r_hoods_ghost

Even worse it means you are always reacting to the latest or "loudest" issue (like the CEO wanting a feature implemented that no one will use but will impose a maintenance burden) and never standing back to evaluate what is valuable for the majority of customers or product.

That's not because of building codes. That's because of people who don't believe in helping their fellow man through, oh I don't know, paying taxes, supporting the welfare state, paying living wages etc.

Yep. The ideology around foss developed as it did precisely because it's original proponents did not have to make a living from developing and selling software, but were instead academics who already had an income from elsewhere (tenure, grants, mummy and daddy etc.)

So go home when you get to 5.00. Think. Come back to office at 8.30. Work. That's what most people do.

Mutton is the term for meat from a mature sheep, but it is rarely sold outside of halal and speciality butchers in the UK these days, which is a pity as it's better for stews.

Because they don't want to have to create a separate form for "people who have been in industry for > 5 years", "people who have recently graduated" and "people who are still at university"? It takes you 30 seconds to answer the question and is going to be useful information for the recruiter in many cases.

But we now know that there is a smaller box within the bigger black box and have empirical data to back up that assertion, which is a step up from where we were previously. That LLMs have internal models and use them to make predictions means that we now know what level of abstraction we should be talking at and narrows down the exploration space within which to make investigations. Now we know that we can learn more about how LLMs work by investigating how such internal models arise. This sort of result makes LLMs slightly less black boxy than they were previously.

If you want an introduction to the history of visual art E. H. Gombrich's The Story of Art is the classic text and takes you up to about the 1990s.

Apart from that - go to a decent gallery, find a theatre production that looks interesting, go to a classical concert, contemporary dance performance or ballet, see a jazz band. Find a friend to share the joy / boredom with. Bonus points if they know something about what you're going to.

Honestly the best thing is just to explore and give yourself licence to like things that aren't fashionable and dislike things that are.

If you look outside of the USA lots of cities have good public transport systems that aren't plagued by poverty, crime, homelessness and mental illness. Just because Americans have decided to optimize their society to maximize misery of a minority for the benefit of an even smaller minority doesn't make it necessary.

Art school grad. First of all it takes a lot of practice to be able to reach the level of simplicity and clarity of the illustrations in that article. In many ways this is harder than drawing in a very realistic manner. Saying that:

1. Do exercises from books. Doesn't matter what but things like - how to shade a cube, using negative space, draw 50 horses etc. Also do restriction exercises. Draw in a continuous line, use cross hatching or other patterns for shading, paint in black and white etc. These are all about getting comfortable with the process of drawing and putting pencil to paper.

2. Still life. Draw what is around you then draw what is in what is around you (reflections, shadows, colours). Try drawing your own reflection in a spoon.

3. Life classes. Humans are attuned to the human form by evolution, so drawing humans accurately is uniquely hard. You will also learn to draw fast as in a traditional life class poses usually go from very short dynamic poses (30 seconds - 1 min of someone standing on 1 leg) to short (2-3 mins), to 10 minute poses, finishing with a 30 min-hour pose.

4. Doodle! Keep a note pad with you at all times and doodle in bursts while waiting for tests to run, on the tube, in meetings. After not very long you'll be able to do other things while you doodle.

5. Don't use a computer for drawing until you can draw IRL. Making mistakes and being comfortable with not undoing them is important. Often the process of exploring or covering up mistakes spurs creativity and getting the tool out of the way and concentrating on the process is important.

6. Copy great works, even if you don't like them. Investigate the techniques used, the composition, the materials. See if you can find good day and bad day examples of a masters work and work out what separates them. It will also make you feel better when you realise that even the most valorized ot artists sometimes produce rubbish.

7. Change it up! Don't do the above in order, do a bit of each whenever you can. If you plateau do things like draw with your weak hand for a week, or try inverting what you draw when you draw it, or draw things in incongruous positions or situations. Create a baby's mobile of weird objects, hang it above you and draw them from below. That sort of thing.

8. Share your work and ask for feedback. If you can, do this in IRL so when someone says "I don't like this aspect" you can dig in and work out what they don't like. The internet does not facilitate this kind of discussion as so many comments are drive by / trolling.

It is interesting that what the author considers "foundational knowledge" in the context of running a sucessful advertising campaign to be "the HTTP protocol and Session management". I would argue that while this is not completely irrelevant, surely foundational knowledge in this sphere consists of an understanding of human psychology, sales, how to identify your target audience etc. If I were asked to choose between someone with an in depth understanding of the http protocol and someone with an in depth understanding of human behaviour to run an ad campaign I would definitely choose the latter. I would go so far as to argue that if I had to choose between training engineers to understand user psychology, sales and UI/UX, or training advertising people to better understand the technology behind their campaigns that I would get a much greater return from investing in the former.

British houses generally have terrible levels of insulation and if built before roughly 1930 are likely solid walled, so have no wall cavity to insulate. There is also the issue that a lot of people live in terraces and semis and there may simply be no suitable place to install a heat pump. When I looked into it for my house a couple of years ago the fitters basically said they couldn't do it because of lack of space.

I think arguing each case individually is a trap to avoid. A method I've used with lots of different groups of people, from groups of 4 year olds up, to dev teams, to groups of CEOs, is at the start of a project get everyone together and mutually come up with a set of ground rules around standards and conduct. So things like - we will use this coding style, we will ensure that every function is documented, we will not pursue premature optimisations as long as we are under x power budget, we will not introduce complexity that will be hard for others to reason about etc.

