zug_zug

So it sounds like you're arguing linkbait is fine because we all have internalized some general skepticism to fight it. But actually I don't think that's the best approach. For one it takes more cognitive overhead to scan through 40 links and then play the mental "what will I actually get if I click this link?" 40 times.

For the most part HN is great about not having linkbait. But when I do see something that sounds improbably good I just go straight to the comments and see if other people find the article legit (as is the case here).

Let me guess "opt-in" means checked by default and hidden 12 menus deep.

Or worse-yet, opt-in means "Hey our rates are going up, but not if you agree to this" (something comcast did recently).

Or opt-in is stored in some database somewhere and might "accidentally be misread" due to a "bug".

If they want real-opt-in then it should be a SMS message at the time they want to know, and a phone-number you can reach out to for more information. This would give an audit trail at the very least.

Yes that's true, but I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction isn't intended to communicate "Stop researching cancer" it's more intended to communicate "Stop linkbaiting us."

If the title said "Might someday" then that would probably be a more accurate picture of where something at this stage of research is at.

Obviously some people here want to know all up-and-coming possibilities, clinical trials, or longshots because we're nerds about it. But others of us only care about the ones that are already succeeding in people. Having titles differentiate the two can avoid the frustration.

I asked chatGPT. However it's saying that's 2022 problem 5, however that seems to be clearly wrong... Moreover I can't find that problem anywhere so I don't know if it's a hallucination or something from it's training set that isn't on the internet....

I feel like I've noticed you you making the same comment 12 places in this thread -- incorrectly misrepresenting the difficulty of this tournament and ultimately it comes across as a bitter ex.

Here's an example problem 5:

Let a1,a2,…,an be distinct positive integers and let M=max⁡1≤i<j≤n.

Find the maximum number of pairs (i,j) with 1≤i<j≤n for which (ai +aj )(aj −ai )=M.

You can't have it both-ways. Either employment is at-will or it's not.

An implication that companies don't have a right to make a better offer to anyone (or that employees don't have the right to leave on a dime) is an implication that illegal marketplace collusion is going on.

What are you even talking about?

"Roles" never do anything. People do things.

Just because somebody's job-description says something doesn't guarantee that persons contributes anything -- e.g. the CEO of yahoo who refused to buy google for 1 billion dollars.

Nah you're entirely off base.

Leading is having an affect on those around you such that they voluntarily look to your for input.

Any role at a company can do that, so to try to pretend that falls directly on management lines is a white lie managers tell themselves.

One million percent, this is the thing that stuck out most to me.

Maybe this is just so entrenched that it's a lost cause, but I feel like 90% of managers are just cargo-culting weird behaviors from other managers that serve no purpose (e.g. using a certain business slang like 'circle-back', never expressing genuine emotion, being incredibly circumspect, hiding the very existence of all disagreements).

It's a weird cultural thing, and what's especially peculiar is that nobody genuinely believes great leaders should do that. Everybody knows great leaders should be genuinely passionate and sincere and non-robotic. But here we are...

I'd be curious to see long-term improvements, like resting heartrate over time, or heartrate @ 10 min mile over time.

Well obviously if it's harmful for people they'll find way to reduce the intensity of the shockwaves.

Compared to inventing the LCD that's child's play.

They want this integration because it's step 1 of replacing us with agents.

My workplace has gone from "Look at this helpful tool that can search the wiki or slack for you" (it sucked) to "Look this other tool can comment on PRs" to "Look here are agents that will open PRs for you..." to "This tool can do RCAs with just a splunk token"

Every step of the way they want us to start integrating our workflows to make them more AI accessible.

Exactly. If anything I think the vast majority of us engineers under-diagnose ourselves for where we fall on that spectrum (which is probably the safe career and social move in the millennial generation).

Almost every day of my whole career I've worked with people who were missing social cues and being disliked because they were misunderstood. I think an engineer is MUCH more likable if they genuinely say "Sorry if I'm loud, and I don't mean to interrupt, sometimes when I get excited I accidentally do this, I don't do it because I think my ideas are better than everyone else's."

