jdhopeunique

52S User comments

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:

(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’ covered news content that:

(i) are made using the digital platform service; and

(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;

(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;

(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:

(i) by particular persons; or

(ii) in particular circumstances.

(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.

This may be what you are looking for:

https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.info/report/digital-med...

Except this chat seems has a unique(feudalistic maybe?) update system:

https://urbit.org/using/operations/stars-and-galaxies/

Updates are passed down from galaxy to star to planet. Star owners can modify those updates to push custom software to planet VMs.

Interviewers underestimate the complexity and problems floating point numbers cause in interview questions.

If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.

What bothered me about the urbit system was that updates were "evergreen" and distributed top down from the heiarchy of galaxies and stars. Any person in the chain could make modifications and you were at the mercy of the parent not to send a malicious update to your planet. Also, orthogonal persistance meant data was never really deleted. This didn't seem to me like a personal server much less something I'd want to store my entire digital life on.

In past posts on the fora at urbit.org, it was explained that while identities would be on the blockchain(ie who owns what star or galaxy), OS updates would still flow down from the top hierarchically(with each galaxy or star adding their own modifications). I wonder if things have changed since then? Are operating system updates voted on by the community with hashes of the binaries perhaps stored on the blockchain or in some forum within the community?

It'd be kind of nice to have opcodes like some sort of Forth language just for variety and fun.

What message does Austin, Dallas, and Boulder send?

"College grads do better then those who did not went to college..."

This is simply selection bias or survivorship bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

"They do worst then grads of previous generation though"

Again, selection bias. Currently everyone except a limited few are encouraged to go to college therefore the effect of selection bias has weakened over time and current grads don't do as well as grads of generations past.

In bad neighborhoods, the carjackers(might not want a autonomous car though) or robbers might just roll a beach ball into the street to stop the car or maybe just a cheap open umbrella. I can imagine those people who practice "rolling coal" doing the same thing to rich autonomous car riders or just throwing a beach ball out the window on an interstate. Lots of possibilities that security researchers will need to consider.

If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make automated vehicles possible and dominated by the first market entrants.

When we see articles about AI needing to be regulated by CEOs like Elon Musk, it's not because AIs are going to take over the world. It's because AIs alone cannot work seamlessly in certain environments and regulations are needed to make the environment(eg roads, signs, bicycles, pedestrians, other vehicles) conform to the needs of AI.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Hopefully, when these regulations are written, there will be rules added to ensure drivers and mechanics can inspect and debug the computer code in their vehicles.

"* Specifically, the lump of labor fallacy."

I've seen the lump of labor fallacy come up many times on HN and often it is a case of simplistic reductions of statements like: "Increased labor supply cheapens wages." to some variation of "They are taking our [finite, limited supply] jobs." What may seem like a lump of labor fallacy(that there is a fixed amount of work) may simply just be an application of the law of supply and demand that does not assume fixed supply or demand. The fixed amount of work is assumed by the hearer of the argument and not the maker.

Additionally, even someone who is under the illusion of the lump of labor fallacy may still instinctively understand the law of supply and demand well enough to vote for his or her best interests.

One value I'd like to see enforced is better separation of employees' work and private life. Examples would include:

Not having to support politics I disagree with during or outside of work hours.

Not having my photo and about me on the company webpage. No one wants to know the truth that my hobbies are not rock climbing and playing the guitar.

Not being forced to go to conferences, hackathons, and other company sponsored events.

It would be nice if these values included lobbying for tech workers to not be exempt from overtime pay and reforms of the h1b visa program.

Here is what we are "supposed" to do:

You are supposed to be afraid because you are competing with ruthlessly efficient machines who may replace you more cheaply. Fear will get you to focus on the AI threat/utopia and not be bothered with minor ethical/efficiency issues.

You are supposed to accept lower wages because of the above.

You are supposed to accept reduced worker safety to keep workers competitive with machines.

You are supposed to invest money in companies marketing AI.