You will have ideas about what these standards should be and you should feel free to propose some yourself during the process, but the aim is not to impose them on the group but to come up with something cooperatively upon which you get consensus. Then write down what you have agreed, stick it in a prominent place and make sure people stick to it. The process should only take about 10 minutes.

Then whenever one of your engineers comes to you with something that goes against the mutually agreed contract you can just flat out say - no, you agreed we wouldn't do that and move on. If something isn't covered by it then have a discussion.

Or you could prosecute dangerous drivers who hit pedestrians for manslaughter / attempted manslaughter and work on the assumption that the person I charge of the most dangerous vehicle has a duty of care towards other road users and if they don't discharge that duty they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

The four times I've been seconded over the last 20 years it has always been to "act up" and come with a temporary pay bump. Usually because I'm taking over a manager's job while they're on maternity leave / until a new one can be found because they've quit, or because a team could do with one of my weird skills for a few months. In my experience people either stay at the same pay or their pay goes up while on secondment. Secondment is generally supposed to be temporary so "overpaying" someone for a few months is generally worth it, especially when you consider the costs of onboarding a new employee.

Cute names often (not always) rely on a specific cultural context that many devs in the present, and definitely many devs five years down the line, won't share. When people argue for "cute" names over "descriptive" names, what they really often mean is "names that are actually descriptive but only if you understand my obscure nerd joke / spent your childhood playing pokemon". Or they pick a theme and end up trying to stick with it and make something vaguely, but not really descriptive within that theme. It also makes searching for internal documentation a nightmare.

Because 5-10 years is a long enough period for another generation of youthful greater fools to enter the market who weren't old enough to have been burned by the previous cycle.

This is basically what you do currently for a TTS engine if you have ALS or similar. The search term you want is "voice banking". You are given a long list of words and sentences, often complex, to read out that have all the different sounds and then these are re combined by the software. The problem is that by the time you know you need this, you often already have speech problems and so making clear sounds is difficult. Also if you're like my relative who was trilingual you would need to do it in all three languages using the current system. She got a half way decent voice bank in her native tongue, but it was still noticeably slurred. She didn't even attempt it in her second and third tongues.

A relative of mine recently died from bulbar ALS. By the time she had the diagnosis her voice had already changed and weakened significantly so she couldn't get a decent recording to use with a text to speech synthesizer. Something like this could potentially help people like her or those who lose their voices in traumatic accidents. Even if you do have the time to do it, training a current TTS engine in your voice takes a significant amount of time and the results are often poor.

All the shallow, vacuous blog posts by VCs and thought leaders..

Because there is a very strong negative correlation between overworking and productivity / quality of work. When I've been line managing people I find that if they work over 40-45 hours a week their actual productivity (as opposed to their self perceived productivity) starts to fall off a cliff after a couple of weeks, so I ask people to only work their hours. I've sometimes had to implement technical measures to enforce this when someone gets too obsessive about their work(and have done it to myself a couple of times!). I've never had to fire anyone for working too much and dragging down productivity in a team but I've come close a couple of times.

To a degree yes, but endurance and power are important for functional strength and for endurance this means doing lots of reps at low intensity or doing easy exercises explosively for power

Surely this is the baseline? If you hadn't contributed significant changes in the first three months and I was your line manager I probably would have failed your probation. I wouldn't expect you to be at maximum productivity by this point but I would be expecting you to make substantive contributions appropriate to your skill level and experience within this time.

Is this an academic who is celebrated and is a fraud or an academic who was defrauded. The second would be deliciously ironic. The first alas could describe entire economics sub fields

We know that by 300bc at the latest that they had abacuses, so I imagine they used these

"projects that have to send the same queries to different databases are very rare." That's true in business certainly but once you head into academia or are working with medical data / the public sector you often find yourself having to write queries against databases from different vendors to construct datasets, which gets annoying fast. I used to work as an RA in an economic modelling group and hit this issue a few times, so I can see the use of something like this in that niche.

It is exactly the story that the headline makes out. The driver fell asleep. The autopilot didnt respond to signals from the police to pull over. This is because it doesn't have that feature. But since it's on the road and advertised as self driving, it really should have this feature because drivers will try to get around whatever protections manufacturers put in place and fall asleep because they're on drugs, have a medical condition or are just arseholes.

I'm sorry but this sounds like a pebkac. You created a new virtual card for each purchase rather than just create a single card, load it up with £50 and use that. Why? Making multiple purchases on multiple cards in a short period of time is absolutely classic fraudulent behaviour. Of course your account got suspended. You can probably get it easily un suspended by contacting customer support.

In an ideal world yes. But you're often lumbered with software that is already decades old and "in house" usually means developed by a self taught post grad (or undergrad if you're really unlucky). And let's not get into the fact that you have to use whatever the I instrument manufacturer provides.

The "wiggle room" built into the lega system is because reasoning of any sort is always carried out under conditions of epistemic uncertainty. This is built into legal systems through concepts such as burden of proof, reasonable doubt etc. that acknowledge that the legal system makes mistakes frequently due to a lack of, or distorted information, and therefore there should always be avenues through which decisions can be challenged.

The second concept that is embedded (at least theoretically) in legal systems is the concept of procedural justice, that an outcome is Just iff all participants in the procedure that led to that outcome consider it Just. The most obvious example of this is trial by a jury of your peers.

In light of this you can see two obvious problems with these types of algorithmic systems. First they tend to treat the model as perfect and are used as if they can spit out guilty / not guilty answers by the people using them, and second they are often black boxes where it is impossible for the subject to challenge the outcome, as they don't know how it has been reached.

Ultimately I think these systems need to have a human in the loop and to be reasonable (in the sense that they can be reasoned about)