dcole2929

Now, if we could get the anti-cheat companies on board all would be right in the universe and I could stop pretending that Win10 doesn't drive me insane. Seriously, it's ridiculous that you can play an entire game in Linux with no issue but the second you load into multiplayer for some titles you risk getting your entire account banned.

I've seen a lot of stuff recently about how LangChain and other frameworks for AI/LLM are terrible and we shouldn't use them and I can't help but think that people are missing the point. If you need strong customization or flexibility frameworks of any kind are almost always the wrong choice, whether you're building a website or an AI agent. That's kind of the whole point of a framework. Opinionated workflows that enable a specific kind of application. Ideally the goal is to cover 80% of the cases and provide escape hatches to handle the other 20% until you can successfully cover those too.

As someone new to the space I have zero opinions of whether LangChain is better than writing it all yourself, but I can certainly say that, I at least, appreciate having a proscribed way of doing things, and I'm okay with the idea that I may get to a place where it no longer serves my needs. It's also worth noting that the benefit of LangChain is the ability to "chain" together these various AI links. Is there a better easier way to do that? Probably, but LangChain removes that overhead.

Location: Baltimore, MD Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: JS/TS, React, Node, SQL, CSS, Python, Elixir, Java Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-farmer-iii Email: [email protected]

---

Sr+ Full Stack Eng with 11 years XP. Spent the last 5 years in Eng Leadership. Currently interested in part time and contract work. Pretty flexible, and open to a wide range of opportunities.

No buying a house with a personal mortgage requires you to have that house as your primary residence only for 1 year. That's pretty much the core behind the concept of house hacking. Buy, live there for 1 year, move and rent it out, repeat.

I have no real problems being people wanting to work remotely now and forever but I do think this is going to require a new legal framework to support it.

For better or worse there are very real tax issues associated with employees working in states and countries different than what their employer and government believes. A lot of these folks are knowingly or unknowingly dodging taxes in a way that is going to have severe consequences for them and company.

Establishing a tax base in a new city or state can put a company on the hook for thousand if not millions of dollars worth of additional taxes. And for the worker if you’re company isn’t withholding the right amount of state federal and local taxes you can find yourself with a huge tax bill at the end of the year.

Yes obviously, that's a problem. But again it's one of policy. There are lots of hard problems. Generally, avoiding hard problems isn't a great solution. Maybe for some things but when the counter is the end of democracy then that's not really an option.

Anyone that set's out to solve this should go in with a really specific definition (something like verifiable false based on expert consensus), make it enforceable with stiff penalties, and appealable to the courts. It's not perfect, it requires constant monitoring and updating, and lot's of work to make sure it's not like every other regulatory body, and get's subverted or otherwise undermined by political activity. But none of that is impossible. Possibly improbable given current conditions, but regardless something we should be having conversations about.

A ministry of truth with a well defined scope isn't any more unreasonable than a ministry of food cleanliness (FDA).

The same way we regulate what technical exports a company can make when it affects our national security, it is completely reasonable to do the same with the telecommunication companies that can affect equally large impacts on our internal security.

I'm not really sure why this is taking on a political slant from commenters here aside from the fact that Obama as a politician is a polarizing figure. The content of what he said is completely accurate and just about any credible researcher in the field will tell you so. Misinformation and especially Disinformation is a very large problems that will have to be addressed in some way if we're to have an actual functioning democracy.

They certainly aren't the only issues we face, but calling for platforms to take greater accountability isn't and shouldn't somehow be viewed as political. It doesn't matter whether you're for red, blue, putin, Snoop or the Pope. If the places people go to consume information are allowed to become inundated with blatantly false information, that's a bad thing.

There is absolutely an argument that Twitter, FB, etc. should never have become peoples sources for information but the reality is that this is the world we live in and for better and worse and we need to craft policy based on people's actions not what they should do.

This was an easy pivot away from being a runaway success. The founder couldn't figure out who the right customer was and ran out of cash. This is why so many companies are venture backed. It's not that people just want to give away pieces of their company because it's cool, but that extra cash prevents you from giving up while you go through the sometimes long process of finding product market fit.