You are supposed to support fewer regulations for innovative AI companies. If this means a few pedestrians get run over by self driving cars, then that is a risk AI companies are willing to accept("Move Fast and Break Things"). Fewer regulations mean AI markets can keep trade secrets protected and not reduced to easily regulated commodities.

You're supposed to buy "smart" products. Smart tvs, smart cars, smart dishwashers, etc. It's the least you can do since dumb products are going away and the new smart products are priced at less than exorbitant rates because AI companies are making up the difference by selling their data about you. It's okay if you don't fully understand these products, that's why they're smart and you are smart for buying something smart. Dumb products are for those who are in a lower socioeconomic class than you and for tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists unless they are expensive(in that case they will have an appropriate expensive label to advertise their high quality: "organic", "vintage", "antique", etc).

You're supposed to not let other issues distract you from the coming AI revolution, especially immigration. AI companies need immigrant labor to program the self-programming AI machines and to provide a human interface to the machines for the machine's owners and users. In some cases at first, the human robots will need to serve as the main AI, until their pure electronic and metal replacements arrive. Cheap human robots can fill the gaps, but regardless of cost, these humans must be controlled rigidly, just like robots.

Trial jobs would be ok for some candidates, but I would be furious if, after spending a lot of time in the interview process, a company tells me only at the end that the job is a contract to hire job. Trial jobs should be advertised up front at the start of the process.

Personally, I like the hackerrank or leetcode automated challenge as an initial first filter. It can be gamed by cheaters of course but that requires some work on the cheaters part. It allows me to start the test at a convenient time and in a standard format. Hopefully, it allows the company to be less stringent about skill sets and other resume keywords and simply test more people. Hopefully it makes job searches harder for resume spammers, cheats, and fakes. I suspect even a few really easy problems from these sites would be a useful filter.

Then perhaps a phone interview so that the company can confirm I'm likely not cheating.

Finally an onsite white board interview or written test or at the computer programming test. Yes I get nervous doing white board interviews but if the difficulty level of the problem is not too great it is a useful filter.

I dislike long take home work because it requires too much of a time sink and it could be abused by employers fishing for ideas, competitor information, or just wanting free work for one of their problem areas. Algorithm tests on hackerrank or leetcode or wherever are still useful practice but take home tests can be too job specific and therefore prematurely requires candidates to commit to learning a particular companies needs without the company committing anything in return.

Questioning candidates about their experience in an informal manner by conversation may be of some benefit, but is likely just testing how well the candidate has prepared various stories about their past employment and past projects. Unfortunately, abandoned projects that taught a candidate a lot and served their intended purpose may not make as good a portfolio or story as completed projects that were just cookie-cutter implementations of projects found in books or tutorials or elsewhere.

The important thing for all of these filters though is that they be carefully calibrated in difficulty to the companies needs and job sourcing pool. If your large top-N company carefully optimizes it's customer funnel with a/b testing but has no real employee hiring sanity checks, then that is not good. Randomly have one employee at the company white board interview another employee at the company from a different department. Secretly test your interview process with known good programmers from outside the company.

Do major tech companies ever consider randomly pulling an employee from another department not well known and subjecting them to the interview process as a QA sanity check?

New Employee Policy:

Employees are not authorized to access any company computer resources unless the following conditions are met:

1. Toilet seats must be in the down position following restroom use, as requested by HR.

2. Coffee area must be clean, with all spills and sugar wiped from the counter.

3. Refrigerator must be clean and free from week-old goods.

Any attempt to access the network while the above conditions are not met will be considered an unauthorized access of the network.

I did a second phone interview at Amazon once. I have several years experience and understood the algorithm for the problem fine but got tripped up on the syntax a little. I was interviewing for a specific team and I could tell the interviewer was just looking for an excuse not to hire me. Perhaps I dodged a bullet in not getting on that team, but now I have to wait before I can apply anywhere else at Amazon.

These robots and AI replacing humans stories are just a distraction to take focus off of immigration. AI is a convenient scapegoat to take attention off an issue that is potentially more politically disruptive to tech companies interests.

