avs733

as a board member or shareholder I think I would ask the inverse question.

Okay, we have two years of data. PROVE to me that you need to spend $Xm per year on office space for this company to work. Prove to me that you have to pay top of market SV salaries

I think the time is now to reframe what needs to be proven...its a business not a social experiment. Coming in costs more money, prove to me its money worth spending on a case by case basis. If you don't run a handson manufacturing line what evidence supports paying for a building where everyone has a space? We've already ditched offices for cubicles and cubicles for open plan offices just to save space (i.e., cost). At this point the burden of proof isn't on 'work from home is okay' just from a financial perspective.

people act in their own self interest, that doesn't mean self interest is simple

Maybe North Korea offers them more money?

Maybe Russia has a backdoor deal to have their scientists develop something 'for russia' that people know goes out the backdoor to

Maybe Russia forces them to work on things or they will hurt their families.

Maybe Russia won't let them leave and they are going to do worse things for money unless we keep them employed.

Maybe they hate the US and want to work for their enemies

HN often gets very reductive on why people make the decisions they do. Especially when those are related to decisions made by 'traditional' companies and state actors. Lets not assume that the entirety of the US state department and ULA aren't well informed about the decisions they are making.

It's not that they have failed as much as it is a strategic decision. ULA is not doing this by choice, they are doing it (as mentioned) to effectively subsidize the industry in Russia for other diplomatic and security reasons as opposed to technical reasons. [0]

"The [US government] asked us to buy [Russian engines] at the end of the Cold War in order to keep the Russian Rocket Scientists from ending up in North Korea and Iran," ~ tweet from ULA's CEO

ULA is in the process of replacing the russian engines as part of the shift to their Vulcan rocket and away from Atlas. I believe they have all the rockets they need in hand.

ETA: and to be explicit, they are not paying the scientists and engineers directly. They are paying the russian firms doing the work.

[0] https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Rocketry_Chief_Offers_...

this is actually immensely helpful as someone in the middle of a renovation.

We're planning on having a combination of 'direct' light from bulbs and cans as well as dimmable (and tunable color temp) LED strip lighting that throws indirectly into the ceiling. The frustration with residential dimmers (really all residential versions of things) is so true.

Before we moved out for demolition we did some mockup testing and were just blown away by the effect of adding light to spaces. The house already has a ton of windows but the mockups had what would be considered and 'unreasonably high' amount of light by most design standards. That being said, we were so happy with the results, especially in the morning and early afternoon.

>Interviewing is broken.

Nothing you describe suggests to me that it was the interviewing that was broken, it sounds like the employment was broken.

>The point is criticizing a specific part of the western left

My point wasn't about who said it or what they are referring to...I'm clear on that.

My point was I keep seeing critiques of a position I do not see actually existing in discourse. It seems like, since this started, there has been a concerted effort to attack a strawman.

'Focus' is such a strange thing to critique and just rings hollow. I really honestly haven't experienced anyone who talks about just western imperialism...maybe I'm blind and naive here but the fact that this is suddenly a critique is really sketchy to me.

I’ve seen this narrative start to pop up a lot attacking “the left” about the Ukraine situation.

The odd part is I have yet to say anyone saying the things that they are told they should stop saying.

This all seems like a really aggressive attempt to preemptively narrow one side of the window of acceptable discourse.

nice of them to leave breadcrumbs everywhere.

do we really need a word like fruit when we already have planes?

its...okay maybe it's a buzzword but it isn't about 'optimized learning' its about valuing the development of a process of learning equally to the content of learning.

It has become a focus because teach to the test has done a damn good job of stripping it away from K-12 classroom learning in the US. Now that we realize whats missing ed researchers talk about it more and how to add it back.

I have always found the focus on the sociological somewhat hollow...and I am involved in sociological research on education (engineering specifically).

The problem, and the reason for the focus, is that the sociological and the philosophical are highly correlated in education. The philosophical questions - and bringing them through from concept to practice to evaluating are hard.

