knighthack

Clickbait is just as often about half-truths, or omissions.

Anything that leads to a reader/viewer asking "Why?/What?", and which triggers the human curiosity that leads to a click - constitutes clickbait.

Such content may later disappoint or cause annoyance to the reader/viewer; but they still clicked, which is all that matters.

This is actually really interesting! I didn't know that this package existed. Thanks for sharing.

I found their sudden non-profit to profit trajectory extremely dishonest. Their mission statement also reads like moralistic verbiage, rather than the statement of disinterested pioneers of AI - which is problematic given how this has become a money thing for OpenAI, rather than an idealistic pursuit.

I love this article! Surprised that there's not much discussion ensuing from it. I think the quest for more performant tooling is a worthy thing in itself, as the Python community has had great tooling, but not so much performant tooling, and things like this have spillover effects on other projects.

I find it hypocritical that the author writes this: "...If we remove all the pretense, it usually comes down to people defending their personal choices. We have a tendency to try to justify and protect our investment in whatever languages and tools we know and use. This makes sense. But it isn’t always rational behavior."

Yet his entire article is a justification for his defence of his code preferences.

Moreover his article is vague and has no technical depth, despite his controversial statements/advocacy. E.g. not a single line in the article refers to virtual environments of any kind, which is basic to how Python works and dependency management as part of the (arguably Pythonic) tooling process.

I don't see how the 'understanding of relationships' should be taken as the key intent of DALL-E 2.

Consider procedural generation: it can create abstractions of both utter beauty or garbage without understanding context. You need to guide it towards something meaningful.

Just the fact that DALL-E can 'glue things together' without need for human inspiration - yet where its output and intent can be understood by a human appraising it - that is not only a feat in itself, but I would say its key feature.

A woman can allege she was sexually assaulted years or decade after the event, and still be presumed to be stating the 'truth'.

Yet Adams' claim - of discrimination for being white and male - is somehow presumed to be 'different' from the 'truth', just because he "claimed that long after the fact"?

The truth does not change depending on the age of a claim.

I remember the first time I heard the word "tree shaking" for CSS.

...I genuinely wondered what tree was involved. Took a Google search before I understood that it was industry jargon, which meant this: to reduce/minify code.

There are many similarly opaque things in the world of web-development.

Relevant trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildr...

"this law i broke shouldn't exist"

Wrong. Ultra-vires laws can be challenged after the fact that they were broken. If the law in itself was invalid, that is a valid legal defence.

As a speaker of multiple languages, I disagree. There's no possibility of HN turning into a non-English language site just because a few threads are not in English; HN will always be first and foremost an English language site (and it's too long set in English for it to be anything but), and it's actually quite nice to be reminded of the existence of other conversations by other language speakers rather than only English. I and many others may not be able to participate so directly in them, but there's always Google Translate.

For us to come around and examine/judge her as if she was a brainwashed fool in a startup cult makes no sense.

First, she chose to work there. She was not forced to. She has agency; she could leave at any time.

Secondly, the discussion is about work culture. It's not that she painted the work culture as toxic; she painted the work culture as inviting, meaningful, and something that helped her grow, despite the long hours. Surely something can be gleaned from that.

Thirdly, this is a startup culture. You can't choose to work in a high-paced kitchen, and complain about the heat. If you can't take the heat, leave. It is the company's problem to find someone to replace you and your value; just like you can't blame the world to change and fit you (as you must make the change to yourself), you can't blame the company to adjust around your style. Companies are commercial ventures; they have different goals and expectations than the individuals working for them.

Jetbrains has one specifically for this: DataSpell - https://www.jetbrains.com/dataspell/.

It's like a tweaked version of DataGrip + PyCharm, but catering specifically to the particular needs of data scientists.

> This probably sounds really arrogant, but I've long given up finding a man as smart as me:)

The smartest people I know think they're the dumbest person in the room. Your above response is very indicative of the kind of vibe you give to the men you date.

If you can't find a man who's as smart as you, that reflects on the pool of people you surround yourself with, not the intelligence of the men you can't find.

Your sort of thought will usually manifest itself in unconscious behaviour on dates, and will be a turn-off to the men you date. In the same way that many people can't detect the smell on their own bodies, you too likely won't know how abrasive your behaviour might be to others. I know a woman who has professed the same thoughts as you do (in a more humblebrag manner) and she has had extreme difficulties in finding a man to marry despite extreme efforts at such.

< I also wonder why engineers are OK with the concept of technical abstractions, but are somehow in despair when business people use business abstractions. Most people here understand how abstractions are useful.

Because business 'abstractions' are often buzzwords or intentional jargon, that hide the simplicity of what actually lies underneath. Whereas software abstractions are genuine abstractions of the complex mechanism that underlie software.

I've since last year migrated virtually all serious content to SQLite, which handless most of my FTS needs flawlessly, or can be programmed to do it with little trouble. The only thing lacking is the lack of a default 'websearch' feature like in PostgreSQL, but you can always write functions to add search syntax and faceted searches.

For static databases (especially where the content is not deleted, or rarely updated) consider using contentless tables or external content tables. The database size remains virtually the same, but you'll have immediate access to almost all FTS features.

> Well, if you are second-guessing yourself, I'd actually argue that obviously you may have some reservations about it.