Like honestly, this product could still reach that type of success. No idea if this guy still has the code base around, or is chilling in thread, but hit me up if so lol, I'll happily buy it off you. Or at least point you towards how to make this make money

The news, court rooms, congress floor, board rooms, hiring committees, college admissions, and yes on social media. But let's be honest here. We have two subsequent generations whose economic outlooks have been substantially harmed by the previous generation being blamed for not being successful and it's in more or less all corners of the world that imply power.

Here's the thing though. If you hit me with your car, it doesn't matter whether it was an accident or whether you intended to. You still caused me damage and it's still not crazy for me to hold you accountable. I may have more empathy in one case than another but if you refuse to accept responsibility for the harms you caused then yeah that empathy is likely going away. And this is what the author refers to near the beginning of the article:

"Adult children frequently say the parent is gaslighting them by not acknowledging the harm they caused or are still causing, failing to respect their boundaries, and/or being unwilling to accept the adult child’s requirements for a healthy relationship".

No one is perfect. I still have a great relationship with my own parents despite their failings but not all my siblings do, and as I've told each of my parents, it's on them to work to make that relationship better. Some things my siblings may never forgive or forget and you can do with that what you will, but if you want this person in your life you have to work to make it happen.

Leafly | Hiring Full-stack Engineers, Designers, and PMs | Remote: US/CA | Full-time

Leafly is building the Leading Legal Cannabis Marketplace in the U.S. Built as a strain database more than a decade ago, Leafly has parlayed that deep knowledge of the cannabis space into a product that allows customers an end to end customer journey. Leafly users can find new strains, learn about content, and ultimately make purchases for pickup or delivery.

We are a growing team, that recently raised 30 million in fresh funding and additional 17 million last October. We're hiring across our org for experienced Engineers, Designers and PMs. The U.S. cannabis market is exploding! This is your chance to get in on the ground floor!

Tech Stack: Rails, React, JS/TS, NextJS Postgres, Elastic, AWS, Kubernetes

See our open jobs: https://www.leafly.com/info/jobs Or email me if you've got questions: [email protected]

I really hate this narrative that Nadella came in and turned things around. He's absolutely made great decisions since taking the reins but most of his early success was just riding out things that Ballmer set in motion.

Not to mention most of Ballmer's misses were more Bill said no.

I think this article misses out on what in my opinion is the biggest reason to go to college for a teen and it all has to do exploration. Simply put you don't know what you don't know and at 17-18 that can be a lot. College gives you an opportunity to explore who you are and what you care about in an environment largely free of external stress (yes I know there can be stress but it's generally a lot different than "I need to provide for my family"). A lot of people are super confident in what they think their life path is until they actually encounter the steps it takes to get there. Generally we do a pretty poor job of educating young people on what different careers actually look like and what it takes to get there. There are a million lawyer and doctor shows but it's a lot harder at 17 to know that you'd actually love to study library science, or be an economist.

At 17 I thought I wanted to be a sport journalist or shoot rockets into space. Turns out I had zero interest in the path to ESPN and am terrible at chemistry. Sure looking back I can totally see that computers made all the sense in the world but I didn't recognize that then. If I had bypassed college and just started working to get to one of those paths I saw for myself who knows where I'd be. This is not to say that college is the only place where you get this freedom to explore, but colleges, especially good ones certainly encourage you to explore other options.

I think ideally your last year of high school would be nothing but career exploration, but failing that I recommend most teenagers go to college even if they think they know what they want to do.

The story doesn't really paint any of these people in a good light. The real question in my opinion, which the article does a poor job of addressing is at what point, could Watt have dropped people from the suit without compromising their ability to later file suit. It outlines that he basically knows the 40,000 number is bunk from very close to the beginning, but it's certainly hard to imagine there were no mechanisms from which he could have cut people out. Certainly seems from here like Watt pushed on in hopes he could get the money and figure out the rest later, knowing he could throw the people who sourced the clients under the bus if anything went left.

