Gene_Parmesan

Except he did get away with it. My wife works in Medicare compliance for a large insurer and under Trump, every single communication they received from Medicare about an initiative literally included the language "Through the leadership of President Trump, ..."

Many companies are moving to four day work weeks. Productivity peaks at under 50 hours per week. Silicon Valley humans are not immune to this just because they work in big tech.

Anyone who focuses purely on hours worked or misery while working is merely perpetuating this country's unhealthy Protestant style relationship with work. If an employee can be fully productive to the demands of their work and still have time to chat or go to the gym, what is the issue? You act like you've just described the worst thing you've ever seen ("spoiled apples") but I just see a happy workforce.

Of course, if they are truly not productive, that's something different. But unless they are your reports, you have no idea what their true level of productivity is.

It's beyond time we start recognizing that happy employees are more productive, and stop shaming people for daring to seem happy at work. Because right now, a lot of us seem like the proverbial crab not letting others crawl out of the bucket.

WaPo is not HuffPo.

Generally, you can still trust the real news coming out of places like the Post and Times to at least be accurately fact checked.

At this point, who would want to? Genuinely. I haven't any idea. I'm a huge F1 fan and F1 racing there feels like such a bizarre move, and it's one that has almost put me off the sport. Dirty money and F1 go together like mac and cheese but this feels like a new low for them.

In general, I think that in cases where intentionality around specific details is required humans are going to outperform AIs for quite some time, in any creative domain. Conversely, when I don't really know what I want beyond vague direction, Stable Diffusion's results have been good.

I guess I'd say, the less specified your prompt, the more it seems the AI is able to "read your mind." An interesting little tidbit in the world of human/machine interaction. It's like the results make you say, "Yes, that IS what I was thinking of!" But as soon as you have a really specific idea in mind it kind of stumbles a bit for me.

> Firmly direct him to end the call right now. Throughout the conversation keep stern demeanour, keep eye contact and the same level of volume when you speak.

I'm not quite sure the other person is the one whose social calibration is off. This would be incredibly patronizing behavior unless you're speaking to a literal child. Besides, "Why don't you?" was obviously a throwaway half-joke.

As a non-SVer, this has always been something that confused me. What is the actual definition for "startup"? It doesn't seem to be tied to age, funding level, employee counts, user counts, revenues, or really anything else at all.

Honestly, it seems like a mostly self-selected tag used to indicate culture -- e.g., expectations of working conditions (hours, for instance) that in "normal" business we have long ago realized are actually counter-productive.

There's no IP protection for ideas for stories. Regardless, almost no fiction shop is going to agree to print a book on spec, just off a story pitch. Write the book first. Then you already have protection, in the form of copyright (which is automatic and doesn't require registration).

Last time I played (few years ago) there seemed to be some controversy about the direction the project lead was taking the game. Something about realism over fun. Did that ever get resolved in some fashion?

I'm usually OK with me 'wasting' time playing games like Factorio that exercise my brain, and Factorio specifically I feel has actually improved my software/systems architecture skills. But it is definitely very easy to get completely sucked in. The factory must grow.

There's more than one person but it's a small team, core development on the pre-1.0 versions was done by three or so people I believe.

I find this common assumption that non-Earth lifeforms will automagically have found ways to break the laws of physics curious. Given the age of universe, it's highly likely that most other lifeforms will have developed within a rounding error of us, on geological time scales.

And as for ETs being peaceful zen wizards, the fundamental problem of resource scarcity would seem to be universally applicable. It's this resource scarcity that causes species which are good at competing to develop. So it seems likely that any species intelligent enough to become technologically advanced would have a history of belligerence similar to ours.

Thinking aspirationally about what sort of species we should strive to be is great. But I find the belief that, across the universe, humans are specially anti-progress to be a little silly. The laws of physics are universal.

Did you miss this example from the linked post about redux-toolkit? https://github.com/reduxjs/redux-toolkit/blob/4ab8c42cb20ae1...

This is what types look like when you're on the library side. The post made very clear they aren't talking about the app dev side. The library types are complex like this so that the app devs have a smoother experience.

This obsession on here with 'productivity' is depressing. I thought the HN crowd was beyond all that. Frankly, to suggest that this man should have given up on his dream so he could.. what? be an office drone for 50 years?... is lame.

99% of us will live un-noteworthy lives and then die. This man has built something that will be inviting thought and discussion for potentially hundreds of years.

Humans have always built monuments. Should the Hopewell peoples have not built their burial mounds because there were more productive things for them to do?

If you don't understand this piece (and I sure don't), that's fine. I just think it's a pretty callous thing to dismiss someone's life passion as "jacking off in the desert."

I have no inside knowledge whatsoever but we can all rest assured that each side is in a near constant back and forth of implicit unstated "communication" about capabilities and doctrine.

Merely publishing a paper on a certain subtopic in the fusion space can easily be interpreted as an implied threat or threat response.

Of course the US does have a stated doctrine of using nukes only in response to nukes used against it or its allies. It is enormously doubtful that the US would trigger an end-of-days scenario in response to Russia using tactical/low-yield nukes against a non-US-ally like Ukraine, but the uncertainty is for sure purposefully cultivated.

I always wonder about these types of studies too. I have diagnosed delayed sleep phase disorder, secondary to adhd. I sleep odd hours compared to the norm - approximately 3am to 10am. However, my schedule (while odd) is completely stable. I go to bed when I feel tired and I wake up feeling refreshed.

Does the fact that my natural sleep habits are so off-the-bell-curve put me in the "disrupted circadian rhythm" group or not? I never feel sleep deprived. And I've been told by specialists that trying to force myself to sleep a normal schedule could put me at a significantly increased risk of dementia, alzheimers, stroke, heart attack, and more.

