keerthiko

woah the guy was banned on 4chan is there a hall of fame for "fires too hot for hell"?

Amazon not being on the hook for severance for a large percentage of high salary workers, plus not having them on payroll/benefits for the weeks/months it would take to transition them out via PIP (including the management overhead involved per staffer) usually adds up to just about enough in savings to go out and recruit fresh, RTO-willing, naive talent much sooner.

Yep, basic human rights are priceless, and by capitalist mechanics, their pricing will always converge at "how much can we get away with in the current economy?" Government oversight is the only way we currently have to manage this somewhat.

As an example in support of this, healthcare is barely price-regulated and hardly run by the government in America, and is thus extortionate.

I believe the argument here is that the way to do that isn't by establishing a private business that flaunts and undermines those government regulations, but by changing the policies through government process.

Obviously that's easier said than done, and SV has a track record of "ask forgiveness not permission" as a successful tactic for effecting policy change. But many times it results in indefinite undermining of government which leads to selective enforcement and cartels, which is worthy of criticism (of both government and VC-powered undermining of government).

I believe that's supposed to be how you see the solution, not a strategy to playing the game...

It's a neat game! The mechanics and the general idea is intuitive (all the road joints should connect sensibly). And extremely hard, because it's still an abstract artwork with very minimal constraints.

I think if there was some kind of indication of what the final thing should look like, or an indication if after manipulation a tile is either in the correct spot but wrong rotation, or correct spot and correct rotation, it would go a long way to making the game feel solvable, as you can have a sense of progress.

it was evident to me from your other comments that you yourself are an immigrant to the west, but it was also evident that you believed the west is in a better place because "it is doing things right", and therefore other places (including where you came from) are doing things wrong. my comment was less about who you are (ethnically, passport-wise, etc), but about the cultural superiority you ascribe to the west with your comment (which many non-white non-westerners do). i myself am an american citizen by immigration, probably for similar reasons to yourself, after having lived approx half my life in 4 other countries, but i don't know how relevant that is either. that these countries have welcomed you and i with open arms doesn't reinforce your opinion that they won't harm someone who didn't follow their beliefs, it just so happens that we follow their beliefs and so we get along. in fact, your comment is literally arguing for not welcoming people who don't follow your beliefs (assuming they are of violent intent).

this discussion imo is far too complex for a HN comment thread, but your depiction of "barbarism" is deeply rooted in western narratives omitting details such as many people from those places also find those atrocities terrible, and they are perpetuated because of a few powerful bigoted people and lots of propaganda. when atrocities are justified with propaganda, i think it's crude to think the people or the societies are barbaric as much as the leaders (usu. religious ones) are. western societies moved past honor killings, feudalism, slavery, concentration camps and other barbaric practices not-so-long ago, and to a great extent because of the resources they extracted from other countries during that time afforded them to bandwidth to focus on equitable societies. following that, wanting to isolate people of those other societies from also becoming part of these more equitable societies by precluding them as barbaric and therefore shouldn't be allowed here, imo, is what is barbaric.

the contemporary west has also repeatedly shown itself capable of direct barbarism too, like brutally levelling a school of innocent children in Pakistan or drone-striking innocents as collateral damage with no restraint. or what, is unjustified murder & cruelty only barbaric when done on your own soil, and fair game done in someone else's country with citizen tax dollars?

also somewhat unrelated but yes, serbian is white insofar as they genetically present features mostly associated with western white society (light-colored eyes, hair color other than black, caucasian bone structure) so without considering family circumstances/political background, that's white, at least on observation. of course with your mixed heritage i understand this may not be true of you specifically.

this is the most holier-than-thou (literally and figuratively) broad strokes opinion phrased as if it's a nuanced opinion about cultures.

i think it's self-evident from history and society that "importing" "barbarism" into "society"* is how we even started doing things like not unashamedly harming marginalized groups in the West. if i'm not mistaken most christian sects, whether in europe or america have had various levels of being okay with ostracizing and harming queer and trans people until very recent times. your comment smacks incredibly of thinking only western white civilizations are capable of overcoming "barbarism" and evolving into a more just society for people over time, especially using the common scapegoat of other cultures taking longer to catch up on LGBT rights.

fascinating that other people's systems of being is "barbarism" and yours is "society". and thus, it's reasonable that most of the world thinks american society was barbaric with their deep rooted slavery and racism, and european society barbaric with their violent colonial extractionism defining much of their past and present.

In a technical sense, I think Outback steakhouse is a classic example of cultural appropriation. However in practice, I think the "cultural differential" (difference between the cultures) and "market differential" (which one gets patronized more, a place authentic to the culture, or an appropriator?) are important details for identifying an instance of such appropriation as problematic.