You got to the edge of the cave and wanted to look around...it took you a while to notice the torches but you navigated by touch. Most people don't. They are trained out of it.

It is especially hard on the 'smart' kids (I deal with them...they are a mess). So often they are asking questions beyond what their teachers in K-12 know and can answer and it creates a void. Depending on how its handled by everyone in their adult community it can either be 'stop asking questions just get the answers right [the answers I got from the teachers texbook]' which just amplifies extrinsic motivation as the dominant mode of action and validation or it can be 'I don't know and thats amazing lets find out'.

When my partner and I started planning for kids, we talked about schools. She was surprised that I was at all pro private school, and even more surprised that I placed greater value on private school earlier rather than later in K-12. The fundamental thing is that the minds, thoughts, and ideas of those with socioeconomic privilege in this country are treated with far more respect. The educational environs that give that respect happen to be the ones that are more likely to promote deep learning, metacognition, argumentation, etc.

>Getting students (or anyone) to learn how to learn on their own is, sadly, not taught in school here (California).

This is such a fundamental point. School should be teaching you processes of learning as well as knowledge. The problem is that the poor treatment of educators results in a reversion to the minimum. If you were taught 'acquiring as many facts/much knowledge as possible is learning' then you aren't going to see/understand this as you teach.

Teachers cannot really teach something they don't understand (general statement but...largely true). The reality is that most of what you think about learning and knowledge is embedded very very early. It is also, sadly, largely driven by social class in the US. The broad term is 'hidden curriculum' and much of the work started with Jean Anyon[0]. Much of the teacher workforce comes from working class and middle class schools. Below that, you don't go to college. Above that, you have economically more successful opportunities. Those are not schools that teach a fundamental approach to learning where the process or metacognition is part of the mindset imputed as part of basic learning.

[0] https://www1.udel.edu/educ/whitson/897s05/files/hiddencurric...

This is an absolute fairy tale. The problem is it is a commonly shared one in the US.

Obfuscating (because that’s what they are doing not encrypting for security). Revisiting releasing documentation is more effort than posting it on a damn website.

Takes time and money. Writing code, developing tools, and creating repair manuals has to be done either way.

How in gods name is making something accessible more expensive when you are already doing these things for your internal technicians.

to simplify this statement: until you take into account that your taxes are used to provide important government services.

> If you believe this is warranted, flip the script and apply this arbitrary power to a protest that you do agree with. Say a right-wing government is in power, and there's new BLM protests. Would you be OK with the government tracking every protesters, arbitrarily requesting private data from private businesses you interacted with, and then financially wipe you out without any process at all?

Like this: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us... ?

to add...largely funded by foreign actors

But hey no one wants to let the complexities of reality get in the way of good story of assholes playing the victim card.

completely agree.

as if cash can't be seized.

"For most of history, we have thought about deprivation of liberty in quite literal terms. Short of execution, which Canada hasn’t done in 60 years, locking someone up has been the ultimate state sanction."

To open with such a statement is, frankly, ridiculous coming from anyone in Canada in this day and age. No mention of the genocidal tendencies towards the indigenous populations? No? Jail is clearly the worst thing that can happen to anyone.

It's telling that so little of this conversation is conscious of who does and does not have access to 'a cashless society' and the myriad of ways the poor and working class are abused by it.

Digital Jail? Seriously? Show me the concern when the feds seize the assets of someone they accuse of being a terrorist or a drug kingpin.

HN suddenly cares about this because of some generalized hatred of Trudeau, but I can't remember a thread generating thousands of comments about companies trying to force employees to accept pay on fee heavy debit cards.

The way that discussing a Canadian protest about vaccine mandates has come to take over HN feels bizarre, agenda pushy, and like a bunch of crocodile tears.

>This headline is a ridiculous caricature of the content of the bill as I understand it.

Of course it is. At this point these types of claims can just be assumed to be detached from reality and instead serving the goal of chilling speech/action.

there's a difference here.