This sounds like a really nice idea that is 20 years away from being a horrific disenfranchising one. Owning the land is an important piece of wealth transfer from generation to generation. This reminds me of the situation in NC and other parts of the south where minority communities are starting to lose control of the land there families due to a bunch of loop holes. There the problem is that due to lack of paper trails ownership is murky and often reverts back to the city who then sells it away to the highest bidder (often developers who displace the people who have been there). What happens 20 - 30 years from now when this non profit has shuttered and the land is now owned by some random bank? It's great that the land lease is transferable to heirs but this just has all the makings of a looming disasters

Not so much a role as the team I think a lot of people with wide reaching skill sets enjoy. The platform team. Basically responsible for cross cutting concerns between teams. Lots of infrastructure. Lots of defining best practices. Lots of jumping into projects to save them. Team kind of ends up being the roving jack of all trades team that dives into really hard projects that no one feature team has the skill set or time to focus on.

Feel like you somehow managed to hit the nail on the head while also completely missing the point. Absolutely agree that often the things that get you promoted and the things that are considered compentency in a manager aren't necessarily the things that make a subordinate view someone as competent. But completely disagree on what those traits are.

In my experience, management tends to view favorably things like delivering on time, and on budget even if the product is compromised. Engineers tend to prefer taking longer and making it correct. Management loves accurate reporting, over communication and documenting. A lot of engineers tend to hate that stuff. Not all but a lot. A manager who isn't technical, or particularly personable but who does a good job of communicating up and out, and choosing high impact projects will do well. Even if they aren't exactly beloved by their direct reports

I mean people are still working until they can't but that time period is getting longer and longer. Partly out of boredom, partly because retirement is a pipe dream for a lot of people. But the end result is the same, the higher level jobs are rarely if ever vacated so committing to those fields with the goal of making it to the top is unrealistic. Combine that with the boom in working population, more educated, more gender diverse now with woman a much more significant portion of job seekers and you get the current status quo. Highly paid, very safe job fields are the ideal option for the young. It's certainly no easier to make it to the highest levels in safer fields but you will be far better compensated along the way as you try and likely enjoy a better quality of life too.

A lot of people would argue, imo correctly, that this is just a different form of sexism. The idea that progressing in your career means sacrificing work/life balance and more importantly family could absolutely be construed as the end result of a sexist mind state that doesn't value motherhood and family rearing to the degree it should. Obviously this affect men who want to be present and active participants in their children's lives as well, but as the author points out in many cases the inflection point at which ones career can really take off also overlaps with prime childbearing years.

There is a lot of pressure on woman to have families and in circumstances where their right and ability to both do that and progress in their careers isn't respected and protected we end up with the current system. One in which woman drop out of less flexible fields earlier, and even in them don't get promoted as fast as their male counterparts who don't need to bow out of the field for months at a time to have a child.

The cheating one is actually not as unreasonable as you might think. I would love to see more context around that specific request. Is this a case where people of being accused of cheating because they did well when the professor didn't expect it (due to being from a specific background)? Are people of specific demographics being singled out for increased scrutiny.

Additionally, combined with the request for more group work it may be a case where people are working in groups on individual work which isn't in and of itself cheating, but may have been treated as such. At my university it was encouraged for people to work in groups on those type of assignments so that people could help each other and remove some of the burden from professors and ta's

I agree, and don't necessarily see anything wrong with the use of 'hey guys', but at the end of the day it's a pretty mild request to take a stand on. I can't imagine being that married to a greeting that I'd refuse to consider trying to use other phrases.

Also just because it's generally been a non-gendered term doesn't mean prevailing opinion hasn't changed. There is a lot of talk around changing the norms in which masculine terms are considered the default. Both in english speaking languages and others (e.g. See LatinX)

> Most of these suggestions seem to rely on the notion that undergraduates are delicate. While I agree that we must be careful to ensure that all students feel welcome and respected, we should be helping our students to become antifragile. So I will continue to use the BMI example, I will maintain high standards for grading, and I will continue to pursue cheating cases vigorously. I will continue to say “you guys” and to make occasional cultural references. In the case of pronouns, I have always made an effort to accommodate requests from transgender students, but I refuse to use words that are not part of the English language.

