high_derivative

What kind of content do you actually need to store as a student on cloud that takes substantial storage? Genuine question. I used dropbox free tier with 2 GBs throughout all of undergrad + masters + phd, and I never had problems. Lecture videos are hosted online. Data dumps from experiments sure as hell don't go on random cloud storage but appropriate networked storage.

Obviously I was not using it to dump large amounts of raw data, but normal student stuff like problem sheets, paper submissions, reading material.

The people using this as their personal backup for their movie collections are the problem - they are abusing an education service for their personal use. It's why we cant have nice things.

Just as a user feedback - I do not want to have to sign up or login with your account to see what's what. You need a landing page showing some content.

My suggestion would be to delete this submission until you have prepared a landing page if you want real feedback. Almost nobody will give you their email for an unknown purpose on an empty page.

Saving you a click: leads to an empty signup page with no content to explain what it is.

>. I don’t want to downplay the deep instutionalised sexism and racism that is at play in Gebru’s firing — that is there for all to see.

This is a very badly written and uniformed article, and sentences like these essentially illustrate the thinking here (It's imploding because I don't like it).

Here is an alternative reading: Google is cleaning house of toxic activists who are not interested in serious ethics research but use it as a vehicle for their ultra-progressive political agendas.

Yes - I felt it went into a lot of conjecture about certain events and Scott's responsibility/involvement (and very polarising interpretation of these events). I found that less useful and it would have probably been better to separate arguments.

A submission comment since this is very long: Like many hn readers, I personally enjoy Scott Alexander's writing. This is a rather scathing but very long criticism of his style, so I thought it may make for interesting discussion here.

I am trying to make up my mind - OP started with some observations about his style which I found partially relevant, but then derailed into something that seemed motivated more by political disagreement.

Strategically, this seems like a mistake. It's better to fire the activists outright now - the problem is not gone, just deferred, until the next confrontation.

Im fairly certain he means 'plain old not doing a great job'.

Agreed and I think what consumers should do is vote with their wallets and attention:

- Cancel NYT subscriptions

- Subscribe to independent journalists and writers on Substack or via other means

- Flag NYT articles

S4TF from my (external) perspective was always more a (very cool!) programming language research project than anything else, at least since Lattner left.

I would personally assume the shutdown was due to a combination of reasons:

- There simply being no good reason for Python users to ever move to Swift. There is no big painpoint being solved for the broad ML user community

- Organisational momentum lost with Lattner leaving

- General disarray of TensorFlow as a project, the parallel rise of Jax from/within prominent Google orgs, it being the cool new thing

I really really really hope Substack does not get acquired. Cue content policies, moderation, and basically another outlet of big tech media.

As a non-American, the intellectual infantilization around bad words is completely insane to me.

The NYT has a reckoning coming. They went all in on neoliberal culture war - and it worked, it gained them subscribers. People still treat them like a serious institution, but if they continue down this path, that's over.

It's certainly been interesting to see this narrative be manufactured and adopted within a very short amount of time and now accepted as truth widely.

The initial 4 year schedule is largely irrelevant, considering high performers get large refreshers.

This is a nice idea if they were trying to change the process to work better for everyone.

That's not what's happening. They just demand explicit quotas for themselves.

The whole 'diversity and inclusion/feminism makes things better for everyone' is largely a myth, it's just identity groups out for themselves in corporate America.

At my company (FAANG), 2/3 of intern and entry level opportunities are given to women. Ironically virtually all of them come from the same few elite universities and were hardly held back by anyone, as far as I can tell.

Some of them play this game very aggressively. Once they are there, immediately organize into diversity projects and groups to push for quotas in promotions, project leads, etc. Despite these fast-track opportunities, they fully believe they are continuously being held back, at every level, and everything will be interpreted that way.

I think it will eventually break the org but I don't plan on staying.

Does this mean Pycharm et al. will also have support?

> The MSM has mostly done an outstanding job, newspapers in particular.

I really genuinely cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic.

There are multiple types of impact. The question is whether it brings value to Google as a corporation, and thus leverage to her as an employee.

Sure - I am just observing this from the power dynamics here. A relatively low-level employee making aggressive and public demands to a large corporation should think carefully about their position. Unless the goal is a scandal for publicity.

These things seem to play out like clockwork. Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles, let them hire their activist friends, shower them with fast track careers and promotions. It's good optics, the progressives like it because it makes them feel better about working at big techs.

Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. They nevertheless become increasingly emboldened and misinterpret their situation. After all, no-one dares criticise them, they are showered with feel-good publicity. The only thing they need to do is keep their end of the deal.

Until they overstep, get fired, and cause drama by claiming everything that happened to them was due to discrimination, and not because they are toxic and disruptive.

I think this is all a good thing because it may alert some executives to the price for hiring activists into research roles.

Edit: Should add that I am purely talking about the power dynamics here, not research impact or the question of whether AI policy is an interesting subject. It is, I am just observing that it has not driven particular value to companies when compared to the negative publicity these dramas cause.

The first default question for any ML trading company: If it works, why are you not trading it yourself?

It could almost be satire on tone-deaf founder blogging.

Oh my, what drivel. Another startup CEO who thinks late-stage employees with essentially zero upside in the company need to put in founder hours.

Something that always struck me as funny is that HW roles at FAANGs/Silicon Valley in general are paid worse than software roles.

It makes sense in that software is more profitable, but a lot of employers who do this (big techs) are not really cash strapped or sensitive for cost.

It is so much much harder to find great HW compiler engineers with deep toolchain knowledge than another leetcode SWE. Seems a serious blindspot.

And you expect YouTube to host these for free so the creator can be paid why exactly?

So what did employees get?

Ahh, the vague smear. What is an alt right medium? Any medium posting any content you are politically not aligned with?

Comments like yours prove exactly the value of having something like substack for journalists like Greenwald.

Is it possible to read this without logging into medium?