tugu77

It's obvious that you don't, and that's why a number of people have pointed it out to you.

It's not misleading or ambiguous. As a bystander to this discussion I'm shaking my head wondering whether you are doing this on purpose.

The vast majority of employed people have a single reasonable choice: to take their employers insurance. Anything else would be much more expensive because of lack of deduction. When they change jobs, they are again at the mercy of their (new) employer. Sure there are self-employed folks, and it's different for them, but this thread is not about them. And of course most people with their own insurance choice are self employed precisely because everybody else doesn't really have a choice, which is the whole point.

So, can we please stop with this smoke screen? My popcorn reserves are running low.

The EU has certainly its issues, no doubt about it. They need to be pointed out and addressed for sure. We are not in disagreement there.

But the flat out denial that EU is in principle a democratic system is just a too simplistic view. It tends to be mostly touted by those populists who ultimately would like to see an authocratic state with themselves in charge.

51.4% is a majority. You are free to disagree again, but that won't change the facts. You can just as easily disagree about gravity, evolution or climate change. Still won't change them.

Look, I don't like lots of things about the EU either. But the first step to being able to change sth is to acknowledge the facts. Claiming that von der Leyen wasn't democratically appointed is similar to Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen. Not a great start.

Um, joining the EU is not the same as joining the Euro. They can keep doing this exact thing after joining the EU if they keep their currency just like a few others are doing.

No, this is mostly about fishing rights afaik. Britain also kept having issues on that front.

That's a lot of BS.

The European Parliament is elected every few years by citizens in all member states.

The European Commission is nominated by the European Council and and confirmed by the European Parliament.

The European Council consists of government officials from the member states where they have been chosen by national democratic processes.

It may be a little complicated, but it's all rooted in democratic processes. Please stick to the facts and keep the populistic anti-EU nationalistic propaganda to yourself.

(Every kid in the EU has been learning those basic facts in school for decades, making it surprising that this populist nonsense still catches on with so many people. I have an easier time forgivin non-EU folks, but even those should check the facts before claiming things.)

How widespread is LLM cheating during video interviews these days? Honest question.. How do people even do it? Let an LLM app listen in and suggest avenues of discussion and lists a bunch of facts on the side to spice things up?

Even if that's the case, isn't it just a matter of conversing in a way that the LLM can't easily follow?

I didn't claim anything about identifying writing. That's a strawman. I'm talking about humans talking to each other. Even if it's in a zoom call. Any interview process that doesn't include that is broken, and that's my claim. Echo chamber or not.

An interviewer is a "victim"? Maybe they should just, you know, speak to their interviewees. At least in 2024 that's hardly faked by an LLM. Therefore, if you are fooled, you cheaped out, and you are hardly a victim.

> But I also think we gained something. [...] plane tickets are ridiculously cheap if you are not too picky.

Not really a gain if you ask me.. The melting glaciers are agreeing with me and they are not impressed by the downvotes I'll receive for this opinion.

> At this point every remote internet checklist has to include checks for humanity,

I genuinely don't understand this requirement. Isn't an interview exactly that? It's a conversation pretending to be about a technical problem/question/challenge but in reality its purpose is to find out whether you click with the person and would want to work with them. If some ChatGPT text can trick you then your process is broken anyway and everybody joining your company can expect colleagues selected by this sub-par process.

As much as I'd like to support the overall sentiment of the article, or at least of the part that I actually read, the stats just don't pass the smell test.

> If you’re like one of the Americans surveyed by Reviews.org, this is one of 205 times today that you’ll be checking the device in your hand. To spare you opening the calculator app, that’s about once every five minutes you are awake or two and a half full months out of your year.

That just can't be true. First of all, it assumes 1 minute of spending at the phone, every of those 1 times per 5 minutes. Totalling 5 hours a day. On average for everybody. I'm sure there are some outliers like that, but there are tons of people out there for whom there is no way they would get even close.

To top it off, their sample was surely neither random nor representative. Of course you get heavily biased data if you are asking a tech crowd.

I stopped reading at this point. Garbage in, garbage put, i.e. whatever conclusion they were eventually drawing was not based on actual facts.

If you think that a $3.27 deal includes compensation for multi-million losses then your expectations of how businesses work need re-adjusting.

We have different ideas about what "linear" means.

Put it in an otherwise airgapped dmz.

Combine the two.

By default, return nonsense on all ports. But once a certain access sequence has been detected from a source IP, redirect traffic to a specific port from just that IP to your real service.