If there are authentic Australian steakhouses in America or globally that are struggling or dealing with people having strange misconceptions of Australian culture, while Outback is thriving and eating into their market while perpetuating said misconceptions of Australian culture (I have no idea! It's possible...), it would be a smaller-scale but similar case to Taco Bell and the variety of struggling family-run mexican restaurants, or non-mexicans being confused/surprised/ignorant about authentic mexican food.

My favorites are

- Paris Baguette: a Korean bakery chain, selling 50-50 asian and western confections but no baguettes, pretending to be French, most popular in America.

- Bondi Sushi: a New York chain, named for a beach in Australia, for a Japanese specialty.

- Outback steakhouse: American chain named for a Australian region, and depending where you are, full of Canadian imagery including mooses and snow and sleds (I went in Boston).

Paris Baguette makes sense to me, it draws a lot of people who think they're getting a French bakery, but discover and enjoy the (novel-to-them) asian pastries in the process. As a non-white American, I have always been confused why Americans love appropriating Australian branding for restaurants? Who exactly does that appeal to, and to discover what? Evidently it offends Australians. It means nothing to me who doesn't really know what aspect of Australia I would seek from such places (sushi? steak?), so it doesn't seem meant to draw people who not affiliated with Australia somehow.

Maybe Australians cofounded these places in America? Or just Americans who had life-defining experiences in Australian locations and came back to start restaurants in honor of those places? I have not dug too deep into their origins.

a repository of markdown files with a custom viewing software that supports the syntax and renders it for readability or acts as a wysiwyg editor would work well: I do this personally, with Obsidian.md, where my vault directory is a git repository. a hosted web interface should be able to do something similar.

Tangential, is this intended to be pronounced like "എന്റെ", judging by your HN handle? Stoked to run into a fellow mallu founder of a consumer product. A huge fan of how the product/business is being run.

You literally just said what GP said in different words, but prefaced it with "Or" as if it's a disagreement. What you said boils down to "inadequate training".

this might be dependent on your arc settings, where you can choose from [execute arc shortcut]/[execute site shortcut]/[both]?

i don't think anyone who has been to any of the world's top 100 biggest cities could in good faith say SF has too many people. it's barely got a midwestern suburb's level of density.

for one, it is not built into either of my shells: Windows gitbash, or OSX terminal.

> placing and connecting drag and drop electrical components

This is where game engines are annoying. You have to do "collision checks" between your cursor and any points of interest, like a slot or a grid or a connection. Usually in a 2D use-case like yours, you can just do a geometry condition (if component.x > slot1.x && component.x < slot1.x + threshold...), especially while your UI elements are regular shapes. Engines are fast at doing lots of native collision checks in 3D and with irregular shapes too with an engine-specific "collider" for each element, as it's expected to do collision checks for almost every visible actor in every frame in a game.

> and the simulation itself

Depending on the eventual complexity of your circuit simulator, there are pros and cons to different approaches. My undergraduate electronics degree is fading from memory so I might not have the best advice here.

A purely node/actor-based computational simulator is one approach, which reduces dependency on the global manager with knowledge of the layout or handling of the computation. You have to define how each component responds to charge at its input nodes, and manipulates charge at its output nodes, ie, define its response curve in terms of charge. You just have to work with the differential time-equations for computational analysis of electric circuits, not the closed-form analytical ones. ie, substitute I with dQ/dt (charge over time) everywhere, and in every "update" iteration (or "tick" or "frame" or whatever your engine calls them) multiply the differential equation by timeDelta (every engine provides timeDelta as the time elapsed since the last frame). I would give this method a try scoping the project for very simple components (maybe just DC power source, LED, resistors, connector junctions) that can be sized to a grid of discrete sizes.

This can however feel like rediscovering electricity from first principles because traditional circuit equations usually don't work with charge or with time, since they're defining the steady state behaviour.

If you would rather work with traditional steady state electronics formula for each component type, I think your second solution is a decent approach, "passing the result on" from one node into the next (which is the same as making changes to the tree iinm?). Technically using the steady state equations renders ticks irrelevant, other than updating to reflect any changes in the circuit, or if you have time-dependent component behaviour (like an AC signal or an inductor), but that's still a nice feature to have.

I think you should try avoiding reliance on a global manager for anything that goes on in the simulation as much as possible, because I sense you will tend towards "centralized application logic" if you allow yourself that luxury. The whole point of game engines is to break down your logic into different actors that interact with each other, and a simulation is exactly that.

It's impossible to be sure without knowing your programming experience in general across sectors, but it sounds like you are unused to the paradigms of game programming in general, which is centered on logic executed per-frame rather than per-flow (like in business applications, which is where the concept of "business logic" comes from).