So the thought that I might still be doing myself harm sucks.

In my opinion, the sort of person who is into this kind of idea is the sort of person for whom finance is a game. These people want to be the ones gaming the system and making money off of other people who are playing. They don't want to just be puttering around in a fake spaceship, they want to be the ones loaning out money and etc.

It's why I think every p2e game idea I've ever seen get proposed has had completely asinine sounding game play but plenty of opportunities to (in theory) make money off of taking advantage of lower sophistication players. The game play itself is secondary. What no one seems to recognize is that if the game itself isn't fun, there won't be any "normal" players around for them to fleece.

The reason people say it's a myth is because the study that purported to identify this concept was found to have an extremely small population and confounding factors. In addition if I remember correctly it tried to do this identification by using a contrived programming problem.

There are obviously software devs who are more productive than the average. This is true of every skill. The myth is thinking that (a) companies can somehow identify these people in advance, and (b) it is better to prioritize building a team with these supposed rock stars than it is to build a team of potentially average developers who know how to work together, and then properly manage, support & motivate them. A team of ten properly supported 1.5x programmers will beat out one 10x programmer every time. And in many cases the "I'm a 10x dev" personality type does not play well with others.

I'm a firm believer that any genuinely interested, motivated and at least mildly intelligent dev can be made highly productive by finding the right fit. It's far more important for companies to focus on fit and on ensuring that their own managers actually know how to manage than on trying to tap into a hidden stream of 10x devs.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I think many companies absolve themselves and their mgmt team of blame for poor performance by saying "well we just haven't been able to identify 10x devs yet." They expect to be able to hire a single employee who will save the day for them, rather than hiring and training good mgmt.

Man, the heating on my MacBook is insane. I have a Thinkpad with on board Nvidia card, beefy CPU, etc, and it can play gfx intense games at 4k and still sit in my lap comfortably.

Meanwhile my MacBook from work gets risking-burns-hot from just screensharing on a Zoom call.

Nothing like a strong dose of existential dread to get me through the work day.

I mean, it makes sense. It's fairly well encoded into the genetics that determine our circadian rhythms. There is a dip in energy levels, corresponding to changed brain waves, that occurs at approximately midday. That 1pm drowsiness is your body just trying to do mammal things.

Yes, it uses ML-style type inference, but that doesn't mean you are literally unable to annotate types, and the compiler is absolutely still doing type checking. I'm sure people like Jane Street annotate everything.

In addition, perhaps a small point relative to the first, but in Ocaml, the arithmetic operators perform no type inference; there's a separate operator for float-addition versus int-addition, and so on. This somewhat limits your exposure to potential automatic type conversions.

Certain MS documentation is actually incredible. For instance, the docs for the Win32 API are some of the best out there, rich with notes, examples, warnings, links to relevant topics. For instance, here's the page for CreateWindowEx: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winuser/n.... Having never written Win32 code before, I was able to get a window open complete with simple rendering from a bitmap backbuffer in about two hours using nothing but those docs.

Most of the more recent library documentation they have is not great though -- seems like autogenerated junk, mostly.

Grief is an enormously complicated emotional state that cannot be pithily summed up like that sentence. It's just a quote from a game.

In my experience, it doesn't pass, as in disappear. Instead, the fact of the loss slowly becomes a new fact of your reality. The newness of it will pass. The rawness of the pain will fade - most of the time. There will always be things that bring the person right back sitting next to you. But you begin to re-make your life.

If you continue to struggle and haven't already done so, I can recommend talking with a counselor (I hate the word therapist). Sometimes we just need to unload, but don't want to unload on/burden the other people in our life. Grief can be isolating in this way.

Thanks for making me aware of the existence of furigana. Unique corners of language are a pet interest of mine and that was a fun rabbit hole to go down.

As recent decades have progressed and more of our lives have gone digital, self reported rates of loneliness, isolation and depression have been skyrocketing. It's sometimes called the Internet Paradox - a technology that is supposed to increase our connection is correlated with increased feelings of isolation.

It's been the subject of study but it's impossible to truly reject the hypothesis due to the ubiquity of the effect - there's no control group. Obviously correlation is not causation, but I think the severity of the effects warrant further thought and investigation.

The guy is unhinged and has a persecution complex. He is a "priest" in a bizarre sect and has long claimed that Google has it out for him because of his religious practice. This was a publicity stunt plain and simple.

Seconding the RTCD recommendation. Handy code examples, and my favorite part is that the book is real-world-performance-conscious (hence the "real-time" in the title).

FWIW feature size doesn't really mean what it used to. Due to the 3d mesh manufacturing process, it's become a sort of shorthand for "equivalent in 2D." What really matters is transistor density, and different manufacturers differ wildly in how they relate transistor density to this "feature size in a 2D equivalent metric."

For instance, the M1 has a density of 171 million/sq mm and claims 5 nm 2D equivalent, while Willow Cove from IBM looks much worse at 10nm but its density is 100.

Saying this not to "cast shade" on certain chip fabricators, just saying that it doesn't actually mean that they have taken the same style transistor fab processes from ~10 years ago and shrunk them down to 5nm. I mean, by the time an actual 2D feature would reach ~2nm, we'd be talking about features that were only about 10 atoms across.

> To deliver this fusion result, First Light used its large two-stage hyper-velocity gas gun to launch a projectile at a target, containing the fusion fuel. The projectile reached a speed of 6.5 km per second before impact. First Light’s highly sophisticated target focuses this impact, with the fuel accelerated to over 70 km per second as it implodes, an increase in velocity achieved through our proprietary advanced target design, making it the fastest moving object on earth at that point.

Conceptually, maybe nothing, but we aren't really talking about your average MG-42 here.