I actually don't pay any attention to what HN considers technically valid. Collective opinion among HNers is often very skewed from the actual reality.
Here is a comment from 9 years ago. It sounds like parody to me and demonstrates how echo chambers eventually deviate from reality. HN can often be an echo chamber
> A good programmer should wake up at 6 am in the morning get a solid 2.5hrs of coding done by 8:30 am, at 8:30 leave for work, work till 6 (it goes without saying that the lunchbreak must be spent trying to learn the Haskell or if you are feeling lazy answering questions on stackoverflow). Commute from 6 to 6:30 (it's a bonus if you listen to a technical podcast during this time and no stuff like TWIT does not count, perhaps audio lectures from the Advanced Algorithms course on MIT OCW). 6:30 to 7:00 time for supper and excellent time to catchup on r/programming and hackernews. 7-8:30pm is the time for relaxation by doing some recreational mathematics, doing problems from project Euler and that proof from The Art of Computer Programming excercises which you have been itching to get a go at! 8:30pm to 1 am code contribute to that open-source project, write patches for the Linux kernal and continue working on your startup.
> Anyone who does less programming that what is mentioned above cannot call himself a "good programmer", I would have serious reservations in calling that person even a mediocre programmer.
Yes, it is. But it makes a valid point about HN and the elevation of technical prowess over other concerns. It points out the danger of using an echo chamber as a gauge for reality.
I don't use technical recommendations from HN users because they consistently underestimate pragmatic concerns because the HN echo chamber overvalues technical virtuosity so real world pragmatic concerns get drowned out by other voices.
Yes. I was sought and employed specifically because of the work visible on my Github profile from 2017 - 2019. My body of work on Github directly contributed to my candidacy for the job I currently hold.
Definitely possible. Could effect repos that are pinned, content of profile blurb on the left, etc. If I had access to where folks were coming from, I could gauge how visible or discoverable my profile was from other sources, my blog, etc.
Social isn't necessarily bad. Trouble arises when social is combined with reinforcement learning algorithms to drive engagement. Jaron Lanier makes a good case for not using social media that use reinforcement learning algorithms to drive engagement
> The results are tiny changes in the behavior of people over time. But small changes add up, like compound interest. This is one reason that BUMMER naturally promotes tribalism and is tearing society apart, even if the techies in a BUMMER company are well-meaning. In order for BUMMER code to self-optimize, it naturally and automatically seizes upon any latent tribalism and racism, for these are the neural hashtags waiting out there in everyone’s psyche, which can be accentuated for the purpose of attention monopoly.
BUMMER is an acronym
> Seems like a good moment to coin an acronym so I don’t have to repeat, over and over, the same account of the pieces that make up the problem. How about “Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent”? BUMMER. BUMMER is a machine, a statistical machine that lives in the computing clouds. To review, phenomena that are statistical and fuzzy are nevertheless real. Even at their best, BUMMER algorithms can only calculate the chances that a person will act in a particular way. But what might be only a chance for each person approaches being a certainty on the average for large numbers of people. The overall population can be affected with greater predictability than can any single person.
Similar dynamics show up in any forum where people compete with others for points, e.g. karma.
Good explanation of the benefits of practicing a martial art. I think any type of activity that involves both coordinated motion and cardio is a good candidate for achieving flow states.
How does a blockchain solve the anonymity and routing problem? If I post anything on a public blockchain it will be cryptographically verified to have come from a specific account because all transactions are signed: https://blog.signatura.co/using-the-blockchain-as-a-digital-....
> Bitcoin uses digital signatures (ECDSA) to prove ownership of funds, so sending bitcoins requires the owner of them to digitally sign authorizing the transfer. This transaction is sent to Bitcoin’s public network and later recorded in Bitcoin’s public database (blockchain), so anyone can verify it by checking its digital signature.
If everything is signed and verified to come from a specific account then that's by definition not anonymous. To be anonymous it would need to be the case that no one could figure out who sent the transaction (making the sender of the transaction anonymous), i.e. it couldn't be tied back to any specific account.
Monero uses ring-signatures; every transaction is signed by multiple signatures and it's impossible who is the actual signer. You also cannot tell what public address belongs to the signature, nor which public address is supposed to be the recipient. There is a reveal key that you can give tax authorities to reveal only you as a sender or receiver of a transaction but not the other end of it.
Monero makes it impossible to tell what is what and gives people who want to trace money a very hard time doing so.
ZCash uses Zero Knowledge Proofs. A ZK Proof (in this case zkSNARKs) is a way you can prove that you own a key to a second party without a third party being able to tell if there was an actual key involved (it is very easy for two colluding parties to fake a successfull ZK Proof).
