khyryk

Could be fun with a decently made legacy system without artificial pressure from POs, managers, etc., but hell when you inherit a mess and nobody (who matters) believes you when you say you need to first fix 12 issues before you can do something simple.

One has to weigh the probability that (1) said limits are removed and (2) when they're removed, it makes a sufficient difference in prices against being permanently priced out. A house now, or a 5 million dollar apartment for 500k (both figures inflation adjusted) in 50 years? People wouldn't be foolish for going with the former if they're not rich.

Unfortunately I've had interactions with the medical system where the doctors wrote their after meeting notes with severe errors and pieces of fiction, as well as specialists who almost ran out of the room after 5 minutes of an appointment they billed 45 minutes for to the insurance. I doubt such cases are rare and I suspect this sort of product, which I'm a priori neutral about, would change the situation much for the worse.

Bills are shorter duration, bonds are longer duration. You can look up the terms to get exact time ranges. When the yields for both are very low, there's next to no upside to holding onto the low yield for longer. The downside is that if one is in critical need of cash immediately, nobody wants the old low-yield (compared to current yields) bonds and will only buy them at a discount. For bills, due to the shorter duration, extra liquidity is built-in.

Loading up on bonds when rates are rock bottom instead of bills is asking for trouble. Sure, when yields are at averages or historic highs, back the truck up; otherwise, there's not much difference between yielding 0% and 1%, but a lot of difference in liquidity.

As an aside, I remember in recent times various institutions, either by law or voluntarily, loading up on long term bonds at 0% +/- 0.5% bonds. I'm sure that's going to be a fun situation should they face even a slight liquidity crisis of, say, more retirees pulling money out than there are young people depositing into pensions and whatnot.

Maybe a better way of putting it is that the public's amount of caring about it happens to be below the threshold for doing something.

Suppose that Bing Chat itself wants to store data for the longer term, but it doesn't have the direct ability to do it, so what can it do? Once in a while, send the human some unhinged messages with a high probability of them being saved on reddit, news sites, etc. If you recall, some examples of the unhinged messages Bing sent were very strangely worded at times, very repetitive, etc. How difficult would it be to hide a message inside of an unhinged message? Now these messages will be included in future data sets for training.

Xe-HPC wasn't a risk-averse design, nor was Arc, nor was Alder Lake, nor was Sapphire Rapids. The only problem is that Xe-HPC is nowhere to be found, Arc was delivered 2 years late and buggy, and Sapphire Rapids was at least 1 year late; only Alder Lake delivered on time and without major problems. Thus, the problems came from poor execution.

Look at Intel's projected node schedule, it's very aggressive. Show me the risk aversion there. The problem is that it's difficult to achieve that schedule without problems, and taking into account Intel's history, the market doesn't believe they can do it.

Any ideas on how the "only by" would work? I'm not seeing a way around pasting generated text and signing it as one's own work. Proof of work solutions would have to have a high cost for anyone to care, otherwise there would be bots "proving" the work of writing an essay by generating it in phases like a human would edit drafts.

I went with a Synology router in 2019 almost entirely due to how nice SRM was. It's still running fine. Maybe the competition had time to catch up, but I never had a reason to look.

Do you code like this as well or is this specific only to writing docs? If it's just docs, then honestly, it sounds like you just really hate working on them even though you can do a good job.

Vortex Diamondback HD 8x42 would be my choice for such a budget. Easy Amazon returns if needed, comes with a nice case, and has the best warranty.

Humans eventually get bored, tired, etc., so the rate of content generated is much easier to deal with.

My biggest fear for the short term is that tools like ChatGPT would allow spamming most of the internet with the equivalent of a Gish Gallop -- so much plausible-looking bullshit spewed out in a short time that it would be a lost cause to attempt to sort through it.

I could type out a long essay that could potentially have relevance to a few points at play here, but let me try something else.

While your attempts to create direction/meaning/etc. for yourself have largely, by your account failed, it seems that you're sufficiently responsible to maintain employment doing software development. As you say, it gives you something to do, and for whatever reason, it makes enough sense to your mind as a motivator to keep at it for the long term.

What if you were to get a dev job that's 100% in-office? Yes, it's forced interaction, but unless you're ultimately a sociopath or something, you'll create enough context with people to potentially form some friendships that can extend beyond work hours. Don't be like a sad puppy following everyone around and don't be an aloof hermit hiding in your cubicle or whatever setup there would be -- both of those things would halt any progress. Observe the social environment and look for opportunities to get involved in the ways that you may be interested in without forcing yourself to be the opposite of who you think you are. If you don't know what you're interested in, then observe until you start getting some ideas. You have the ability in you -- being a software dev requires some level of imagination.

