conover

This is the bitter lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_lesson

Yeah. And the penalties for wire fraud are steep. Up to 20 years in prison and $250k fine _per_ count.

Object Permanence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

See Certificate of Need requirements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need

I think the traffic cone robbery threat model also exists for non-Waymos (e.g. car jacking).

This is the classic precision versus recall discussion. The discussion centers around how you think about the cost of a false positive versus false negative.

Some people think it's fine for the process to have low precision but high recall. Low precision is that of the number of conversations the process flagged as a positive, some unacceptable (to you) percentage turned out to be a not/false "positive". High recall is that of all the actually positive conversations, the process flagged an acceptable (to you) percentage of them as positive (i.e. only "missed" a few/false negative).

What does it cost to wrongly identify conversation a positive when it's really not a positive (false positive)?

What does it cost to wrongly identify a conversation as a negative when it's really a positive (false negative)?

You decide.

I think there is a tendency to project the modern era's speed of technological progress back in time, which isn't reasonable. We went from the Wright Brothers to Apollo 11 in 66 years. The first transistor to the iPhone in ~60 years. That rate of development is...new.

In my experience, you can weaponize processes like the Five Whys or the Amazon Leadership Principles. I don’t think that means they don’t have any value.

That being said, in this case, I agree with your manager. Both the QA team and your team had fundamental problems.

Your team (I assume) verified the functionality which included X set of changes, and then your team made Y more changes (the flag) which were not verified. Ideally, once the functionality is verified, no more changes would be permitted in order to prevent this type of problem.

The fundamental problems on the QA team were…extensive.

The problem is that these companies are locked into years long, multi-billion dollar contracts with the sports leagues. Those contracts are predicated on their existing monetization model. The economics of those contracts no longer make sense if the model changes. A lot of money is on the line. So they are going to fight hard.

The government (and/or society?) have already deputized private organizations to enforce various types of controls either implicitly or explicitly. Banks (AML) and Payment Processors (recent Steam content removal news) come to mind. Irrespective of whether it's a good or bad things, it already exists.

A French Drain has nothing to do with France! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_drain

Fully operational in 2030. I guess better late than never, but that’s a long time off.

Bainbridge Island (connected to Seattle by ferry) is like this. There is approximately one Uber driver, at least the last time I was there, and good luck if you get back to the island later in the day. A single Waymo would be amazing.

At least in the US, you are going to run into problems with the First Amendment (eg Central Hudson Test).

Oh yeah? You don’t use your sense of hearing and your internal sense of direction, vertical elevation, etc.?

To play devil’s advocate, salt and milk aren’t pumped into your house by the government. You can also buy iodine-free salt and vitamin d-free milk if you choose.

Uh, it’s given you a lot in return. It abstracts away a lot of the human condition for a lot of people. Personally, I don’t want to go back to growing food to feed myself and bartering. Most people are aligned with that point of view.

Edit: In fact, it works so well, you can ask what it does for you.

Isn’t this the deal we’ve made? You can, legally, deny someone access to private property for any non-protected reason.

On the other hand, if the private property was constructed with public monies, which MSG probably was, that’s an interesting debate. Should the involvement of public money confer first amendment protections of some sort? I think it should.

Edit: You can’t use “my” money to build something and then ban me from it because I said something (non-protected) about the CEO of the company that owns it.

Honestly, do these people hear themselves? I guess the product echo chamber is too loud to hear the needs of actual customers (or what they don’t need).

Right. "The world's best cookie". I think the idea is that no reasonable person would understand that statement to mean that literally, of all the cookies in the world, this one right here is the best.

Along with the reconnect solution already mentioned, you can also decouple your Websocket and business logic layers using something like Pushpin: https://pushpin.org/. This allows you to deploy your business logic layer without disconnecting/reconnecting clients.

Output metrics are things you can't control. For revenue, you can't force people to by your products. Inputs metrics are the things you can control. You can (to a degree) control price and selection. And you've established via analysis that those inputs metrics are associated with the output metrics.

A key part I think people miss is to make _sure_ your input metrics and output metrics are correlated. You would intuitively think that, say, lowering outage minutes would be correlated with revenue. And as a result, you should invest engineering and other resources in reducing outage minutes. But maybe experimentally or via some other type of analysis it isn't. Maybe users will tolerate some amount of outage minutes without materially impacting revenue. You can then utilize that knowledge to prioritize. Rather than investing in resiliency to improve outage minutes, you invest in something else because that will have a bigger impact on revenue.

In the 2016 shareholder letter, Jeff Bezos wrote: It’s always worth asking, do we own the process or does the process own us?

Yup. If this isn't Congress' intent, all they have to do is pass a law saying so. "...when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision rested on federal common law the need for such an unusual exercise of lawmaking by federal courts disappears." - MILWAUKEE v. ILLINOIS via Wikipedia.

Given how A to B to C the logic of the ruling is, this case seems like a gigantic waste of the Court's time, though it was 6-3. So there was significant dissent.

I don't see how this weakens SEC enforcement. They can still seek enforcements. They just have to seek them via a trial by jury of your peers, which is one of the most foundational aspects of American law and one of the issues that led to the American Revolution.

Yeah. Reading the opinion, the logical argument of criminalizing a status (homeless) versus an action (camping in public) makes sense. The action applies to everyone.

We as a society need to continue trying to solve the problem of homelessness. However, leveraging the 8th Amendment, in part, to do it doesn’t make sense.

Nvidia’s profit margin for the H100 is supposedly in the neighborhood of 1000%. So they can afford give up some profit if they need to. Couple that with the fact that the software toolchain advantage is significant. That being said, I’m all for more competition in the space.

You don’t usually hear the notion that Iran has a winning strategy. Rather than downvoting, I’m going to say that your comment lacks credibility.

This is a classic ethical dilemma. Self-driving cars will kill some amount of people via malfunctions, accidents, etc. Some amount will be children. Should we ban the development of the technology? What if it only killed 1 child? What about 10? What about 100? How many dead children is the benefit of self-driving cars worth?

"The world moved on", as it's said in the Dark Tower series.