thw09j9m

Post your blind username. I'll message you morning time EST with receipts.

I'm a staff level SWE at a company that you've all heard of (not a flex, just providing context).

If my manager said to me tomorrow: "I have to either get rid of one of your coworkers or your use of AI tools, which is it?"

I would, without any hesitation, ask that he fire one of my coworkers. Gemini / Claude is way more useful to me than any particular coworker.

And now I'm preparing for my post-software career because that coworker is going to be me in a few years.

Obviously I hope that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

They're not obligated to enforce the non-compete. If you don't have any sensitive information to take to a competitor, they might not give you any garden leave.

OTOH, I've seen non-competes as long as 2.5 years from places like Citadel.

nah

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20805676/engineer-ai-arti...

(same company, before rebranding to builder.ai)

No. Getting worse with time as well.

I recently decided to double up on my Vyvanse dose (without telling my doctor), and that was effective. For a day.

It's Google. Assume the training set contains, as a subset, the entirety of all public digitized information. How would you like to them to share it?

I think the big picture that many people are missing here is the motivation that all these AI/tech companies have for buying up so many GPU's in the first place: achieving AGI/ASI.

And while some still try to portray a dedication/duty to AI Alignment, I think most have either secretly or more publicly moved away from it in the race to become the first to achieve it.

And I think, given that inference time compute is so much cheaper than pre-training, the first to achieve AGI might have enough compute on hand from having been to first to build it that they would not need to purchase many more GPU's from Nvidia. So at some point, Nvidia's revenues are going to decline precipitously.

So the question is: how far away are we from AGI? Seems like most experts estimate 3-10 years. Did that timeline just shrink by 50x (or at least by some multiple) from these new optimizations from DeepSeek?

I think Nvidia's revenue is going to continue to grow at its current pace (or faster) until AGI is achieved. Just sell your positions right before that happens.

(Not an expert. Not even an amateur)

Tech market is rough. I think BigTech currently thinks that there's a better ROI spending $300k on compute (training an LLM) than $300k on an employee. All the startups I've interviewed with are HEAVILY leveraging LLMs (via Cursor) to keep engineer count and burn rate low.

My thoughts from ~ 6 weeks ago:

>> This is the toughest market I've ever seen. I easily made it to on-sites at FAANG a few years ago and now I'm getting resume rejected by no-name startups (and FAANG). The bar has also been raised significantly. I had an interview recently where I solved the algorithm question very quickly, but didn't refactor/clean up my code perfectly and was rejected.

I've since landed one decent offer, but mostly got lucky (the sys design interview was about an obscure optimization problem that I specialized in for years - though I didn't let on that fact)

Between that time, I failed multiple interviews (always solving the question, but never quickly or cleanly enough).

Companies are incredibly slow to respond back (up to 4 weeks from time of application to first interaction with a recruiter).

Some companies are incredibly demanding (recruiter screen -> tech screen -> tech screen -> take-home test -> group discussion about take-home test -> behavioral / culture interview).

Don't think it's about race. It's just an employers' market. And if you refuse to jump through the hoops, somebody else will.

For reference, the last company on my resume is a top tier company that every recruiter has heard of.

This is the toughest market I've ever seen. I easily made it to on-sites at FAANG a few years ago and now I'm getting resume rejected by no-name startups (and FAANG).

The bar has also been raised significantly. I had an interview recently where I solved the algorithm question very quickly, but didn't refactor/clean up my code perfectly and was rejected.

Noble != Nobel

Tobacco is addictive, nicotine alone without MAOIs is not nearly as addictive.

Sorry, you're right. I made up those numbers based on data suggesting a pareto distribution of matches. I also didn't intend to imply that I'm somehow in the top 10% of objective attractiveness - I meant attractiveness within the context of the app based on my match performance.

https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/exploitive-....

> Users are assigned an attractiveness score based on how many people like them. The dating apps tends towards a pareto distribution where 20% of the users get 80% of the matches as seen in Figure 5. However, users are sorted based on their attractiveness score, and thus you’re shown users who are roughly in the same league as you. Furthermore, the average male user gets one match in 115 profiles [9]. With only 100 free swipes a day, 80% males who haven’t paid for premium service will average less than a single match a day.

Considering those figures, maybe I'm in the top 20% of the country where I do well (seems unlikely if the 80th percentile is getting less than a single match a day while I'm getting dozens) and I could be anywhere in the bottom 1%-80% in the country where I'm not doing well.

Probably because they're not letting me bang them out of politeness.

I'll chime in as somebody who's been considered top 10% of attractiveness in one country and bottom 50% in another - the difference in the amount of sexual opportunities on apps is absolutely staggering. Not that this should be a surprise to anyone.

Where I am considered attractive, I've gotten 80+ matches in one day and random women messaging me at 11PM telling me they're lonely and to come hang out. I've had more first dates that involved sex than first dates that didn't.

Where I am not considered attractive, I get literally no matches except for the occasional Onlyfans spammer. It was extremely depressing to go from one extreme to the other and I just don't bother with dating apps at all now.

Become a contractor. Work 1-2 months/year and spend the rest of the year doing what you want.

I'm chronically ill with an idiopathic incurable condition. I started coding out of necessity - my first program was a script that crawled Pubmed and analyzed what drugs were most frequently mentioned, what countries were doing the research, etc.

I worked a TON of overtime last quarter and I'm not going to make that same mistake again. If I work over 40 hours a week, that time is going to be devoted to prepping algorithm and system design interview questions so that I can easily find another high paying job if I were to get fired here.

My real job is to be highly employable and sought after at all times, not fulfilling the needs/wants of my current company.

> offensive and misguided

The data is the data. The data isn't suggesting that "having more black people in your neighbourhood will depress housing prices." That's your take on what a racist causal interpretation would look like.

The correlation is very real and turning a blind eye to it is worse: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/how-racial-disparities...

Damn, what an incredibly poorly executed plug. Could you at least try to be sly?

If interviews started testing for OS fundamentals, then people would just switch to prepping for those instead.

Seems like a standard interview imo. Security engineers would be the last group of people that I would try to screw over.

That's a mistake. A lot of people lie on their resumes.

Source: I've lied on every resume I've ever sent out.

Disappointing content. Those drawn in by the title might be more interested in this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32409811

> about: Investor, husband, father. Those weird spelling and syntax errors are thanks to Siri. I try to preserve my arthritic hands for higher value targets than trolling hacker news.

Who isn't aware of it?

The question is are you willing to short it? I've been expecting Tether to collapse for 3-4 years now. Had I shorted it back then (it costs about 12% to borrow last I checked), I'd be out a lot of money.

Hourly would be $2,000,000+/year at that rate

I think I'm missing the connection between how HFT's trade and how it takes money away from regular people.

Generally, illegal trading resolves around the idea of trading on non-public information. And front running falls under that category (access to order data that other participants do not).

However, HFT's do not trade on non-public information. Every participant has access to the same market data. I could start my own "HFT firm" tomorrow; I would just be incredibly unsuccessful at it because I don't have the finances or computing resources to execute.

Front running is illegal. However, making a better price prediction than the rest of the market and trading on it is not the same thing as front running.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/frontrunning.asp#:~:tex....