akavi

Bigger opportunity cost for cash buyers...

Ceglowski is an absolute genius of the English language (one might say, a super intelligence)

I endorse reading every essay on idlewords.com

Interesting. Curious if that's cultural influence from the US (where it isn't taxable)

I assume that cars are not seen as a taxable benefit in Belgium?

In JS, we could do:

    open('file', (myfile) => process(myfile.read()))

It would be on the implementer of `open` to call `file.close()`, but presumably that's true of python as well?

What do blocks give you that good old-fashioned first-class functions don't?

You seem to be conflating two different things:

1) How personally validating a job is to a person

2) How valuable the job is to society at large.

To see how those might decouple, consider Superman continuously turning a crank to provide limitless energy for society (credit: SMBC [0]). Fabulously valuable to society, extremely lacking in personal validation for superman.

In general, you'd expect salary to correlate with 2, and inversely correlate with 1, since the sense of validation is in effect part of the compensation you're getting from a job. It also seems pretty common to (IMO wrongly) think that 1 and 2 are tightly coupled: the jobs that produce the greatest societal value are the ones that feel the most personally validating. But that's just because modern society is far more complicated than our brains were evolved to handle. Identifying the actual value of a job requires following a complex chain of incentives and value production through the vast networks of businesses and organizations that comprise our world.

Sadly for those instincts, it is probably true that a programmer writing a piece of code that makes $business_process_c56_2 0.1% more efficient, which is then run billions upon billions of times is actually producing more value in net than a teacher who changes the lives of O(1000) kids over their lifetime.

[0]: https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305

Objects are a useful idea. Object Orientation is a terrible, terrible idea.

Functions + data (immutable when practical) is all you need for 90%+ of programming, and you should only reach for objects when necessary to manage some well-encapsulated but tricky state. Your default orientation should certainly not be towards objects.

Does this increase anyone else's sense that LLMs are actually modeling something similar to the way humans think? It certainly does for me.

I find that negations/conjugations of negations are surprisingly difficult for to parse. Beyond two negations at most, I can feel myself having to switch into "code" mode, where I'm explicitly casing out the booleans, to understand them.

Obviously the examples given in the article are simpler than double negations, but it feels very consistent with the idea that "negations are an inherently hard part of language processing".

"Heir to an emerald mine" is intended to paint a very specific picture, and "some occasional spending cash from a handshake claim to a chunk of namibian rock outcropping (if we believe a man who doesn't exactly present as super trustworthy)" is definitely not it.

I'm no fan of Musk, but I'm even less a fan of being intentionally misleading.

I'm not sure, but I believe that most, if not all, mergers from simplification were homophones.

Mandarin absolutely does:

* 行: xíng or háng

* 的: de or dì

* 长: cháng or zhǎng

(plus I'm sure many more that I can't think of just right now)

Have you used typescript? Because to my eyes, that's a massively successful "bolted on" type system.

Sure there're holes in the system, but the utility is significant, especially relative to the cost.

Protip: Slang words almost never come from acronyms (The lone exception I've found is "thot")

The "g" is pronounced (in a sense). In Italian, the digraph "gl" represents a single sound /ʎ/, which is distinct from the sound represented by "l" alone (/l/)

It speaks to waterloo’s success that i don’t know which waterloo unicorn you’re talking about.

(Also worked at a waterloo unicorn. Codebase was the cleanest i’ve worked in, though perhaps excessively so, at the cost of product velocity)

But what do those Full Stack engineers make? Salaries are hugely variable across the industry. There are “senior” engineers making 60 k$/yr, and new grads starting at 200 k$/yr

Right, that's the canonical way to produce the vowel.

But what the video explains is the fact that the rounding is actually less fundamental than the length of the resonating tract. It means that you can keep your lips unrounded and produce a vowel very, very similar to the canonical /y/

Edit: I made a typo in my original comment, I meant to say "by centralizing /i/ slightly" (not "/u/")

The revelation that I could generate a vowel that sounded awful close to /y/ with unrounded lips by centralizing /u/ slightly is blowing my mind…

Your friend is a massive outlier in the pay distribution of electricians. He's either gaming the overtime system somehow, or has a unique set of specialized skills (or some regulatory arbitrage combo of both).

In the "old days" (2015 and before), PD used Wormly to mass-blast all engineers.

Note that the "phonetic" component can become incredibly strained in modern Chinese languages. Eg, take the character "俞"; in Mandarin, it's pronounced "yú". However, it's used as a phonetic component in:

1) 输: pronounced "shū"

2) 偷: pronounced "tōu"

(There are even worse examples which I can't think of in the moment)

For many men who frequent HN "Participate in activities where socialization is part of the activity" without further qualification would mean many activities where few to no single heterosexual women are present.

Oddly enough, though that root does produce "fermentum", "garum" seems to be etymologically unlinked.

If they perceive that 1% chance of 1 M$ as having nonzero value, then they're not "valu[ing] it at 0 $"

Y'know, a lot of people say they value it at 0 $, but are oddly hesitant to take me up on my offer to buy it off them for a hundred bucks...

These people are affirmatively voting for these restrictions.

Like, I don't think abortion is murder, but if I did, I'd vote for restrictions even if I could get pregnant. Just like I would vote for restrictions on "normal" murder if it were up for debate.

> the overwhelming majority of female voters are against those restrictions.

Source?

The polls I can find easily [0][1] show very similar levels of support for/against abortion restrictions between genders. Women tend to to be slightly more pro-choice, but certainly not "overwhelmingly".

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... (annoyingly this one answers "what percentage of people who are pro/anti abortion are female, rather than what percent of women are pro/anti-abortion")

[1] https://www.cbs42.com/news/new-polling-shows-alabama-primary...

What's the cartel keeping SWE salaries high?

I'd say more like a classical virus with a loop earlier in the central dogma.

Ie, in the DNA => RNA => Protein cycle, viruses are a loop from Protein => DNA or Protein => RNA. Introners are a loop from RNA => DNA.