HN user
Xoogler (2014–2024) email: {user}@gmail.com blog: https://blog.moertel.com/
I don't believe the GP is claiming that the idea of human rights is itself rubbish. Rather, the GP is claiming that what is rubbish is the practice of veering into the topic of human rights whenever a new AI model is announced from China.
Until you replace it with "1" because your title is too long for HN to accept as is.
For me, it maps to pandemic, which was midway through my time at GOOG. That's when the COVID-sparked Zero Interest Rate Policy caused the company to hire engineers and PMs like crazy. There were suddenly too many new hires to inculcate with the old leadership and engineering ethos—especially via remote work—and the values got diluted, probably beyond the point of recovery.
Are there any risks associated with NAC supplementation? For example, could long-term usage reduce aptosis and thereby increase risks of developing cancer?
But five years ago they had a stronger engineering culture. The old values were rapidly eroding, but some still held.
I think it’s important to acknowledge that today U.S. citizens in the bottom economic decile live longer lives and do so with more comfort and convenience than even the wealthiest and most powerful people of 100 years ago. Not even the infamous robber barons, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, with all their staggering wealth, had access to anything approaching modern health care (and dentistry!); air-conditioned comfort; television, instant communication across the planet via text, voice, and video; computers, let alone supercomputers in their pockets giving them the internet, Google, GPS, and approximately free and instant access to the world’s information.
Yes, there is still much work to be done to improve the United States, but I’d rather be poor in the United States today than wealthy in the United States 100 years ago. I suspect that most educated people would choose likewise.
Why do we have legislated cliffs instead of gradients? Because approximately nobody understands lerp. And linear interpolation is the simplest (nontrivial) gradient scheme. Consequently, we get cliffs or, if we're lucky, lookup tables that approximate gradients with stair-step successions of small cliffs.
You can't unit test for taste if you haven't written down what you mean by taste. If you can externalize it, then you can.
I'm not so sure. For instance, you can write down what it means for a program to be free of XSS and other injection vulnerabilities. Now, how would you unit test for that property?
Nifty! What motivated you to create these tools?
Yes, you are technically correct (the best kind), but when s is much smaller than g, then s/(s + g) and s/g are approximately equal.
Yeah, this is a promising solution to scalping. Previously, if you had only small numbers of consoles available at launch, scalpers and their bots would claim a large share of them. With Valve's new policy, that share is reduced to s/g, where s is the number of verified Steam accounts controlled by scalpers and g is the number of legit gamer accounts. Since s is likely to be much less than g, s/g is close to zero, and scalping is dramatically curtailed. Almost all of the initial batch of consoles will go to legit gamers.
Okay, here's what I still don't understand. Were the things he was “making a huge stink about in every training” true or false? Reports at the time claimed that he was ”perpetuating harmful stereotypes,” but other reporting claimed that he was pointing out facts that inconveniently challenged the cultural orthodoxy and then wrote the doc to clarify his feedback, and so he became a target for internal activists. Are you aware of any specifics that would allow a reasonable person to lean one way or another as to the reality?
James Damore was a poorly educated person. He didn't understand how to use statistics and decided to use them in a hateful way.
What statistical argument did Damore make?
What other things did he do to make you believe he was “kind of unhinged”? I know about the memo thing, but I think it was covered in an inflammatory way because the press loves to play up a controversy. What else besides the memo incident did he do that merits his firing?
It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing.
In reality, neither corporate nor personal values are binary, all-or-none propositions. They are more like springs that push you in the right direction. But if something pulls hard enough in the wrong direction, a spring can be overpowered.
Do they still have the "Stump The Experts" event at WWDC? You know, where you ask Apple engineers a technical question about their work and, if they can't answer it, you win a t-shirt with tree stumps on it.
I made a quick web app that lets me easily perform Bayesian evidence updates for a set of competing hypotheses. You drop your hypotheses into rows. Then for each piece of evidence, you add a column and fill its values with the odds of observing the evidence given that the corresponding hypotheses are true. The app then computes the posterior odds on the competing hypotheses, given the complete set of evidence. You can also import/export your results as CSV data.