What's a good book for learning current C?

The administrators are often former or current faculty. In articles and discussions similar to this there is often this conflict portrayed between faculty and administration but the reality is that they are often the same people. If not from the same institution, then from another institution.

Universities sometimes require or encourage support staff to have higher ed. degrees. Computer tech support positions may require a bachelors degree. Career counseling or academic advising may require a masters. Faculty encourage students to get graduate degrees at the universities they(the faculty member) got their graduate degree from. Politicians and alumni get favors for their families. Universities are practically influence and nepotism laundering machines. Faculty are simply part of the power structure, each trying to improve their position within. Grad school practically selects for individuals who are invested in the institution and will not rock the boat.

I think Urbit is trying to tackle this problem of decentralizing the internet. I'm not sure of their current status however.

A quote from the Venture for America website mentioned in the article: "Is VFA the right move for me if I’m trying to change careers?

When it comes down to it, our fellowship is designed for recent grads (meaning graduating seniors, those a year or two into their careers, or grad students with a year or two of advanced schooling). Our training, mentorship, and job opportunities are targeted to those fresh out of college, so if you have three or more years of professional experience or advanced schooling, this might not be the best fit."

The latest trend in the news seems to indicate AI (not cheap immigrant labor) is taking over jobs. The solution is for young graduates to join these "fellowships", bootcamps, and other attempts to pool cheap young labor. Old people need not apply.

It seems like these articles about AI are just a distraction from the real wage suppression caused by temporary work visas, illegal immigration, and workers being classified as contractors. Perhaps tech companies want to signal they have other options for labor as a sort of threat to combat increased scrutiny of their labor practices. Perhaps the message is: "Don't take away our cheap labor or we will release the AI overlords."

It seems like these articles about AI taking away jobs is just a distraction from the real wage depression caused by temporary work visas, illegal immigration, and workers being classified as contractors. Perhaps Silicon Valley elites wish to signal they have other options for labor as a sort of threat to combat increased scrutiny of their labor practices. Perhaps the message is: "Don't take away our cheap labor or we will release the AI overlords."

When you look at one of the figures in the linked paper, a 1RM test is performed every 3 weeks. So some heavy lifting with a reduced rep range is done. Also the study uses young men who have been strength training at least 2 years, averaging around 4 years. Exercises were mostly machine guided except the bench press:

"inclined leg press with seated row (superset 1), barbell bench press with cable hamstring curl (superset 2) and front planks (set 3) and Tuesday/Friday: machine- guided shoulder press with bicep curls (superset 1), triceps extension with wide grip pull downs (superset 2) and machine-guided knee extension (set 3). "

Both the low rep and high rep group did these supersets. It would seem like making the low rep group do supersets(extra exercises between the sets) would defeat the purpose of calling it low rep. It may have hampered the low rep groups gains.

From the link you supplied:

"Though there is no apparent advantage of lifting with different loads on changes in muscle mass, there is undoubtedly a neuromuscular advantage to lifting heavier loads if the primary outcome is performing a 1RM test (28). Conversely, it appears that periodic practice of the chosen strength outcome (e.g. 1RM) is effective at eliminating the majority of any post-training difference. "

and:

"In conjunction with previous data (28), it appears that if 1RM strength is the primary goal, performing the to-be-tested exercise with heavier loads, either consistently and/or periodically, may be required for optimal improvement."

So if you want to develop maximum strength(at the reduced rep range), you have to periodically practice in that rep range if only for the neuromuscular advantage. In this case, at least a 1RM every three weeks for the men in this study.

Often the administrators are former or current faculty themselves. I've seen a professor hold a position as head of the university technology department(a non-academic support role) and teach classes. VPs, Deans, department heads, leaders of various "Centers of Excellence", leaders of various initiatives, Provosts, and even Presidents can be former faculty.

The former professors just view their role as administrator as another step up the academic ladder. There's even a website poking fun at university titles:

http://universitytitlegenerator.com/