simsla

In my experience, it's more a mark of "do do" than "can do".

i.e. how far along are you in the progression of... - being given clearly defined tasks - self-guided work on feature level - self-guided work on project level - self-guided work on team level - self-guided work across teams etc.

To an extent.

But a human isn't trained from scratch. Babies go through huge amounts of unsupervised learning to build up a basic vision and language framework.

Training a neural network to recognize dog pictures is like connecting electrodes to your tongue and trying to do the same. Rudimentary "vision" (very small resolution) has actually been demonstrated this way in human experiments, but you definitely need more than a few examples.

A fairer comparison is: can giant pertained NNs learn to generalize with few examples, and the answer seems to be yes.

On the other hand, my university was in the habit of using the best professors to teach the intro / first year courses. Because those are the courses where you tend to lose the most of your students.

In a limited timeframe, sure. Beyond that, I'm genuinely scared.

Murphy's law comes to mind. A small probability of badness + enough time = a near inevitable disaster.

It only takes one person to overreact for us all to start nuking each other.

I see no easy way out, apart from striving to become a multi-planetary civilization. Even then, it'll be a matter of time before the same pattern emerges.

No, not in any material way.

- When there's a rise in payroll tax across the board, I'd be extremely surprised all companies across the board raise their salaries. By default, a payroll tax hike will go out of the employee's cut.

- There are many huge companies whose payroll and profit are largely decoupled (as in, employee salaries are not a great indicator for company profit). Think McDonald's, Amazon, Walmart.

It's about laziness and efficiency rather than snobbery, IMHO.

You're outsourcing the QC to a trusted third party.

Reading papers takes up enough time and effort as it is. I do not have the time to reproduce all of them.

This fallacy is addressed in the article, I suggest you read it.

The key point is that wages are being kept artificially low by monopsonies. And the evidence supports this. (Current hyperlocal minimum wage laws make for good A/B-ish tests.)

An interesting idea (which would need to be integrated in the conferencing apps) might be too do quality improvement on the receiver side. Turning low bandwidth and compressed video into higher quality video.

That might be jumping the gun a bit. Malice for the sake of malice is usually one of the least credible options.

Other valid possibilities:

- They don't agree with me on the first point.

- Someone followed an un-nuanced SOP.

- They expect a strategic benefit from this kind of attitude.

- People are making choices from a job-security perspective rather than a greater good (or even greater good of the company) perspective.

- ...

IANAL, but in general there are two reasons for things like this.

1 - Preventing trademark erosion. Companies have a duty to be proactive and continually challenge trademark infringements. If not, the trademark can become invalid. e.g. this happened with Sony's Walkman (TM).

However, they don't seem to have good grounds for it in this case. They are dissimilar enough (both in visual style and domain) that no reasonable consumer would get confused.

2 - Over-eagerness from the legal department. [Speculation, may not apply to Apple.] Pressure to get billables, to prove individual relevance, or even just busywork can -- in the absence of clear guidelines and policy -- lead to the legal dept taking unnecessary action. This becomes more true the more silo'd the different departments in a company are.

I believe this is a natural thing for big companies to evolve into, which can be addressed amongst other things through SOP's, guidelines, oversight (i.e. more people signing off).

Suffice to say that your average conglomerate cease and desist has not passed the desk of the CEO.

You could probably write a wrapper that uses the plist + spotlight (mdfind) to get a functional wrapper.

That being said, I agree that support should be native.

Sometimes you should.

Apart from it being zero-sum and this depriving other people of opportunity, with some of these services there's a promise of "starting fulfillment" upon acceptance. This is voided when a bot picks it up.

Real life example: I ordered an Uber, which was accepted by a "driver" just two streets down. Except the car still hadn't started moving 10 minutes later. So I walked over, and the GPS signal seemed to be coming from a parked car, no driver in sight. Messaged and called the driver, but no response, even 20 minutes after acceptance. Had to contact Uber to get the cancellation fee back.

Yes, but enabling this kind of lobbying is the responsibility of government.

A fact used to imply completely unsubstantiated facts.

There's also almost definitely an evolutionary advantage.

Groups are stronger than individuals. Selfish people are undesirable for a group.

> GitHub projects, OSS contributions, stack overflow

All of these are great signals IF present, but IMO not beyond.

I have a decent track record in the software industry (FAANG and other), but I don't tend to work beyond work (the results of which are mostly private). Likewise, I've worked with amazing developers who prefer to focus on family/hiking/baking/etc. in their free time over OSS/private projects.

It's great if you have the passion to go above and beyond in your free time, but it shouldn't be expected.

Can you elaborate what you think the main reasons should be? (Genuinely interested.)

I've been overbreathing (essentially, chronic hyperventilation that you don't notice) ever since I had a bit of a health scare.

It's horrible.

Your CO2 levels drop, which inhibits your body's blood pH regulation. An increased blood pH leads to fuzzy thoughts, pinpricks all over your body, headaches, etc. Longer term, all kinds of aches start popping up. (Bloating, acid reflux, etc.)

It's difficult to fix something that you did unconsciously before. If anything, paying too much attention to your breathing works against you.

I have no real point here, except: breathing is important. And, if someone happens to read this and has some advice: let me know. :-)

That's a strawman. I think we're allowed to judge the government by the actions of the government.

Thanks for sharing that. Really interesting read.

Tried that as well. (extensively documented to show they swapped street names.) Ticket was closed after half a year without comment.

They have a system but seem to be missing the processes.

Sure, but this is only an initial prototype. I'm sure we could make it work faster/more efficient with a few more design iterations.

In Europe, neither of these is viable without a complete overhaul.

- There are online-only providers. E.g. Giffgaff in the UK, Mobile Vikings in Belgium, etc. - Many European countries offer prepaid SIMs that aren't tied to ID. Instead, you can just buy them in the supermarket the same way like you would a gift voucher.

People dying, because cutting costs was considered more important than due diligence. Might doesn't make right.

My company disallows me from doing open source (without an incredibly rigorous review process that makes it honestly not worth the hassle).

Nice plus? Sure. Near-mandatory? Fuck no.

Very much so. It's also not included in the original title, so not much of an excuse here.

If "Facebook Portal" is not descriptive enough, a case might be made for minor editorializing, but e.g. "Facebook Portal: Privacy Assessment" would be much less (mis)leading.

Email him? He might send it to you for free. Or just pay the middleman, and he'll get paid too.

You're right about the first two papers (which used the same approach). Ruling out a FP result would be difficult, which is why it wasn't fully embraced by the scientific community.

The third team took a different approach [1], with results that are both more accurate, less prone to FP, and generally agree with the other findings.

> Here we report observations of two absorbers of highly ionized oxygen (O VII) in the high-signal-to-noise-ratio X-ray spectrum of a quasar at a redshift higher than 0.4. These absorbers show no variability over a two-year timescale and have no associated cold absorption, making the assumption that they originate from the quasar’s intrinsic outflow or the host galaxy’s interstellar medium implausible.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0204-1

I agree, but Google doesn't just get rid of prefixes.

news.ycombinator.www.com would get normalized to news.ycombinator.com (not sure what would happen when using the www tld)

That's an extreme example, but there's an obvious security risk. This is a half assed change with buggy behaviour, regardless of whether you think www.domain.tld is materially different from domain.tld or not.

No. Any data exhibits random patterns, especially if you try too hard.

If you check for 10 patterns, each at the 95% significance level (p<0.05), there's a 40% chance of getting at least one false positive. Look for 20 patterns and that goes up to 60%.

That's why science requires you to formulate a hypothesis before running the experiment. And why finding a pattern through data analysis does not warrant a witch hunt.