The default approach in game engines is to bind data including state to an actor, then have define per actor, in a given state, how it modifies its own and other actors' data over a frame (usu. processing user input as necessary), and how it renders to the screen. This is what game engines are designed to make easy, by providing something like an "Update" and "OnDraw" virtual functions you fill in for every element in your world.

Inevitably every application needs to have a few "directors" who need to take care of business that can't be isolated to an individual "actor" or per-frame state manipulation, and these are usually structured around async-awaits, callbacks, is a thread handler/dispatcher. But if you go overboard with directors, actors that operate like directors, or actor-director interactions, you're inviting trouble in game-engine-land.

There are some alternate paradigms like "entity component system" and entirely callback-driven event-driven game architectures, but they tend to never exist in purity without the actor-update model.

Since I haven't seen it mentioned here, our small team adopted coda[0] in 2020 which has a similar thesis, as our organization's central information hub, and have not looked back. It has the simplicity of falling back to plaintext, but whenever we want to structure data better gives us tables, charts, publishable forms, sites, etc.

It's exciting to have more tools in this space, as I think it addresses a major use case across workplaces in today's world of remote-centric work: Asynchronous knowledge transfer and documentation, especially amongst non-technical workers and organizations. Extremely poor documentation of process and practices, largely because of poor documentation tools (just word docs and the like) is the biggest knowledge-hole I have observed within non-tech workplaces.

[0]: https://coda.io

If it makes you feel any better, I was (am) a game-addicted kid who did indeed pick up Borland C++ and coded a graphical DOS version of hangman alongside my older brother when I was 12, and made a tank game with a map editor solo when I was comfortable with pointers before I was 14 — it hasn't made me a prodigal pioneer of computer programming or a wildly successful silicon valley C[E/T]O. While I do still enjoy coding/gamedev and earn a modest living from it, as a more evenly matured adult I have other interests that I care about just as much and keeps me occupied instead of poring over the latest and greatest in tech or gamedev.

I guess what I'm saying is that being interested enough to become competent at a young age doesn't necessarily equate to becoming an industry-leading savant by age 34...nor is it a prerequisite. If you are passionate today, I bet you could still level up to the forefront of whatever niche you care about with enough commitment.

I have no trouble using Figjam for this, or just figma but borrowing the arrow connector objects from Figjam

Other than being open source, and having cross-device sync at the free tier, I think Obsidian is superior. In fact, I simply put my Obsidian vault in a dropbox folder, and it effectively cross-device syncs quite well for me.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I don't think you're rude, and I get what you're saying as someone who thinks a lot about accents and languages. However, I still think you missed my point.

There is no "no accent". An accent is a baseline feature of intelligible human speech, like a voice, or a volume, or a language. You can't say stuff without those features. When you say "the Chicago accent", or the "Midwest accent", that's an accent! Not "no accent".

I understand it's common usage to refer to the default "radio accent" as "no accent", but in a country like America, all kinds of people with all kinds of accents speak English. Reinforcing an expectation that a certain (usu. majority-white-spoken) one is the "default" by referring to it as "no accent", implicitly suggests all others are erroneous affectations, even if I trust that is not your personal intent.

All that said, I think your idea for a translation device capable of revocalizing what is said with an unfamiliar accent into one you are used to is not a bad one, and likely easier than translating between languages while retaining expressiveness.

Obligatory, not directed at you in particular since I'm sure you mean no offense, but just voicing a pet peeve:

I grew up bilingual outside the US, and speak English with a hybrid British/Indian/Middle Eastern accent (with some of my personal quirks, and mixing increasing amounts of various American accents over time). I can understand English in nearly any accent (Singaporean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Nigerian, eastern European) as long as the words involved are globally used and the grammar is passably queen's. Especially after hearing it for about an hour. And people who natively speak English with these various accents usually can understand my English better than they can an average American accent. Yet in this country, my accent is belittled, despite being perfectly understood and more versatile. Even by others who don't speak with the American accent!

This is the problem of the "default accent" anywhere being referred to as "no accent", and therefore anything deviating is considered "having an accent". This makes "accent" a negative trait, scaling from 0-bad to heavy-bad. But if the vernacular were such that we said "American accent" instead of "no accent", then noone's accent is bad, just not used to.

Most of my non-American peers who were raised on English have a better command of the language than my American ones, yet they are mocked for their accents as if they don't know the language, when in reality it's the Americans lack of familiarity with the language (as its used globally) preventing them from comprehending the language.

So yes, put in more work, the world is shrinking and English is the global language (for better or worse). What you're saying is spoken from a position of privilege because the culture allows you to mock others' accents and imply your version of it is the correct one that everyone else should put in work to provide you with, rather than the other way around.