Now obviously if somebody exaggerates a trait they don't have, says it in a self-important way, and isn't remorseful at all about the effect it has on people around them, and isn't trying to change it that's a shame.

But frankly imo the balance of that in software is I've met 1/2 in my whole career who came across as self-important about their conditions, versus against maybe 20% (dozens and dozens) weren't able/willing to communicate their oddities.

Well, if you're approaching this as a hard-scientist that's not the case (for psychology).

Because "disorder" may be on a spectrum, because "negative" and "impact" may be on a spectrum. Conditions like depression follow a bell-curve, there's no clear line between depressed and not, and we can draw a line in the sand, but statistically there's no justification for where that line falls.

One way to try to draw a line is "the point at which a certain intervention is no longer effective."

For example studies find CBT therapy reduces depression scores for depressed people ~.8 standard deviations (for a while).

But why not try CBT therapy on happy people? Maybe it's even more effective on people who are already happy. Well the reason why not is likely just because of the clumsy nature of healthcare -- interventions are thought of as "treatments" for "conditions", even though that lens doesn't always make sense.

There's an odd presumption there...

It sounds like you're presuming those who put a label on themselves don't want to change themselves at all; one could also imagine that those who put a label on themselves want to change themselves most of all

It's interesting because there are two diametrically opposed ways to interpret what you said

One is - everybody thinks they have disorders, so just ignore that feeling it'll mess with you.

The other is - everybody thinks they have minor version of disorders, because we all do, we live on continuums, and therefore we should probably all think about it more

1. Weird title

2. Personally, I think the being more knowledgeable about (and conversant in) common psychological issues is great. Much better if we have a label for "depression" rather than just thinking "The world and everything is awful and I'm the only one who feels this way." Same for anxiety, attachment, all of that.

3. If young girls happen to co-opt it in a way you find self-absorbed, get over it, stop trying to police it and make a fake moral panic over it. It's no worse than astrology or whatever other loose avenue of self-exploration would be otherwise happening.

It to me sounds like the author fundamentally misunderstands the whole thing, this just is soaking in boomer energy. That is -- the premise that recognizing these trends is somehow shaming/bad and it's "better" if we all use loosely-defined unscientific terms like "nice-person" rather than looking at and challenging our overly intense and dysfunctional people-pleasing or whatever.

The way gen-z uses these terms, is that they aren't some hardcore disorder, but as a common parlance for real and addressable things to change about oneself (e.g. that talking on the phone can be uncomfortable, or making an appointment is stressful). Like gen-z may say "Oh I have insecure attachment" and they just mean "Sometimes I'm afraid to reach out for fear of rejection" and that's a healthy thing to talk about, even if the term they used is used a different way in the DSM.

See this is why I said what I said in my question -- because it sounds to me like a lot of people with strong opinions who haven't talked to many therapists.

I had one who just kinda listened and said next to nothing other than generalizations of what I said, and then suggested I buy a generic CBT workbook off of amazon to track my feelings.

Another one was mid-negotiations/strike with Kaiser and I had to lie and say I hadn't had any weed in the last year(!) to even have Kaiser let me talk to him, and TBH it seemed like he had a lot going on on his own plate.

I think it's super easy to make an argument based off of goodwill hunting or some hypothetical human therapist in your head.

So to answer your question -- none of the three made a lasting difference, but chatGPT at least is able to be a sounding-board/rubber-duck in a way that helped me articulate and discover my own feelings and provide temporary clarity.

Rather than here a bunch of emotional/theoretical arguments, I'd love to hear the preferences of people here who have both been to therapy and talked to an LLM about their frustrations and how those experiences stack up.

My limited personal experience is that LLMs are better than the average therapsit.

20% of Americans use weed.

I think HN crowd is more likely to read one article out-of-context and over-extrapolate. In this case, there's no article even linked, just an abstract, so anybody jumping to conclusions from this isn't being very HN.

Somebody who was really HN would read the whole article, see what doses, what % risk change, what age, see what other studies say, etc.