A useful trick is to then at least visually structure those 150 lines with comments that separate some blocks of functionality. Keeps the linear flow but makes it still easier to digest.

I know your comment is a little tongue-in-cheek, but that kind of thinking is in fact widespread and a reason why many of us are so miserable.

Re: complex conditionals

I contributed some code to a FOSS project recently which is written in C. In my 10 lines of contributions, 3 were a complex conditional. I'd have loved to do what the article suggests, with some intermediate booleans. But that C version would have required me to define those variables at the beginning of the function, a hundred lines earlier instead of just right there. No way that's going to fly, so now they will need to live with a complex conditional. It's one of those "modern language" features which C fanatics generally frown upon but which makes code much easier to read.

> We were told that a really smart developer had contributed to it. Lots of cool architectures, fancy libraries and trendy technologies were used. In other words, the author had created a high cognitive load for us.

Maybe that dev was "really smart" but then not very senior. Eventually the dev will hopefully use their smarts to make things so simple+dumb that the cognitive load when maintaining all that code is minimized.

One of the first things I try to drill into our junior devs. If the code looks smart, it needs to be fixed until it's really simple and straight forward. "That's impossible" some people might say. And that's why only the really smart folks can achieve it.

Power of LLMs. Bring any book down to as short as you like. Or as long, if that's more your alley.

Thats all fine, but I think you are missing the bigger picture. It's not about whether what we already got out of this is good. Of course it is. But this is about where it's going.

Until about 120 years ago, people were happy with horses and horse carriages. Such a great help! Travel long distances, pull weights, I never want to go back! But then the automobile was invented and within a few years little travel was done by horses anymore.

More recently, everybody had a landline phone at home. Such great tech! Talk to grandma hundreds of miles away! I never want to go back! Then suddenly the mobile phone and just shortly after the smart phone came along and now nobody has a landline anymore but everybody can record tiktoks anywhere anytime and share them with the world within seconds.

Now imagine "AI". Sure, we have some new tools right now. Sure we don't want to go back. But imagine the transformative effects that could come if the train didn't stop here. Question is just: will it?

> I have done this kind of optimization to go from 24 hour compute time to 6 hour compute time instead for instance -- per simulation run.

I'm sure there are workloads where this kind of optimization makes a lot of sense. But they are comparatively rare. And they are not for free, in terms of code complexity and robustness. So, for the broad masses reading HN, its a premature optimization.

> How can you say "a few milliseconds" when you know absolutely nothing about the context?

Most code that gets written is not performance critical. Programmers would generally be better advised to think about robustness, correctness and maintainability of their code than about cache effects. The world would be a better place and we'd see fewer app crashes and fewer security holes.

This thing should be a poster example of premature optimization. Sure you can squeeze a few milliseconds out in a performance critical task. Most things won't measurably benefit though, while making all handling super awkward.

If your abstract domain description is fundamentally a collection of things that have a few parts each, then have your data type represent that, instead of turning it inside out for cache effects. If those become relevant at some point, try to abstract that away and do the optimized internal representation under the hood. But don't preemptively design your data structures in a cumbersome way just in case. That's bad advice.

Yeah, especially the people scamming others.

Easy for me to be a smartass in hindsight, but I can't resist:

> Unfortunately for Griffin, years ago he used Google Photos to store an image of the secret seed phrase that was protecting his cryptocurrency wallet.

Um, duh...

> "[...] I put my seed phrase into a phishing site, and that was it.”

>Almost immediately, all of the funds he was planning to save for retirement and for his children’s college fund were drained from his account.

Um, duh. First mistake to put all eggs in a single basket. Second mistake, this basket was a cryptocurrency. Third mistake, pasting the secret key to that _anywhere_.

I'd love to see some imagination on that page beyond some star shapes.

For a professional musician you are oddly singer/violin focused. Any instrument which can physically detune while playing has their musicians do this. On wind instruments it's via the mouthpiece, any string instrument beyond violin has some flexibility etc. It's only the piano that doesn't, essentially everybody else does.

But in practise, for many music styles, it doesn't really matter. Music is so much more than whether some chord is pitch perfect in tune.

Source: Jazz musician on 6 instrument types part time professional for 25 years (other part is software engineer).

100% this. For a C++ or Rust programmer this reads so weird.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hating on JS here, and I have lots of beef with C++, but I fully agree with your take that TS barely scratches the surface of the statically typed world.

The diagrams look nice, but in the end of the day, they are merely nice visualizations of what's fundamentally algebra. There is not much geometry going on besides a quite simple group structure of order 12.