I was an early adopter of a Chumby (damn I loved that thing). The risk I took was that they would go out of business and no longer support the eco system - that risk proved real.

I can accept taking a risk and it not working out, this is taking one risk and having the company try and pin other risks on you.

Blaming the customer for your weak ass product is not the early-adopter risk, its the caveat emptor / screw you risk. I reject the idea that early adopter means accepting bad quality.

I recently had an issue with my car (A volvo for what it matters) with some painted plastic pealing. It was the first model year, I wasn't surprised, things need to get worked out...the early adopter risk is from them working things out. I took it in and they initially rejected the warranty claim and blamed me. I offered to have a paint chemist friend look at it and do an analysis - that changed their tune quickly. The early adopter risk I took was to my time that there might be some manufacturing quirks...not to them being sleazy about standing by their products.

> SCOTUS is a legal institution that interprets laws given the facts and case in front of them.

>that people who want the US Supreme Court to ratify "sensible" mandates and orders coming out of the Executive Branch even if they're legally sketchy should perhaps be careful what they wish for.

Yes...based on facts and laws...what are the facts and the laws in each case. Start with the facts, they are pretty simple.

> News related to this a few days ago got me thinking that people who want the US Supreme Court to ratify "sensible" mandates and orders coming out of the Executive Branch even if they're legally sketchy should perhaps be careful what they wish for.

Please explain how science-supported public health measures to control the spread of a deadly infectious disease are similar to imprisonment of a group based on their nationality because they were assumed to be helping the enemy during a way.

You just compared antibiotics and the fear of eclipses.

If institutions can't tell these apart they have already failed...all of them.

I would agree with you but they are speaking to a different audience. This is in a journal for statistics researchers and theorists. These would all be things that would inform the creation of pragmatic tools like SPC.

I would argue it isn't. I love that graphic (I use it in classes frequently) but it's limiting here.

Accuracy is about how close to the underlying behavior that is being modeled is. In this case, the goal is modeling the controllers they are using.

Precision is about how stable I can make my controller parameters and how stable they can make the behavior or the underlying fusion.

What they did was changed the fidelity of the model. Rather than parameterizing it using a known controller model (e.g., a PID controller) they used the neural network to fundamentally discover the important parameters that they can understand and how they interact.

The simulation can be accurate or not accurate entirely independently of how much fidelity of the actual phenomenon you model. You need to have a high fidelity model, and that model needs to be accurate, and they behavior needs to be precise and stable.

An example would be how wing profiles in aircraft are simulated/modeled. I can do it in 2D with high accuracy and high precision - it's a GOOD 2D simulation. But its low fidelity. I might be better off with a lower accuracy model of a high fidelity model, like a 3D model that lets me look at how the ends of the wingtip perform as well. Increasing the accuracy of that model might make the results less stable (because numerical techniques...great). A lot of improvements in computing power and simulation techniques have resulted in the ability to simulate systems more completely and learn about the interactions - not just making the simulation more accurate to what it contains.

While I understand the lens this is coming from, I don’t think it’s realistic.

Faculty, in general, don’t operate as a team like in a more traditional business. One or two or five might collaborate on a project but they typically operate very independently of one another.

Words like “collegiality” are frequently used in the academic hiring and promotion process to speak to issues that are seen as outside or parallel to merit. The problem being that the historical evidence shows that concerns about collegiality have frequently been used to disrupt actual evaluation of meritocracy in ways that specifically harm URM faculty.

Collegiality gets used because there is no real expectation that faculty act like a team, just that they aren’t active assholes to do heir peers in committee meetings.

Being difficult to work with is not a generalized negative in academia. It only is seen as a problem when someone has some other problem with you. Many faculty, in my experience/opinion, who are fantastic researchers have the emotional maturity of small children. There is a trend against that but it is far from disqualifying.

Academia, like many things, is a meritocracy until it’s not.

I'm probably being excessively pedantic but I would suggest sufficient fidelity is a more appropriate phrase than sufficient accuracy.