If AGI were invented tomorrow, it'd probably be by open AI. I doubt whoever made it would tell anybody, because the government might step in, they certainly wouldn't make it freely available online.

If it was about as smart as a person, they'd probably roll out a weak "agent" version of for demo sake to get more funding. This would continue until they made one that was significantly more intelligent or cheap.

If they had one that was very cheap, they'd have 10,000 agents of it act together as a group to try to emulate a smart one, by considering every angle of every problem. This would likely mean 10,000 engineers making the AI better/cheaper/faster.

If they had one that was far smarter than a human, they probably have it improve itself, making it far better/cheaper/faster.

Then they'd try to see if they could use it to change the world. They'd have thousands of thinking machines that could be online, place phone-calls, engineer things, create ideas, make political campaigns, dig up dirt on people, or who knows what.

No "country" would "win," because this isn't a team sport and countries are just lines on maps.

I have no idea why we keep putting this stuff on HN. Common thing X causes/reduces 1 (out of 100) types of cancer or health issue.

Without looking at all the effects together, the comparison product (alcohol?), and the actual change in risk it’s as likely to confuse as inform.

I feel like this is a ridiculous bad-faith argument. You know damned well that banning people from the country for having a JD vance meme on their phone is not stopping international agents. Arguing by presently demonstrably false hypotheticals as though they were reality makes me think it's a waste of everybody's breath talking to you.

Telling the US government it's broken is a favor to the US government. Freedom of speech is a gift to both the people of this country and the institution itself, helping it be pure and accountable. It's the force that prevents us from becoming like China.

Those who seek to stop that regulating force are undermining what makes America great. Where those voices of dissent were born isn't pertinent.

Definitely lucky relative to my experience then. My current manager is very strong, but prior to him that manager I don't think any programming experience/background at all (he was laid off within about a year of me joining, but it felt like I was taking crazy pills watching him in meetings having no idea what anyone was saying).

I also think some of the most variable managers you get are at the smallest companies. Like one company had a CTO who was 25 with no prior professional experience that I know of other than co-founding this company. He wasn't bad, bad but certainly not doing half of what he could at that level.

However I've also had experiences where the manager changed 2/3 times in 2-years at a larger company, which IMO is a bad experience.

Nah, getting to call a spade a spade is a great joy in life, worth far more than any toxic work relationship predicted on you having zero opinions.

Yes this is real, and even happens at larger companies.

The surface issue is that when somebody has an incentive to self-measure their success then they have an incentive to overestimate (I increased retention by 14% by changing the shade of the "About Us" button!).

Which means the root-cause issue is managers who create environments where self-reporting improvements without any rigor or any contrary perspective. Ultimately they are the ones foot-gunning themselves (by letting their team focus on false vanity metrics).

Meh, imo this is wrong.

What Kubernetes is missing most is a 10 year track record of simplicity/stability. What it needs most to thrive is a better reputation of being hard to foot-gun yourself with.

It's just not a compelling business case to say "Look at what you can do with kubernetes, and you only need a full-time team of 3 engineers dedicated to this technology at tho cost of a million a year to get bin-packing to the tune of $40k."

For the most part Kubernetes is becoming the common-tongue, despite all the chaotic plugins and customizations that interact with each other in a combinatoric explosion of complexity/risk/overhead. A 2.0 would be what I'd propose if I was trying to kill kuberenetes.

Yes, I can imagine a benign use of this technology, but past behavior and the PR dishonesty have given me no reason to prefer the most benign interpretation over the most profitable interpretation.

If however they said something more authentic like "We export data in all these cases, in all these countries, and it's never more than .01% of users in a given country, and it never includes freedom-of-speech crimes, and ..." or something then maybe I'd be inclined to consider that.

This is just a lie. I personally know somebody who worked at meta and they had a whole set of teams dedicated to building tools for governments to mass-export data based on their queries

Now I don't know the exact details of which governments had which access (was it just for warrants, which nations, what was the line between actual terrorist versus persecuting journalists), but there was absolutely bulk export and the fact that they are lying about it makes me inclined to presume the worst.