Our mission is to cure or prevent all disease
Okay, now you have my attention.
What's the deal on the company behind it? “Biohub is a 501(c)(3) biomedical research organization...” Nonprofit. Nifty!
This all sounds great, but as we have recently seen with, say OpenAI, there is nonprofit and then there is nonprofit. Anyone know which Biohub is?
I suspect that someone at Google has read economist Albert O. Hirschman's treatise on Exit, Voice, and Loyalty [1]. The central idea is that when people are unhappy with a relationship between themselves and, say, a firm, they have basically two options: (1) Exit, that is, leave the relationship; and (2) Voice, signal their unhappiness. Hirschman argues that encouraging one option reduces the inclination to exercise the other option. Further, he argues that when people Exit, the firm has little opportunity to understand what motivated the people to leave, so it is advantageous to shift people toward the Voice option, which conveys that precious information readily. So, by allowing Memegen to exist and be used, Google management gives employees a way to exercise Voice instead of Exit, and management learns more about what people are upset about on the margins of the employee base, giving management an opportunity to respond (which they are free to ignore if they want).
On top of what you wrote, Memegen is not representative of opinions among Googlers. Memegen, like most social media, focuses on the extremes. You'll see a lot of spicy takes, but that's not what the typical Googler thinks. For a more realistic view, the comments on Memegen are better but, again, unlikely to represent the views of most Googlers.
So this article boils down to "On a site that focuses on extreme positions drawn from a very large population of people, we found extreme positions about this product." Doesn't really tell you much about the product or the very large population. You can make the same statement about most products and most very large populations.
Disclaimer: Xoogler, worked at G 10+ years.
And, as always, flagging will be abused to downrank content that people/bots/spammers/scummy-businesses/etc. would prefer you not to see.
I'm curious. What specifically about my comment made you believe it was a test and that I would be assigning grades to responses, as opposed to an idea for which I invited criticism?
Would you advocate for a 0% capital gains tax? Or a capital gains tax-break? How would you calculate the ideal number? (I would place capital gains tax included in income tax.)
I wouldn't advocate for any particular tax rate for capital gains without it being part of comprehensive fiscal and government reform. The point I was trying to get across in my original comment was that, when people talk about raising the capital gains tax because they think it's an obvious way to tax the rich without affecting working people and that the only reason we're not already doing it is because the rich have rigged the system, the reality is way more complicated. There are no easy fixes. Changing the capital gains tax substantially (outside of more widespread reforms) is likely to have unwanted consequences. And even with widespread reforms, we're likely to suffer unwanted consequences.
Reality is way more complex than talking points.
For context, here is the first paragraph of the book's preface:
How best to perform construction work and what it will cost for materials, labor, plant and general expenses are matters of vital interest to engineers and contractors. This book is a treatise on the methods and cost of concrete construction. No attempt has been made to present the subject of cement testing which is already covered by Mr. W. Purves Taylor's excellent book, nor to discuss the physical properties of cements and concrete, as they are discussed by Falk and by Sabin, nor to consider reinforced concrete design as do Turneaure and Maurer or Buel and Hill, nor to present a general treatise on cements, mortars and concrete construction like that of Reid or of Taylor and Thompson. On the contrary, the authors have handled the subject of concrete construction solely from the viewpoint of the builder of concrete structures. By doing this they have been able to crowd a great amount of detailed information on methods and costs of concrete construction into a volume of moderate size.
For anyone wondering what the "OTP" part is in Erlang/OTP, it is a set of libraries and associated principles that, in effect, standardize the creation of highly reliable, fault-tolerant applications, originally for the telecom domain. It's worth checking out the brief introduction to the fundamental ideas in the introduction to "OTP Design Principles":
What are the incentives for corrupt people to fix potholes under a purely capitalist economy?
Well, in a purely capitalist economy, the answer would be property rights, competition, and liability. For example, a road would be owned by someone, and you could sue that someone for damages if the road damaged your car. A road owner could discharge liability risk by purchacing insurance, and insurance underwriters could require some minimum standard of maintenance from owners in exchange.
