jesselawson

Joined 7 years ago

Karma
102
Submissions
43
Member since
May 6
Writer, reader, burrito-eater
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
Hi team--and hello Fred! You and I had some great conversations about Slack's direction--as well as its missed opportunities--back when we worked there together. I was leading developer education at the time, and frustrated with the decisions that were coming down that caused us to pivot away from what we agreed on was the "true core experience" of a collaborative messaging system: connecting users with the knowledge they need without having to parse through other knowledge that may be important in different contexts.

I'm genuinely excited that you're in this space now, too, as I myself have had my nose to the grindstone building out what the collaboration app for distributed teams that I've always wanted. We need options/competition in this space; just this year alone, I've had a little over a a dozen conversations with interested folks in teams across the United States working in industries from agricultural sensors manufacturing to game studios for hire, and the same pain points that you and I were reasoning about back at Slack are the same pain points that users still unwillingly tolerate.

See you around--and good luck out there!

PS. As an English major I'd be remiss to not share that I love the name emdash. :D

Comment · 2 years ago
Perhaps others may make inferences about what a board appointment to a company with growing influence in government security matters means based on the appointee’s history in government security leadership.
Comment · 2 years ago
I’m not sure I understand the analogy. To me there’s a difference between a former intelligence general being courted by a private company that sells services for rapidly and semi-autonomously generating content that bad actors have used and will likely continue to use for influencing geopolitical public sentiment, and a pharmaceutical company that does not sell similar technology.
Comment · 2 years ago
Similar experience here, too. Virtually every time I have worked with, trained, or reported to someone with a CS degree from Stanford or Harvard, they have approached their work with a narrow mind and little empathy for others. This has been true in the military, public sector, and the private sector. I don’t know what it is about these places.

I read something a while back that did color my understanding of folks somewhat, and that was that there are a lot of people who come into the technology field for the money, not necessarily because of their lifelong interest in tinkering with computers. That to me is nuts, but I guess it’s to be expected. Maybe the sample size of my experience with these folks is overrepresented with people who are in it for the money and not curiosity and creativity. I don’t know.

Comment · 2 years ago
Apple has consistently made laptops and development environments that creative types enjoy and admire. It’s too mad our economic system is setup to only care about infinite growth and monopolization at Apple’s size. It’s too bad just “being a great maker of great tools for great people” isn’t possible when you’re publicly traded.
Comment · 2 years ago
All good and great but I think it’s a bit misleading. The participants were asked to do LeetCode—which limits this study to the suggested effects of cannabis on arbitrary and abstract programming tasks.
Comment · 2 years ago
I got to the end of your post and realized I’d love to hear more about your thoughts around this. Also you must be proud of building something with so little bugs! Thats quite a feat.
Comment · 2 years ago
Additionally, some problems have gone on for so long without any attention to solving them that they’ve created whole new problems—and then new problems, and then new problems… at jobs where you discover over time that management has kicked a lot of problems down the road, it can take a lot of words to walk people through the connection between a pattern of behavior (or a pattern of avoidance) and a myriad of seemingly unrelated issues faced by many.
Comment · 2 years ago
Like remote work vs physically proximate work in software engineering, I’m hopeful that people will remember the value of human cognition so much so that it’s considered, like it is today for some people in some cases, a competitive advantage.
Comment · 3 years ago
Sam, this is such a wonderful resource that you've put out into the world. Thank you for the time and care you've put into each paragraph and interactive component. You've not only given me a lot to think about in terms of my basic assumptions about memory, but also about how to write and teach better online. I'm really excited to start following you!
Comment · 3 years ago
Honestly the best comment I've read on here in a long time. Cheers.
Comment · 3 years ago
I'm sorry about all the negativity in the comments. What I see is something that was handcrafted with the careful touch of a craftsperson that represents your individual vision for a specific digital experience. I can tell you put a lot of time into making this. Thank you for sharing this!
Comment · 3 years ago
I appreciate how optimistic people are about interesting tools like this. I personally am concerned about production use of models in any form that do not have strict oversight rules and accountability of training data -- especially in digital social spaces.

It feels like we need international, strict, transparent controls over the data used to train ML models and the algorithms through which content, recommendations, and inferences are provided to the general public, otherwise what is bound to happen is commercial interests (which a U.S. president has already admitted is more important than peace[1]) will create massive amounts of pseudo-signal in digital spaces, on the one hand capitalizing on psychological effects of exposure and social proof to sell products, and on the other hand, carrying out and exacerbating the outcomes of political disinformation campaigns.

But strict controls and transparency over training data wont be enough, since the general public is unlikely to ever have the requisite time and energy to inspect the data and recognize when models have been trained for lawful evil purposes and then petition their government for a redress of these grievances in a way that will lead to positive legislative action for healthy digital communities. (I think this task will be relegated to the fringes of society just like it is now, with journalists from big corporate outlets really only interested in these topics as a means of capitalizing on controversy.)

So what do we do? How do we prevent information pollution in digital spaces when commercial interests and state actors have both the means and motive to carry out widespread campaigns of social influence? Would we need to reconsider how we as people, corporations, and governments treat digital spaces -- perhaps considering them as "the means of connectedness" to drive home the distinction between human digital connectedness as a tool for interpersonal communication versus a tool for mass influence? (Is that even possible under our current socioeconomic systems?)

I've always wondered what would be different if we treated online public spaces like national parks. What would we allow and not allow? What could people count on -- and what could they trust (and why) about existing in that space and sharing information with each other?

As these models mature and grow in utility, I'm both excited and hesitant about what is possible -- because I know good people with great imaginations and I also know really bad people with great imaginations.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC0VTbGqioM

Comment · 4 years ago
PLT and implementing languages is something that's always fascinated me, so I enjoy hearing everyone's experiences in this domain. What makes you call it a "dark unhappy path"?
Comment · 4 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton