that this is very modern thinking, putting the individual's priority for themselves ahead of the group. Other societies/philosophies would disagree, and state that the individual should accommodate the best for the group, even at high personal cost.

I agree with it. Group powers are abused by the individuals in charge, and frankly I just value the individual above the group. But worth noting the distinction.

"There's a consistent track record of being wrong, we should learn from it" is not garbage, it's the bare minimum for engaging with the topic intellectually and honestly.

I don't use Facebook anymore, but in the past... I guess?

At a minimum, you could unfollow people/pages that were too low signal:noise to be worthwhile, and mute the ones that you wanted to follow but not here from. Crude, but easy way to ditch a lot of the noise.

But people didn't really use those basic tools. They just followed... everything... didn't mute the annoying family they were obliged to friend, and complained when their feed sucked.

It's hard for me to imagine Facebook et. al. providing useful controls that people will actually use that doesn't reduce down to "give us some signal and our AI will magically figure out the right thing". And basically that's the extreme version of what they have now.

> All in all, it feels like Facebook thinks I'm an idiot and treats me accordingly.

This is the way of social media algorithms. I suspect it makes sense be cause the majority of users are indeed "idiots", in the sense of doing a poor job managing their subscription feeds and such. I'm sure they have tons of data showing how they improve user retention in aggregate by treating them like idiots.

But those of us willing to build and curate our own experience, we're the edge case not worth accommodating.

Source on Google doing front loading?

This is very common. It's basically the point of paying in RSUs and not in fixed dollars, to give employees incentive to care about the company/stock performance.

I've always been perplexed by this, too.

Aren't the two most important aspects of the research the data set and the study methodology? Why on earth would you skimp so heavily one of them?

I don't work in the sciences, but this kind of nonsense doesn't exist in the "actual" sciences. Physicists spend loads of money producing just the right experiment conditions and documenting the manner the experiment was created in. The dataset is incredibly important and very rigorously examined.

But in psych, the dataset is basically an after thought. "Oh by the way, we chose a small handful of kids who happened to be free at that time, with no reason to believe there's any geo, social, educational, political, or ethnic background diversity, it probably cost us like $200 plus some pizza. Now let's print the results in $5 million worth of textbooks for a few decades!"

I don't buy the funding argument. A professor probably costs the university 100-150k/yr and will be working on a small handful (2-6, ish?) of projects. Buying an hour of a subject's time for a study must cost, what, $30/hr? Shouldn't they be allocating a minimum of $50k in funding for the actual research, and dropping at least $10k for a good dataset?

I don't buy the argument that most experiments don't yield good results so the university is wary of funding them. At a minimum they should follow up a cheap test with promising results with a real experiment that has actual funding before everyone gets all excited about it.

FTA, 1% threshold for income is 400k-ish.

I interpret the article's tone as more of:

> Let's be precise. The actual 1% are not the ultra-wealthy, they're doctors, senior SV engineers, and regional Vice Presidents. That's not who people are protesting wall street about.

I moderate r/crypto . It's about cryptography, not cryptocurrency. Imagine the spam we get.

The Q1 earnings statement says ad revenue is way up.

Sounds like a team health issue. Sounds like a hard time, my sympathies.

In my N years of experience, very few engineers are in an environment where only they have meaningful context on what they're working on. Generally any non-trivial project worth staffing is worth having two headcount work in the space, even if one is a TL with divided attention.

As a math major at UCD, I never saw Lee's essay, so I'm guessing it's from the past few years.

I did read Halmos's, though. It was helpful for me because I was starting from a very programming centric frame of mind and I was surprised at how "conversational" math writing was. Reading it helped me start to learn how to express ideas precisely and clearly without a strict code-like structure.

It would be a difficult law to enforce, but that's different from if the law is written. Many laws inherently have a hard time being enforced.

I'd like to see data on academic performance in specialties. Most well-paying first world countries employ specialists (eg, doctors, programmers, lawyers, accountants, etc). Recall Simpson's paradox in statistics, where a general distribution doesn't have to apply to the individual sub-sets.

FTA:

> Women who go to university are more likely than their male peers to graduate, and typically get better grades. But men and women tend to study different subjects, with many women choosing courses in education, health, arts and the humanities, whereas men take up computing, engineering and the exact sciences. In mathematics women are drawing level; in the life sciences, social sciences, business and law they have moved ahead.

This paragraph seems to support the idea of my above musing.

> academic skills have no bearing in getting high paying jobs

I highly doubt that there is no correlation, but I doubt that education is the sole factor. Girls performance over boys is a slight, but significant, edge, but since success likely draws from a handful of other factors, a few of them having a counter slight, but significant edge, might be enough to swing the other direction.

Employers are incentivised to have pay reports underrepresented so new goes don't negotiate for more.

I don't know what actually happens, but following the money is usually a good first place to look.

This is a 5 point rating system. Personally, I try to stick to as few points as possible.

The consumer of the rating (in this case, the code author) usually needs to know one thing above all else: Do I take action or not. A two-point system is the default.

IMO, in a code review, the feedback should be either expected action or not. "I recommend you change this" or "FYI, consider this", aka, "required" or "optional".

Ultimately, as the author, I want to know if I'm being told "please change this" or "just FYI". Details can be haggled if necessary.

The strength of the recommendation isn't relevant unless there's push back, in which case the details can be haggled for the situation at hand. But trying to do that bucketing up front sounds like extra work that's usually unnecessary. As long as the reviewer is pursuing productivity, they can adjust their recommendation as they learn more.