IIRC ZCash basically allows you to prove that a transaction has moved money correctly between two accounts without revealing what accounts those are or how much money was transacted. There is knowlegde of how much money is in the shielded pool, ie, all money behind ZK Proofs.
Either approach has different advantages and disadvantages.
Makes sense. I remember going to a bay area talk about Bulletproofs but the talk was abstract enough that I didn't get too much out of it. Interesting to see that Monero is using them.
I use TesseractOCR for general screenshot text extraction. Granted they're not receipts but Tesseract works well enough. What packages did you survey? Do you still have the data and code?
Generally, using cryptography or associated cryptographic functions is the way to go when trying to make robust systems. Joe Armstrong has a great talk where he outlines how to create a content addressable store for storing and working with knowledge/data. He suggests using SHA256 content hashing because giving items of data unique names is a hard problem so we might as well name pieces of data by their content hashes and then have a human readable pointer.
> This even allows them to have fully-Unicode usernames; username phishing is less of a problem when users expect duplicate usernames, and none of your systems depend on username uniqueness.
It's surprising but providing an extra degree of freedom makes the system more robust. Username phishing is a real problem on Twitter because people expect unique names associated with each person they interact with but if usernames can not be assumed to be unique then using the name as a heuristic for identity is no longer a viable shortcut so people have to develop other ways of making sure they're talking to who they think they're talking to.
On a related note, keybase (keybase.io) proofs never made sense to me until I started thinking about how I would prove to people that I am indeed who I say I am. Keybase provides a cryptographic basis for trust, which is much better than what most social media systems currently support with their verification mechanisms. I personally trust cryptographic signatures over whatever verification mechanism Twitter is using to provide blue check marks to verified accounts.
This sounds like something generated by a GPT-2/3 language model. It sounds like a random but coherent association of words. I have no idea what point you're making or what you're trying to communicate.
I'd delete the post and think of something more coherent to say.
The comment by edarchimbaud that I replied to? Where he blatantly inserted himself into a discussion about telemetry, package development, funding based on concrete metrics, etc. Just to namedrop his company and tool?
A: “Recently I have been thinking about personal responsibility.”
B: “Why so?”
A: “I believe there is a strong correlation between a sense of personal responsibility and success later in life.”
C: “That is interesting, I think I read a study about this once. Here is a link!”
<the discussion goes on for some time>
B: “Myself, I learned about personal responsibility – in particular financial – when I as a child ran my own little business. What I did was to deliver apples and later fruit for a small fee to the neighbourhood on my bike when I was about twelve. It did not make me rich of course, just enough to buy a video game in the end. But I do think it gave me solid experience in life. Later on in high school I started designing local webpages.”
D: “Hi! I am D, I am head of research at Foobar Corp and we have a new apple breed: http://foo.bar/baz It is the best apple on the market: crisp, juicy, and perfect for pies! Let me know if we can help!”
A, B, and C: “Eh?!”
Now, you are perfectly in your right to disagree. But I think D is being a dick here and inserting themselves blatantly solely to attract attention to their product and adding nothing to the discussion or the community as a whole – possible because D has signed up for some god awful “business intelligence” tool that just scans various websites for mentions of “apples” so that they can insert a generic, re-usable message.
Regardless, I will not monitor this conversation further as I feel we are at this point deviating far far from the topic of this “dead” thread. If you still feel the need to discuss this matter, feel free to dig up my e-mail on my personal website. Trust me, I am fairly easy to locate with my username and a keyword or two from my profile – or just look at the about page using the link to the tool I mentioned earlier in this conversation.
Here is a comment from 9 years ago. It sounds like parody to me and demonstrates how echo chambers eventually deviate from reality. HN can often be an echo chamber
> A good programmer should wake up at 6 am in the morning get a solid 2.5hrs of coding done by 8:30 am, at 8:30 leave for work, work till 6 (it goes without saying that the lunchbreak must be spent trying to learn the Haskell or if you are feeling lazy answering questions on stackoverflow). Commute from 6 to 6:30 (it's a bonus if you listen to a technical podcast during this time and no stuff like TWIT does not count, perhaps audio lectures from the Advanced Algorithms course on MIT OCW). 6:30 to 7:00 time for supper and excellent time to catchup on r/programming and hackernews. 7-8:30pm is the time for relaxation by doing some recreational mathematics, doing problems from project Euler and that proof from The Art of Computer Programming excercises which you have been itching to get a go at! 8:30pm to 1 am code contribute to that open-source project, write patches for the Linux kernal and continue working on your startup.
> Anyone who does less programming that what is mentioned above cannot call himself a "good programmer", I would have serious reservations in calling that person even a mediocre programmer.
--
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664409