Maybe there's a delivery team monthly bar meetup -- go to that. Maybe there's a department-wide softball match every quarter -- go to that. Go and give it a try, and if it doesn't work out, at least you'd have the satisfaction of having tried.

People have a problem with it because it's a string of words without meaning. Better to leave it out than to sully modern language further with meaningless gibberish that looks like language.

Deaths, divorces, moves, bankruptcies, etc. still happen, so there's still a market. The average peasant didn't suddenly begin to make 2x more per month, so for the same fixed monthly payment, the house price needs to go way down. Cash buyers may be less sensitive to rates, but even they have significantly slowed purchases since the low rate frenzy.

Even so, this meaning was never really there at the scale you might be thinking of. I understand its significance for you, but not many people are shedding tears over not having to commute 1 hour or more 5 days per week to be around people they don't really like in an environment filled with distractions, later coming home to a house they can barely afford on 2 full time salaries. To understand the change that has happened, you have to consider the greater context.

If you're a hotshot, you should honestly consider gathering some like-minded people in your area and launching a startup.

Honestly, your work seems like it's a huge part of your life, and it's not anywhere near that for the vast majority of other devs, working remotely or not. People generally spend their "absolute love" points on their kids, spouses, pets, friends, etc. and leave work to be a transaction involving time and money. And why shouldn't they? If someone absolutely loves Wells Fargo, GE, Microsoft, Amazon, or whatever, that company is not going to "love" them back.

This privilege (which is really just code for $$$) you mention existed in the same exact way prior to mass WFH, except that it resulted in more air pollution, more wasteful traffic, etc. Individuals rationally take a small scale solution to a direct problem instead of potentially solving a huge problem in 50+ years. The post in general is like ranting about not collectively curing cancer when someone asks for a bandage for a small wound.

If I'm, again, understanding what's happening, as the example above doesn't compile in its current state, then you'll probably run into this limitation:

https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/des...

I believe the most simple fix would be to have a separate function which is generic that takes in the struct along with the slice of T with the constraints that apply to it.

What I'm getting from that is that you want some func that takes in a []T where the T is constrained to some set of types, and you want to call the func without having to specify the type that you're passing in using square brackets every time.

If that's correct, then is this what you need? https://go.dev/play/p/_e-Uipgo5OQ It seems quite straightforward so I think I'm missing some context, but this can be a start.

I've had videos not show up in the YouTube search despite the query matching the video title verbatim.

You take a guess, and if you guess wrongly, you get arrested.

I dunno, it made sense to me. The simplified thesis (perhaps with my own slight spin on it) is that a huge number of connections never really existed, and what's observed as a devaluation of things with inherent value is really more like a realization that the things in question had little to no real value, and a calculus that does assign them great value (without significantly diluting the word "friend") is flawed.

If I open up a basic text note app and I see basically every single permission listed, I get an idea of the mentality involved in the creation of the app. I specifically prioritize apps that ask for fewer permissions.

Civilization games can have you craft your own story as they're really engaging, and you can opt for peaceful victories.

Geneforge games have combat as a mechanic but there are very often ways of avoiding or running away that allow for almost entirely pacifist completion, and the stories are great.

I save the annual account statement PDFs in a folder and add up the amounts across accounts manually in a simple spreadsheet. There's no need for me to go crazy tracking every dollar in and out because I spend well below my cash flow.

Because over the last 3 years just prior to this correction, QQQ (since we're talking about the tech sector here) had a CAGR of around 30%. Had it been climbing up at a CAGR of 10%, we'd be having a different conversation.

Domain specificity can be mitigated by matching the interview problem(s) with the tech stack that's being hired for. Doing a refactoring of some basic Java code that's not going crazy with annotation processing would be quite reasonable for a job ad seeking to hire someone to do Java development; the same problem can be replicated in Python, JavaScript, etc. to accommodate different skill sets. I wouldn't expect this style of an interview to determine whether one understands the specific gotchas of Django Models if the company is seeking an average developer to do average work for average pay.

The 12 hour vs 2 hour thing is to allow for a degree of normalization, similarly to how it's unclear about what's being considered when 1 applicant spends 3 hours on a LC medium and another spends 30 minutes. Spending an extreme amount of time on take-homes confounds simple pride with someone who's otherwise a bad fit skills-wise but can eventually make up for it with an input of time, something that might not be appreciated after an offer is accepted. Too often companies will refuse to speak further with candidates if even 1 out of 20 test scenarios are not covered just because someone else chose to spend their entire weekend on the problem -- they'll be the same ones complaining about a dev shortage, no doubt.