Not necessarily. Some people are genuinely happy for what they buy/enjoy for themselves. But other people - who may not understand the value of that purchase (or are motivated by envy) - can bring down a person's enjoyment of that product, by mocking it, or thinking the lesser of it.

A simple example: movie reviews. Not everyone's palate is as 'sophisticated' or 'refined' as that of movie critiques. In comparison, lowbrow entertainment exists, and can be enjoyed by anyone, always. But critiques may look down upon such a form of entertainment - and a person who reads their reviews, and who shouuld normally enjoy their lowbrow their entertainment, might now enjoy their show less, just because others are looking down on it, or because they feel that they have live up to some 'standard' of correctness.

It's not about personally reservations. None of the above has anything to do with a person's inner reservations about a thing - it is about the external judgment, that may sometimes ruin enjoyment. Not everyone is as confident to be able to shake off the thought of others.

The one thing I did not like about the Lemur Pro is its odd and extremely tiny arrow keys. That made it impossible to use, given that I touch type and rely on motor memory for typing.

Most of the time this is quite neglible because the Lemur machine I have is tied to a mechanical keyboard and a desktop. But when I have to lug it around it can be quite annoying for serious, long-form work.

Why wouldn't Google Workspace suffice? If you need something more private, try ProtonMail. They're great too, and support all the things you need.

I've never understood this sentiment. We're now in 2022. When working on Linux, especially on desktop versions, most people don't need to use the terminal, ever. You could if you want to, but you don't have to.

Similarly, for most things you don't ever have to touch Git on the command line. There are tons of great interfaces overlaying Git - e.g. Sublime Merge, which can visualize what you're doing, and makes Git significantly "nicer to use". You can still descend into the command line, but for whatever you've described above, you don't have to, and you don't have read manpages for common use cases.

Your problem with Git is not an insurmountable issue - it's about finding the right tool to use Git with, and which is the way moving forward anyway. Consider ffmpeg. It's extremely powerful, and about as arcane as git, and you'd needs just as many manpages or Google searches to understand it. Yet most people just use software that overlays all the magical conversions that ffmpeg enables - and no one has to see or blame ffmpeg per se. The scenario should be similar with Git, I hazard.

The only major problem I see with Git is that it's just a pain if you're working in a gigantic monorepo.

Outside of this, I think it's achieved it's ultimate form and tradeoffs for what it was originally intended to do - and the majority of projects fall under that category, meaning that while Git can be improved, but it doesn't need to 'change' architecturally or philosophically to accommodate other things.

Separate version control software can be designed for solving a specific problem - but I don't think Git should need to evolve beyond the problems it's designed to take on.

As far as I've noticed in public articles and discussions, there has been a growing association in the past decade between the words 'genius' and people of hard-work and wealth (e.g. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates).

I don't think anyone would dispute the intelligence and industry of folks like the above.

But the word 'genius' has specific connotations. It implies superlative intelligence/ability in a specific domain of skill, which goes beyond ordinary grit, hard work and opportunity. More and more often the word is nowadays thrown around to describe people of accomplishment in business, rather than the usual kinds of 'genius' we grew up thinking of. I personally don't agree with the word 'genius' as such a catch-all phrase.

> Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard.

I disagree. Technology and knowledge changes. Base human nature doesn't.

It's not about "treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred". Nor about the average age and baseline knowledge then and now.

It's that humans are subject to influence. And members of the judiciary - decision makers of the most obvious kind - are especially likely to be influenced if their security can be affected by the passage of time.

Sure, the lifetime appointment does not 'guarantee' anything in terms of judicial independence or judicial freedom. But it does enable a judicial member to make decisions, if he/she wants to, in a manner free from the consideration that their politically-'incorrect' choices may cause them to retire, or be retired, early. And that is a security feature that judges must be afforded, however old they may be, in order to let them freely make decisions that they think are the best possible, whether they subscribe to originalist views or are judicial activists.

As a lawyer, this is one of the most insightful posts on the practice of law - in so few words - I've ever seen. Bravo.

...A "sizeable chunk of people" consider the word 'blacklist' racist?

What's this "sizeable chunk"? Where do these people congregate?

What GUI libraries does Nim support?

'Belief'... is now a problem?

If you can't believe even in a possibility, how can you do science? How can one even formulate a hypothesis and attempt to falsify it without in the first place believing in some potential outcome?

Skepticism requires an open mind to ongoing evidence and change of circumstances, not one proclaiming outright that 'belief' in itself can be a problem.

This rush to disbelief AI sentience is just as bad as those who proclaim outright that AI has reached the level of sentience. Neither, if you notice, constitutes a proper approach to science.

Then this article is disingenous, because it did not state it as part of her apology, which would have put some context to it.

I specifically adore Richard _because_ he's a good Christian man (and I say this as a non-Christian) and a great engineer.

I'm happy that he's found a way to integrate his values into his products. Richard is not enforcing his beliefs on anyone; moreover the values espoused in the Code seem fair to any reasonable mind. It asks us to do good, and calls for good human/humane values whatever your religion or ideology or spirituality. How can that be wrong?

Often times these days in tech it's all about progress, liberal ideologies, and there's no sense of values or ethics rooted in anything but money. SQLite's code of ethics is a refreshing change.

SQLite itself is also an amazing piece of engineering, that I use daily and can't express enough thanks to him for.

P/S: I love your podcast! Have heard so many great episodes that changed my mind.