I would not be at all comfortable, with a human server, making them wait while changing my selection multiple times (no I want it with the ginger sauce... no, without... no actually the sesame sauce... no actually I don't even want that dish, I'll take the other one), googling 10 different unusual ingredients while I make these changes, etc. And especially if I'm part of a larger party that shares food, or with kids, makes it all the more complicated. I just... am not ok with the social cost of it, even if a "good server" would be ok with it. (And who says you'll get a "good" one?). Whereas with digital ordering it's literally just zero-cost button clicks. And zero chance of error. I really don't see how it's even comparable, digital ordering is such a step forward. (Obviously not in all settings, like fancy dining, but for the mainstream).
HN user
wdrw
I always found this particular Recurse Center rule strange. I understand how not feigning surprise can be a good rule, as in you should not pretend to be surprised when you genuinely aren't. (e.g. a web front-end dev saying "I don't know how to recompile the kernel" - "What, you don't know ?!?" - when it's clear that there's no actual expectation of knowing, it's just an attempt to self-aggrandize or put the other person down). But if it's a true, genuine surprise, then there is no feigning! If a web front-end dev says "I've never heard of CSS", it's genuinely surprising, and I think it's ok to express that. It's also useful to the recipient to hear this genuine surprise, because it's a strong signal that they're missing something important, a much stronger signal than if someone just said in a calm voice "you know, CSS is one of the most important things to learn for web front-end development". But that's not how Recurse Center means it - when they say "no feigning surprise" they actually mean "not showing surprise, no matter how genuine". I think it's generally best to be open in communicating with others, and neither feign something that isn't there nor hide something that actually is there.
At least in North America (and the author seems to be from Canada), having a company give you any sabbatical at all is pretty rare, and 6+ months is pure fantasy:) And not everyone likes travel, the post actually explains his reasoning pretty well.
I understand there may be an emotional desire to get rid of something unpleasant, but some descendants e.g. 5 generations down the line may feel very differently about this. Given how easy scanning is these days (there are literally companies that will do it for you if you send them a box), and given how good the technology for sifting through mountains of text is becoming, and given that it's literally irreplaceable text, I can't imagine doing this to family records that one of my ancestors specifically wanted to be preserved. Not criticizing your personal decision of course, but just offering a different perspective, i.e. for me it would be unimaginable to do this.
If it's for 95% if students who aren't interested in being scientists, then it shouldn't be an extracurricular science fair, but a part (maybe a big part) of the regular curriculum in science class. Science fairs are for the science enthusiasts, I think.
Dependence on a secure client is generally a bad idea. Security should be server-side.
This gives a pretty good explanation, although there is a slight difference from the translation in the original post: https://chatgpt.com/share/69136c44-94b0-8000-a564-ce55f92a14... Use it together with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardiner%27s_sign_list
In Canada there's MyDoh, which is specifically a debit card you can give to kids including in that age range. One of the major Canadian banks runs this. Can only imagine that it's more advanced in Sweden.
I was trying to submit some feedback using your "Feedback" button on the top right, but got an error when trying to submit it :(
Anyway, the model used doesn't seem to be very good, it did not understand a basic "OR" criteria. I asked for a list of companies with an office in Toronto that are involved in hardware development such as custom silicon, robotics, satellites or drones. It completely misunderstood the "or" part (and the "such as" part). E.g. I see many robotics companies marked as a "Miss" because they only do robotics but not any of the other things on my list.
Overall though I love the idea, I would pay for your service (on a pay-as-you-go per-query basis) if the underlying model was smart enough for me to actually rely on the results.
There is a surprising amount of detailed childhood memories you may be able to retrieve by making a prolonged, conscious effort. I would guess that many people who say they don't have very many childhood memories have never taken e.g. 30 minutes of concentrated effort to really try to retrieve them. Here's what worked for me: imagine my childhood apartment, and mentally move along it, very very slowly, stopping in every part of every room, mentally examining every piece of furniture, etc. Of course it won't work for everyone, but for me memories associated with specific places just flooded in, I was very surprised at how many there were. I'm sure there are other methods as well. I think basically it involves trying a bunch of different "keys" that may be a match to "values" stored in memory.
But in scenario (B) you're spending money in Japan, basically you're directly injecting US money (your US salary) into the Japanese economy. Don't see why it's "amazing" for the US and not for Japan.
This makes no sense... consider these scenarios:
A) You work for a US company, earn money from the US company, pay income taxes in the US, live and spend money (and thus sales taxes) in the US
B) You work for a US company, earn money from the US company, pay income taxes in the US, but live and spend money (and thus sales taxes) in Japan
Clearly (B) is better for Japan economically? I think these laws are mostly enforced out of inertia and not any rational reason.
Oh, I built something like this as a hobby project a few years ago! Still online (with a now-expired cert...), but very likely to go down with even a bit of usage : ) Still, here it is: https://fasterbadger.com
I remember actually looking forward to new OS versions as a teenager. DOS 6.00 was genuinely exciting! What a contrast to the forced updates of today.
Hindenburg jokes aside, how do you ensure safety? Even if you only inspect infrastructure away from human habitation, there's still the risk of forest fires and such if there is an accident.
