stochastimus

Thanks for this, OP. This is why I come here.

> Go to Google announcement > Find “license” in page: no matches > Go to HN thread > Find “license” in page: 28 matches > Read a few sigh could have been exciting

As OP noticed likelihoods often do show up in a comparative context. In that context one is asking which thing or sequence is most likely to occur by chance relative to another, under an (over simplistic, sure) IID assumption. In practice, the ordering of such things is often (hand-waving, sure) robust enough that, given no other information than the marginals, it is useful. So I think OP almost answered his/her own question: they are often quite useful in a comparative context and with no additional information.

Congrats and thank you for this. If you’d asked me when I was a young h4x0r just starting out, what sorts of links I should find on a site called Hacker News, I’d have said something like this one. Looking to get lost in these issues during the holidays. You made my day!

The last paragraph may be your best option, if you’ve truly exhausted the possibility of a shared vision that can keep you all engaged. I would drill into why your co-founder is against it, but I imagine it could be that they don’t feel they can do it all over again without you. If this is the case, maybe you could help them find another cofounder. Regardless, there’s no sense in misleading others, or wasting your time or theirs, since that karma will follow you. At least, that’s my opinion, FWIW. Good luck!

> working less is good > blog by “Slack”

True or false, the jokes write themselves sometimes

Speaking anecdotally from my own experience, having multiple caregivers may just increase the probability that the child can tell that at least one of them actually wants to be there.

I got downvoted 2 points for asking this question LoL

Genuinely curious, HN folks - for those who downvoted this comment, can you share why you did so? I don’t personally mind sarcasm as long as it’s not aimed maliciously at an individual, and I read this comment as a sarcastic way of saying “how come American leadership in general doesn’t have a similar plan”. Do folks just downvote sarcasm as a rule?

I don’t think it’s necessary to invoke epistemic probability to explain why the original question is tricky. At least for me, it helps to notice that if the question were rephrased “the older child is a boy, what is the probability that the younger child is also?”, then the answer would be the intuitive 1/2. You get into this counter-intuitive situation with the question as asked because of the “at least” phrasing - the remaining possibilities in the contingency table can still apply to one, the other, or both children.

Funny I came here just to say the exact same thing.

“Well-being and how to set healthy boundaries in your life and in your work is a fundamental skill,” says Sharon Milgram

What is this “life” you speak of?

Agreed. Money buys choices, simple as. What you do with those choices, and how much meaning they bring to your life, is entirely up to you.

I love outrageous opinions like this, thanks for sharing it. It opens the mind to what’s possible, however much of it shakes out in the end. Progress comes from batting around thoughts like this.

If you replaced QM with general relativity, you would be correct. So, your broader point is valid.

Would love to see this result reproduced. Also a confounding factor might be what they talked about; would be interesting to see a follow-up that tried to break out by subject matter (someone filling time vs. conveying real knowledge vs. responding to the other person, for example).

This is actually a great idea for improving the reliability of answers from a language model. I have also had trouble with GPT3 hallucinating knowledge. One could automate asking the model for a reference and then checking if the reference exists, then changing the prompt and demanding another answer if it doesn’t, until it does. I will explore this method. Thanks again!

I’m just an 1800 rated patzer in blitz/bullet on LiChess, but I would say white’s knight sac demonstrates a certain comfort/familiarity/maturity with the game.

Pretty impressive what the Cerebras folks seem to have accomplished here, reportedly verified by Argonne National Labs. Interested in hardware folks’ take on the architecture as a realistic path forward for training larger and larger models.

Too bad the Maginot line is mentioned only in passing in the blog - the Maginot line really is a testament to the failure of central planning and bureaucracy to produce and execute on ideas that stand the tests of time and battle. A drastic (but mostly true) oversimplification is this: France, seeing Hitler’s military buildup, created an impenetrable fortress along the border and sucked the life out of the French economy to build, supply, and man it. One failure was the inability to see that German light armor could navigate the Ardennes forest and circumvent it. Another failure was that the massive gun turrets periodically embedded in the fortification were designed so that they couldn’t be rotated to point back toward France; as a result, they couldn’t be used to defend against an army which had circumvented the wall. So, in the end, the French had simply provided the Germans with a massive cache of ammunition, food, guns, and other supplies which were all stocked within the Maginot fortification. Here’s the wikipedia entry for anyone interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

Not sure why you got downvoted for asking a good faith question, but you’re thinking of carbonic acid, which is responsible for the fizz when the pressure lowers as you pop the top and it creates carbon dioxide.