You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...
The whole point of the article that spawned these discussions is that society has already delegated the responsibility for fixing potholes to the government, and the government is doing a crappy enough job of fixing potholes that "art activists" need to make potholes into public art projects to get the government to actually do its job.
First, thanks for continuing this interesting conversation!
Let me try and repeat it back. Resource allocation is a zero-sum game within any given year, resource production increases yearly as technology increases, technology increases more as capital increases, so a low capital gains tax will increase resource production more than a high capital gains tax.
Actually, this line of reasoning is tangential to the thrust of my argument. Let’s get to it now:
If I got that right, here's my best shot at a contradiction. If resource allocation is a zero-sum game, money (liquid assets) determines resource allocation, …
Okay, here’s what I think you’re missing. Money does not determine resource allocation. But spending money does! Only by spending money do you get to consume goods and services. Therefore, by getting wealthy people not to spend but to invest almost all of their wealth, we get them to give up their claim on where today’s resources are allocated. They control wealth but not resource allocations.
… and low capital gains tax further concentrates money to the wealthy, …
I believe that this claim is more or less true.
… then the wealthy gain a greater share of resource allocation next year.
But this claim does not follow. Wealthy people gain a greater share of the wealth allocation next year, but they do not spend that wealth, nor the new wealth they gain each year. They spend only a tiny fraction of it – and invest the rest. Thus, most of this “extra” wealth that wealthy people gain is invested, with resource allocations from that wealth to be determined by spending across the population in general, not by the wealthy who invested it.
I claim that if the wealthy were to put their money in luxuries (things that don't give capital gains), they would control more allocation in a given year, but then they would decrease their share of resource allocation the next year. I also claim that resource production would increase just fine, as technology initially benefiting luxury production expands toward general production.
Let’s say that the wealthiest 1% of people control half of all wealth. If we forced them to spend that wealth, much of the economy’s resources would be redirected to provide goods and services to the top 1% of people. For a very long time, the remaining 99% of people, especially the lower 80%, would find it very hard to purchase goods and services, for their spending would be dwarfed. Resource production would increase, but I doubt it would be “just fine.” Factories producing mega-yachts, doctors providing exotic cosmetic surgeries, and master chefs preparing one-of-a-kind meals with luxury ingredients such as hand-massaged beef fed grasses from the richest soils on Earth… These are not easily adapted to produce things that regular people need.
By getting those wealthy people to invest their wealth instead, we get them to give up their ability to dictate where today’s resources go. In exchange, they (as a group) get the promise of earning more wealth tomorrow from their investments.
I agree, however, that concentration of wealth is a problem for society. When a small number of people can, in effect, buy the government with pocket change, that’s not good. But a low tax rate on capital gains is only one contributing factor to the concentration-of-wealth problem.
If that's what you think is happening – tests and grades – when people come to a site whose purpose is to foster thoughtful and substantive discussions, and then on that site they share ideas and invite criticism of them, you might consider whether you're missing something.
I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel [general societal benefits] out.
While I agree that the factors you cited are drags on the economy, I think historical evidence suggests strongly that they do not cancel out net benefit to society in general. The fact that poor people today benefit from refrigeration, air conditioning, electronic computers, vaccinations, safe anesthesia, cancer drugs, dialysis, HDTVs, cell phones, and a host of other things that the wealthiest people of yesteryear could not have purchased with all their wealth, suggests that the net trend of the economy has been to produce benefits for all of society, including regular people.
you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)?
No, that is the opposite of my original claim. My claim, put simply, is that a low capital gains tax shifts the economy's output away from luxuries and toward meeting the needs of regular people.
I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game?
But resource allocation is a zero-sum game. In any given year, there are only so many productively employable atoms and human hours. If less of those resources are being used to produce luxuries for wealthy people, they can be employed to produce goods and services for regular people.
I didn't ignore that part. I interpreted it as your way of saying that you intended to state your opinion without offering supporting argument.