The exact precision doesn't seem to be the underlying problem being solve, what matters is being able to craft a stronger understanding of relationships of underlying phenomena that can then be leveraged to product new control theories.

I've worked in a number of factories and it seems like everyone of them has a Murphy. The people who get confronted with problems that begin with everyone saying 'thats not actually possible'. I will always remember the poor guy who had to figure out the local fire department's radio repeater was rebooting ONE SINGLE piece of equipment in a factory from about a third of a mile away.

I have always wondered if there is a way to detect this particular trait either using MRI or possibly smell. Once you are in a space you can usually identify them because everyone seems to slightly avoid their workspace out of fear of being infected.

> Maybe your post made you feel better, but next time maybe make a post that improves discourse and maybe leads to a better world (and doesn't alienate someone like me who is leaning to the outcome you desire).

I found myself saying recently that I can no longer respect people who hesitate to vote for a group of people who have done a bad job fixing something and instead vote for the people who broke it.

I have found, over a lot of sad experiences, when people's assumptions become their ideology, those assumptions then become their experiences. Largely, there is no arguing with them and stridency is called for to point out to others the error of their ways. Your call is for respectful discourse and argumentation. That call is seemingly reasonable on its face but is easily weaponized to protect bad faith arguments. It shifts responsibility to prove a negative instead of someone proving the claim. If you reread the post I reacted to, critically, it is a truly nonsense set of talking points masquerading as an argument. I hold no ill will to the poster - its just regurgitation that is presumed to have meaning. "create more options" "figure out who is overpaid" that have no connection to each other besides the underlying ideology that government bad industry good. That isn't an argument - it's an ideology. And you can't argue with ideologies because they aren't argument based.

If we are speaking of argumentation, then evaluating the * basic coherence * and credibility of a claim made is perfectly reasonable. But it isn't my job to argue people out of a position they didn't argue themselves into. That is not a good use of my time, and defending those people isn't a good use of yours. What has value is laying bare, for others who might be misled, just how hollow that non argument is.

Your points about the TSA and DMV are ones I to an extent understand, because they match my own experiences. But if one steps back and looks at evidence they tend to fall apart - because its an ideology not an argument. What matters isn't is the DMV good or bad, its would industry run it better. I have experienced two states with privatized DMVs. Those were categorically the two worst DMV experiences I have had - because they had no staff on hand, no ability to do anything, and they charged me more for the service. I would argue the TSA has worked exactly as intended - create the appearance of doing something and line the pockets of (shocker) industry by buying useless equipment. It is regulatory capture, it is the purest vision of what industry will do if given the opportunity to influence government services - as little as possible for as much money as possible.

The discussion of which is better is a red herring, as you correctly noted. But its one that exists and is viewed as an assumptive way of making things better (industry! run the government like a business!) that is accepted with farcically lacking evidence. Maybe the side suggesting that privatization is better should spend their time teaching government the lessons of industry rather than wasting our time trying to steal from the public.

TL:DR - make an argument, talking points aren't an argument and should not be treated as one just for the sake of making discourse feel nice.

thank god the government no longer has a monopoly on...checks notes...the money I give the government to provide government services. Now we can...check notes...collect more tax dollars so that disabled students have access to segregated education and somehow that will show us who is making too much money. You have invented the idea of accounting and presume that it is impossible that it will not show you are right.

I hear this type of logic a lot. If you don't start with an assumption that the ideology is true and therefore the outcomes from the ideology are better then what comes out is functionally incoherent. It begins with the assumption that public organizations are poorly run and then uses that assumption to conclude they are poorly run. That's not thinking, its not argumentation, and it should not be respected as a serious viewpoint.

When the charter schools get to pick the students they want and leave the the more expensive students to the group that is required by law to educate them they haven't improved. They haven't innovated, they've stolen from the public and claimed their moral superiority for doing so. This comment is representative of the fucking inanity (not insanity) of this ideology.