Every time you hear English with an accent other than British, American or Australian, remember that it usually means the speaker knows at least one entire other language as well, probably one that you would sound like an idiot if you tried to speak it. Don't be rude or dismissive of their command of English.

In fact, you were so close — you called it a "no accent am-english", when you could have just called it what it is — "an american accent".

Likely a mismatch of the type of English, if the site treats only EN-US (or EN-UK) as english and hasn't included the other, which would just be a mistake.

Then it might switch to your second preference. Alternatively if your device OS is set to dutch, or have some language system like a virtual keyboard or input manager set to dutch, the site might look at that over the user-agent? Very odd choice if any of those.

I agree. I think a significantly better approach would have been to vote for the elaboration of a "checks and balances" structure to OpenAI as it grew in capabilities and influence.

Internal to the entire OpenAI org, sounds like all we had was just the for-profit arm <-> board of directors. Externally, you can add investors and public opinion (basically defaults to siding with the for-profit arm).

I wish they worked towards something closer to a functional democracy (so not the US or UK), with a judicial system (presumably the board), a congress (non-existent), and something like a triumvirate (presumably the for-profit C-suite). Given their original mission, it would be important to keep the incentives for all 3 separate, except for "safe AI that benefits humanity".

The truly hard to solve (read: impossible?) part is keeping the investors (external) from having an outsize say over any specific branch. If a third internal branch could exist that was designed to offset the influence of investors, that might have resulted in closer to the right balance.

From my understanding that's a core goal of the "defund the police" movement. The police as it exists in this country right now is a state militia. We need more 911 respondents that are not armed to the teeth, to join the corpus of medics and firefighters, replacing the police in 80% of use cases. Noise complaint? Homeless person shooting up? Car accident? Cops are over-equipped and undertrained in most of these cases. They respectively need negotiation, compassion and first-aid, and a logistics/insurance official.

Cops don't necessarily need to be trained in all these things, because cops suck up so much funding to deal with the few cases they might actually be necessary (gang shootout, protest security, armed robbery, etc), and one official can only be reliably trained in so many things. They just need to not be sent for these non-violent cases in favor of specialized unarmed social workers.

Peter has a classic case of "Illusory superiority". Because of the recognition he received in the very early formative years of the game development industry, he has come to believe he eternally stands on the pinnacle of game industry innovation and creativity no matter what he does, rather than treating each of his projects critically and individually.

This is like if someone was the best Chess player off of intuition in the 1500s and received great respect for it, then fell off as others studied the game more deeply, but still considered themselves the pinnacle of Chess skill in 2023 despite not coming close to a championship for centuries.

Peter Molyneux deserves respect for the foundational impact he had on the game industry. That does not mean that respect needs to carry over to literally anything he does today if the work itself doesn't amount to much.

there are a lot of people who need shelter who have not accumulated the wealth needed to purchase a dwelling in the economic framework of today. how will those people be housed? mass public housing (aka the government is an exception to this rule)? who is owning/maintaining/orchestrating that housing operation? and when people can buy, who are they buying from, once everyone has met this rule?

it's a far more complicated problem than "landlord bad". Renting is a valuable option for expensive necessities that often times aren't as useful permanently owned (cars, ski gear, houses).

the problem is that incentives are terribly non-aligned, given majority of people need to rely on renting.

here are some of my ideas (as a long-time renter who owns a co-op unit since the pandemic)

- make "projected housing capacity growth rate guarantee" for every residential-capable zone a policy — every <N> years, evaluate each zone for meeting that growth rate, and slate lowest density housing in that zone for demolition with large bounties for developers to claim the permits to build denser (usually taller) housing than the existing densest housing within the zone. The densest zones of the city can extend N by some factor each time. (that's a rudimentary version of the idea)

- rent payments up to a certain amount per household member should be tax deductible commensurate to market rate in the region, so that home ownership doesn't immediately become tax optimal.

- property taxes should be tied to market rate rent and market rate home values in that region so that home owners are not incentivized to prop up inflated rental prices when they aren't actively renting out, or to inflate home valuations when they aren't actively in the market to sell.

- home ownership beyond primary residence should be taxed more significantly than it is.

- tax developers constructing and/or operating luxury housing at different tiers (factoring sq. footage/room, amenities, starting lease prices)

glad you bring up the second-chance pool concept occasionally, as i missed the original announcement and previous references, and it's an incredibly useful thing to know about HN as someone who shares/writes posts regularly but rarely.

the hand-curated second-chance pool is a tasteful way to mute the ephemerality and timing-dependence of a platform like HN a tiny bit.