jo_

Another voice in the fray, I also did well enough to bypass the technical screen. Interviewed with four companies they recommended. Picked one. Still with them two(-ish) years later and an outspoken advocate.

It's a tricky situation because you have to balance being accepting of people with non-traditional backgrounds while also making sure they can do the basics. I liked that TripleByte could condense DAYS of interviews into a few hours.

In general, long tech screens are hard on people that can't afford to take off a full day, so it's tricky for people already working in crushing jobs that need a change. The TripleByte quiz worked nicely for this.

On the flip side, if their tech screen is filtering people for reasons other than ability, it's removing possibly good candidates who deserve a shot at something.

The new approach is sounding like it's trying to satisfy the latter, which is good for improving inclusivity, but won't be to everyone's liking.

How many people do you have on your ml team so far? I'm doing ML research (NLP for determining writing quality and similarity, amusingly) for my company and it's getting a bit lonely.

Perhaps they were fixed as part of unrelated bug fixes? That would explain why they didn't credit anyone as having reported them. Something like, "Fixed bad return value leak," or "refactoring old method" could break the exploits.

Forgive my ignorance, but it seems like this is just attempting to take advantage of the optimization done by LLVM, yes?

What I would love is a simple way of writing standalone functions that compile into a cross-platform LLVM file that I can call from a variety of other languages on a variety of other systems. In particular, if I train a recurrent network on text data for a chat bot, I want to be able to use that LLVM file + model in a game I release for the PC and for Android without worrying about the NDK/gcc/clang/Windows/OSX build nightmare. The ability to easily and quickly define a model in TensorFlow, write a Python function that takes an array of data, and spits out an array of data would be incredible and would mean that all the work I'm doing for a native Rust library is unneeded.

Admittedly, with Bazel I could create a C++ wrapper for the function which loads the library. It's just... that produces a 150mb shared library with all the dependencies and it's also a pain in the ass.

I'm a current WebPass subscriber and I'm dreading the move to another ISP when I change apartments. May I inquire what it takes to set up and maintain the transmitter?

People buckle because they are victims of NEEDS. If I didn't have marketable skills, or if I existed in a market which was oversaturated with people as skilled as myself, sure, I could argue with my boss or exercise my powers, but that means risking a job loss. I'd be replaced by someone as capable, but with less inclination to argue. My 'wants' might include such things as, "being able to eat," and, "not sleeping on the street." Sure, it's possible to get overzealous with one's aspirations for physical goods, but I think that overlooks the authentic fear that many people have over being in a precarious financial situation.

This looks exceptionally helpful. I have around 50 tabs open, nominally, and my CPU fan is almost perpetually on high for it. Just before installing it, however, I found myself wondering, "Why am I using an app which allows me to keep more tabs open? Why am I not using bookmarks?"

Why do we keep open 500 tabs instead of using bookmarks these days?

From you description, you do sound kinda' like a bot. Disabled cookies. Disabled Javascript. Irregular searches. I understand the frustration with saying, "You have to have these features supported to use the product," but let's face it: providing an experience to people who deliberately disable huge chunks of browser functionality is a tremendous pain in the ass. I think I can understand both sides of the argument using different strawmen:

"Can I read this paper, please?"

"Yes, of course, just put on these reading glasses."

"Why do I have to put on the reading glasses?"

"Well the font is quite small. If you don't wear the glasses, you probably won't be able to make out anything on the page. Your experience will be seriously degraded."

"I don't want to wear the glasses. Why can't I just read the page?"

"Well, we can fit a lot more data and make the page more robust by printing the text smaller. Why don't you just wear the glasses?"

"I have concerns about the glasses. I'd rather strain my eyes."

"We're not going to make a special page for you when 99% of the people are totally okay with wearing the glasses or wear the glasses anyways."

They might not, but that doesn't mean we should make concessions to them. I agree that it's important to consider the practical aspects of a law's use, but we shouldn't avoid making laws because some groups will ignore them. In fact, in this case I think it adds even more incentive to drive down the work week time because then all the people working 40-hour weeks will be contributing over the minimum.

Not just the title, but the article itself. "New research, using ultrasound, has developed an invisible 3D haptic shape that can be seen and felt."

I'm not sure I follow. The same reasoning kinda' applies now: I can work more than 40 hours per week to look like a better applicant, but this becomes both counterproductive and untenable at a certain point. (There are a finite number of hours in a week.) Sure, there are times when you have to put in overtime, like when a big release is about to come out or there's a critical bug, but largely you should be able to finish your work in the allocated time. If this is consistently not the case, then you (the 'royal you') are either understaffed, ill managed, or incompetent. (Again, I don't mean to call you personally incompetent, I mean 'you' as a member of the workforce.)

I think with the insistence that 30 hours is full time we'll see fewer worthless meetings and less overhead, since time is now a scarce commodity. Think about it: that ten hours is a two-hour meeting every day. If I say, "I will work 60 hours a week every week," to my new employer, they'll look at each other with great incredulity. There isn't necessarily 60 hours of productive mental time each week. Given, I'm neither the smartest nor the most focused person in the world, but I think I could only do 20 hours of hard, focused mental work each week at my last job. The remaining 20 hours was mindless email, bug reports, writing documentation, or drawing XML diagrams which spelled profane words when zoomed out enough.

There will always be people who want or need to work more than the standard. That's okay. What reducing the work week means to me, though, is fewer people filling in their days with useless padding. If you're done after 30 hours, that's okay -- go home!

Nothing special. The authors have implemented a machine learning algorithm using a quantum instruction set. DWave has had open-source implementations of some machine learning algorithms for a while. This is not exactly an easy feat, but it's not particularly novel.

I'm not sure how familiar with programming you are, so I'm not sure how to key this summary. That said, let it be known that anything that can be done with a classical machine can be done with a quantum machine -- just not necessarily as fast. A quantum computer has one operation (lets call it emin) which, in parallel and in nearly constant time, selects the minimum value from an array of items AND the arguments which made it the minimum. So if I want to find the minimum of f(a,b,x) = a^2x^4 + b^2x^12, I can run emin(f) and it will return [a=0, b=0, x=0, value=0]. We _could_, in a classical system, for integer values, just try all values of a, b, and x. (There are other, simpler ways, but it's just an example.) The quantum instruction set means we don't have to try each instruction one after the next. We can try them all at the same time.

I'm guilty of abhorring UI changes. Very rarely do I see them as justified. I largely prefer incremental UI changes rather than grand overhauls. The latter seems to be a minimal increase in functionality and a maximal increase in glitz.

I think Reddit has been taking the incremental approach, especially when it comes to rolling functionality into the main engine from all the (now less useful) browser plugins.

That said, there's still a question that remains. Is the UI a mess? Maybe? Yes? I'm not sure. I'm so familiar with it at this point that I can't tell what's wrong with it. Most of the operations I care about are readily available. What, in particular, could use improvement?

I don't know if I'd be able to maintain my calm in those situations, but yes, even when someone is treating you like shit, we have an obligation as humans to be decent to other people. Not excellent, mind you, just basic human decency.

It's easy to be nice to people who are nice to you. It's hard to be nice to people who are shitty to you, and often times, it's the people who are worst to you that most need basic decency offered to them.