This is all true. So for the times you end up there, wouldn’t you prefer a tool to surface for you the things you were going to have to spend hours digging for?

We go back and forth on this as well. When I talk to people I will usually say something like “we find the stuff in the logs you were going to have to dig for, and surface it in a report on your dashboard”. I think the RCaaS is in that sense aspirational, and there’s a bunch of other stuff you’d want to do as well like integrate log and metric AD for example. I really appreciate your thoughtful comment and I think you’re right, we can still communicate better about this concept with the broader community. Pls do reach out if you’d be willing, Id love to pick ur brain over a drink or w/e. larry@zebrium.com

I feel that vendors have really muddied the playing field by claiming ML features and then not delivering value. That’s why we tend not to talk about ML. But, I think saying that ML is unhelpful for the problem is a bit like saying programming is unhelpful for the problem - the solution space is vast, and has hardly been explored.

We do indeed since we need to process an amount of data in proportion to that volume, and so more resources are required - you can also run it on-prem, if you want

It's really quite inexpensive - but would love to get your feedback on pricing, esp. at scale! pls. do reach out

LoLz

Hey! Founder here. Thanks for your comment!

> That's not hard to debug

I agree there's a large class of problems where that's the case, and I also agree it's perhaps easier than many of the issues we've caught in the real world, such as are discussed in the Cisco case study. But I still want to defend the example as non-trivial.

So of course we pick up the errors in services that are fall-out from the breakage, and we pick up the chaos test running, which leaves a pretty wide footprint. But if something like this happened in the real world, the important event would have been that one that's in the RC report, that's not even an error (though it is quite unusual): the kernel log entry pointing out the eth0 misconfig. It can take a long time for someone to get around to poring through their various host kernel logs and looking at everything, even non-errors, so having it surfaced to you right away feels like a very useful thing.

At the same time though, I like the example you gave even more. What many people will do is upload their own incident data via the CLI, or deploy our chart into a staging environment and just break things, to see what happens. Based on your description, there's a good chance we would pick it up since we track anomalies and perform anomaly correlation across all pairs of streams: we're not looking for a threshold percentage of overall error rates, for example, anywhere. If you'd be willing to help us test this use-case, I'd love to work with you personally to help you get up-and-running.

Also, as we see more and more failure modes, we continue to make our detection algorithms more robust. While we generally achieve >>90% detection of incidents and their root cause indicators overall, there are always places we can and would love to do better. I think you'd find that our solution would catch most of what you'd want out-of-the-box, and that we're responsive enough to learn from every customer.

Lastly, I would ask: do you think that we should do videos of some more "subtle" examples (for lack of a better word)? As someone viewing the website, would you have watched them?

Thanks again for your feedback!

This won’t be exactly what you were looking for necessarily but when I read this I felt compelled to respond. Twice I have failed in my pursuits in such a way that going forward was essentially “starting over”; in both of these cases there were residual consequences such as debt. It was heartbreaking for me and I don’t know exactly what it feels like for you right now but I imagine it is a heartbreaking experience for you right now, as well. Let me tell you two things, please, based only on my experience.

First: in both cases things got better sooner than I had expected; within a few years things were good... once I had dusted myself off and applied myself to the next chapter of life, I was able to take steps, find ways to dig out, and find hope and passion again in my pursuits.

Second: I, like you, had a lot to offer the world, my profession, and my family and friends; I look back and can see these things. Please, hang in there, and please, don’t let the downturns extinguish your light. Whether you know it or not now, many people will need you around, and in the end, even more will be better off for your influence.

Awesome - my first thought was “hmm I wonder when the Julia community will implement something based on this” :)