For me, the intuitive way of understanding it is, "how badly would a gambler lose in the long term, if they keep betting on a game believing the probability distribution is X but it is in actual fact Y". It also explains why KL divergence is assymetric, and why it goes to infinity / undefined when the expected probability distribution has zeros where the true distribution has non-zeros. Suppose an urn can have red, blue and green balls. If the true distribution (X) is that there are no red balls at all, but the gambler believes (Y) that there is a small fraction of red balls, the gambler would lose a bit of money with every bet on red, but overall the loss is finite. But suppose the gambler beleives (Y) there are absolutely no red balls in the urn, but in actual fact (X) there is some small fraction of them. According to the gambler's beliefs it would be rational to gamble potentially infinite money on the ball not being red, so the loss is potentially infinite. There is a parallel here to data compression, transmission, etc (KL divergence between expected and actual distributions in information theory) - if you believe a certain bit sequence will never occur in the input sequence, you won't assign it a code, and so if it ever does actually occur you won't be able to transmit it at all ("infinite loss"). If you beleive it will occur very infrequently, you will assign it a very long code, and so if it actually occurs very frequently your output data will be very long (large loss, large KL divergence).
It's great at log pocessing (generating commands for awk, sed, complex grep regexps, shell scripts to combine it all). Anything where I'm not an expert but need something very basic done quickly (e.g. the bulk of my day job is in C++, but I frequently need little bits of Python and ChatGPT is often the quickest way to get the answer I need).
The Mosh SSH client for intermittent connectivity ( https://mosh.org/ ) has definitely saved me at least 100 hours. Too bad that it's only available for Windows as a Chrome extension, and Chrome will discontinue support for it starting in the new year. Really not looking forward to having to search for an alternative...
I disagree that "supporting the manager's career" is necessarily at odds with creativity. Once you reach a certain level of knowledge in a workplace (problem domain knowledge, codebase knowledge, etc), different options appear to deal with each incoming Jira. You can solve them naively, or you can solve them creatively to produce better results and set up the codebase for more success in the future, or you can even (surprisingly often!) question some assumptions and find a way to not even do the work as-originally-specced but rather substitute some simpler version. These latter options make your team (and thus your manager) look even better, there's no conflict of interest here. Sure, this doesn't work with grunt-level "move this button over here" tasks, but presumably after you've actually built up the knowledge I was talking about earlier, you're assigned more interesting and challenging tasks (which are never in short supply).
In my ~20-year career I have never once been in a workplace setting where creativity wasn't valued. This is especially true of "technological creativity" (finding a new way of solving a complex technical problem, or better yet - finding some way to NOT have to solve the problem in the first place). But it is also true of "product / business creativity", "marketing creativity", etc. That does not mean that all ideas have equal merit. A new-grad hire may think their creative ideas aren't valued, but that is just because they don't yet truly know all the problem constraints - in a few years' time their creativity will shine.
I also had a situation a couple of times very early in my career, where as an intern I proposed some truly novel approaches, and was told that yes, they're potentially very good, but very risky and never tried before, and that I'm only there for X months and won't be around to deal with the consequences if they fail, so they're not going to do it - but I was told that if I was a full-timer, the decision may have been different.
The parallel port was wonderfully hackable. Having your PC control an LED light, or even a motor (with some effort), didn't take a whole lot of electronics knowledge. Or 8 LEDs, one per pin. And controlling it was as easy as sending text to a printer. We lost this in the age of USB...
When I was a kid my dad helped me hook up a pin to a motor. And not just any motor, but one inside a cassette tape player. I could then make little games in BASIC that had real voice! Of course it had to be linear, it basically played chunks of voice recording and stopped at the right times.
Interesting, the image seems to contain characters from a Russian childrens' cartoon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikoriki )
A must-read on translation is Le Ton beau de Marot by Douglas Hofstadter
But how do you get new loyal readers, if not by repeatedly proving your value to new occasional readers?
If you're thinking about risks, it's important not to conflate 3 scenarios: (1) running a Tor exit node (potentially very risky), (2) running a Tor relay node, and (3) just using the Tor browser as a user (should probably be fine for most users - depends on what you use it for of course, and Tor by itself is of course not sufficient to solve all privacy issues - you can still be deanonymized if you're not careful).
Rationality: From AI to Zombies by Eliezer Yudkowsky
Many people think of themselves as rational and have mastered the basics (understand the scientific method, know how to systematically solve difficult problems, etc) but are still constantly fooled by their human, imperfect brains into irrational thoughts and actions - both in day-to-day life and when pondering larger questions (science, engineering, policy, philosophy). Many aren't aware (just as I wasn't) that there are many more levels of rational thinking to unlock, that mistakes and biases can be identified and reduced. The book is adapted from a series of blog posts so lacks a bit in coherence (can be hard to get into), but stick with it for a bit, and I guarantee the ideas presented will be well-worth it.
- 1Password password manager
- PDFill Free PDF Tools - indispensable for dealing with any bureaucratic tasks - cutting/rearranging pages, etc
You could still duplicate the verbal instruction in a (computer-readable) text, and then have an automated alert for any deviation from the texted instructions. Also, on big commercial flights with multiple pilots, could one of the pilots have more time to verify texted information? (I thought I heard something about a communicator/navigator role). And doesn't the ATC controller already have to type in the information into the ATC computer? I'm suggesting an automated message, not literally a human typing a text.
It is amazing that in this day and age, instructions from the ATC are still spoken, not texted. (Does anyone here know if the ATC computer keeps track of the target flight level, heading, etc? If so, these instructions could probably be texted at a push of a button in addition to the spoken words. The aircraft's avionics could then be smart and alert the pilots if they're doing something different.)