kenko

So compassionate and empathetic that you're concerned about people abusing this because of the subjectivity of hunger!

S/He's saying that s/he enjoys writing interpreters. That is not related to the fact that Chez Scheme is a compiler.

Man, those workplace disappointments sure aren't "predictable" except in a larger workplace ecosystem that's 100% fucked up.

How is buying shares in Berkshire Hathaway for "true believers"?

"the point we make in the book is that few employees expect or want lifetime employment at a single company;"

Expect? Of course not, anymore; you'd be a fool to expect that.

Want? Well, more complicated: if it's a matter of wanting lifetime employment in the presently existing field of options, as employment and firms are presently constituted (and as firms presently look at employees), maybe not. If it's a matter of wanting to be working in the kind of regime in which lifetime employment really was more common, the answer might change.

Your response to 3 is a non sequitur. And employment as a condition is certainly not a voluntary matter: think of what that would mean! (Hint: it would mean that anyone who wanted to could quit their job and not seek employment elsewhere and things would be fine. We don't live in that world.)

The comparison of Rust's errors-by-return-values to Go's is really off-base.

ditonal's comment (currently below yours) is relevant here. Doesn't look like they stumbled to me!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10784180

> I'm not sure this is helpful though. We've accepted "literally" also means "not literally" without creating a new language.

http://waste.typepad.com/waste/2014/07/on-a-popular-misconce...

It's just a figurative use of "literally". It's like saying "He's such a baby" of an immature (<- also figurative!) adult. You aren't saying that such an adult is actually a baby.

Why is that more appropriate than just defining all the currently undefined/implementation-specific behavior?

> "\x01\x02".encode('zlib') for instance is a bytes to bytes operation.

I think the inclusion of things like zlib (or rot13 or whatever) was a conceptual error that just fosters confusion.

Just went to post this myself!

Nothing about CPS ensures asynchrony.

Huh, on my laptop (running OSX) it's SIGINFO. Read the man pages!

> So why the quad i7, 32GB RAM, and 480GB SSD?

"So… for what I need, a quad-core box with 32GB RAM is pretty ridiculous. But I’m hoping I can not do this again for quite for a years, so."

Tomatoes are not generally considered culinary fruits, so there is, in fact, a sense of "fruit" on which tomatoes are not fruits. They are biological fruits, which is what someone who invokes a "technical" sense likely means.

Ha and I see that pinboard just tweeted sth relevant: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/665235613373718528 "Recurring theme this morning is Minimum Viable Education, how to train future tech professionals without the baggage of reading English lit"

You can hire and start training people now. They can start being useful fast. The whole bootcamp model proves this. If there's such a shortage businesses could just subsidize the bootcamps.

The phasing out of on-the-job training is an atrocity, IMO, especially since what tends to replace it is training at a university, which ought (imo) be a place where people can get some education that isn't oriented primarily toward making them better workers.

It's especially ironic since often the university is a public institution, and the tech world (and the business world generally) tends to be so down on the public sphere and are big boosters of private enterprise. But they're not above taking a giant, giant handout in the form of worker training and then pissing and moaning when they think it isn't coming fast enough.

"under the table" work doesn't mean you're not getting paid, it means your pay isn't reported to the relevant tax authorities. That doesn't make it less illegal.

"Your brain still thinks the sounds" is hilarious.

kinds and typeclasses are rather different, are they not?

Right, but since the context hasn't changed, they haven't increased the range of things you can convey in a given context, they've just changed what it conveys.

It's rather off-putting.

Could you say something about why familiarity with European-style games is relevant to distributed systems and applied ML?

<em>Does Craigslist investigate every item sold to make sure it's not stolen? </em>

No, but they probably should. Pawnshops, in many jurisdictions at least, are supposed to hold things that they buy in case they turn out to be stolen. You can be on the hook for fencing something even if you didn't know it was stolen.

OMG. If they're headquartered in London I assume she can sue them under British libel law.

"What it means for a selection process to be biased against applicants of type x is that it's harder for them to make it through. Which means applicants of type x have to be better to get selected than applicants not of type x. [1] Which means applicants of type x who do make it through the selection process will outperform other successful applicants."

There are many, many reasons that both sentences beginning "which means" are false that someone who is as smart as we're told Graham is should be able to come up with quite easily. It's astonishing that he made this tripe public.

Here's a gimme for each.

Say I'm selecting people to receive a prize; there are ten recipients and they're putatively chosen by [whatever]. But I don't like people with green eyes, so green-eyed candidates had better be pretty pleasing to me. But they can please me in any way, not necessarily in ways relevant to the metric for which the prize is awarded&mdash;maybe I also like tall people so a really tall green-eyed person averages out in terms of my predilections. They aren't relevantly better.

For the second, again, the question is "better" at what? Better at getting whatever is involved in getting selected? That doesn't necessarily correlate with outperforming anyone subsequently, especially if it's a matter of startupland. (Remember that New Yorker profile of Marc Andreessen, where Sam Altman basically admitted that he didn't know what he was doing in terms of selecting what to invest in? The flipside of that is being selected by Altman for an investment.)

> I’ve been lamenting the demise of the Unix philosophy: tools should do one thing, and do it well.

1983 was a while ago: http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/. That's a long time to lament something.

What's really killing digital health startups: failure to do due diligence.

"We have finally fully arrived at the ultimate in passive voice:"

No, the ultimate in the passive voice had already been attained [nb, passive voice omg] with "the lazy dog was jumped over by the quick brown fox". The passive voice is not an obfuscatory technique, and the further obfuscations have nothing to do with grammatical passivity. Indeed, "Speed was involved in a jumping‑related incident with a lazy dog while a fox was brown" does not contain a single instance of the passive voice. In fact, as soon as we get to the "was involved" parts of the article, we no longer have the passive voice around.