What really stands out to me is how he addressed the honestly pretty tame feedback he got on his class. A whole committee was put together and came back with recommendations on some pretty minor things he could do to better foster a sense of inclusivity and his response was nah I'd rather not. I'm not at all surprised at the result. Regardless of what his article said, the reaction to it, or his actual credentials as an instructor he showed the administration very clearly with his actions that he has literally no interest in trying to make the department an inclusive environment. And that's ultimately the entire point. They are trying to make CS as accessible as possible and this guy is fighting them tooth and nail at every step because what...?

I mean the last sentence is just a ridiculous take as a teacher. A) Yeet is now a word in the english dictionary. New words are created all the time and the definitions of existing ones change to match the context in which they are used in modern times. B) Making the pretty minimal effort, of referring to someone in the way in which they'd like to be addressed is literally such a low bar, that refusing to do so quite frankly makes you an asshole. C) He uses the word antifragile, which is not a universally recognized english word. It's a term coined by a professor in a book in 2012.

They have scholarships for private k-12 too. I went to one 6-12 and my family was at no point ever more than lower-middle class. I got what amounted to a full ride almost my entire time there. And even as the family made more still didn't pay much.

The single best interview experience I've seen was given by Oracle when I worked there a few years ago.

The onsite was a panel interview where candidates were given a laptop with a configured IDE and codebase with a specific set of bugs. Their task was to debug the various issues and complete as many as they could with the understanding that it was not expected for them to solve them all or even most of them. There were also tests to help them. And a different section of the interview asked them to right some tests and some code for again brain dead easy coding algorithms like reverse a string.

I thought it was great because it closely resembled what being a dev is like and actually tested for the skills we cared about. No you didn't get to use your own custom vim configuration but I'm not sure how that would have really worked even if they wanted.

Yeah I don't think that line of reasoning follows. More scrutiny, is more scrutiny. Especially when you're talking about financial transactions. If I'm looking for A and notice that thing B is illegal I'm not going to not investigate it simply because it wasn't my mandate. That's literally how the US Government eventually got Al Capone. Every agency in the country looking at him and he goes away for Tax Evasion.

It also should be obvious but something like Libra could easily affect other lines of business for a company and so those other things that don't necessarily deal directly with Libra would require monitoring as well. It's not a threat, it's just a fact of what (imo very warranted) enhanced regulatory attention risks.

The only issue I have with the letter is the spurious inclusion of CP. It has little to do with the substance of the matter. But overall this is a pretty fair letter. As a fact, FB has shifted the focus from themselves as a platform provider onto potential association members. That literally means that regulators, have no choice but to focus their efforts on those member companies. Sure you can take it as a threat, but it really is just a very sobering fact.

I think it also shows how little faith these companies have in this tech that they have all just bowed out at the fist sign of (very obviously coming) government push back. If they thought this was really fleshed out and had the kind of earning potential that FB has implied they'd all be doing their best to play both sides for as long as possible.

Because most people don't work in silos that allow them to operate with impunity. I'd assume at a company the size of google any feature is going to have minimum of 3-4 different sets of eyes on it between Engineering, QA, UX, and Product.

I've been really involved in teaching people with non-traditional backgrounds (e.g. no cs degree) to program lately, and this has been my biggest struggle. There are people who are working in the field as a web dev and have been for years and can't do simple stuff like iterate. They have no understanding of what the stuff they're actually doing means or does. It's just copy and pasting snippets they see online and fiddling with it til it works.

I've taken to offering three pieces of advice to these people:

1) Go through the basic language tutorial of whatever language you use (e.g. how to declare variable, conditionals, loops)

2) Go read through the essentials guide to your languages (will be slightly higher level stuff)

3) Go read the sections on Data Structures, Concepts and Algorithms and Knowledge Base in Cracking The Coding Interview skipping the problems that aren't answered in chapter. Why? Because it's a solid primer for CS Concepts that people just don't pick up unless they have to, and most importantly short enough (< 100 pages) people will actually go through it. Large CS books with the dense writing intimidate people and so they never follow through.

I've had a lot of success with this method. It's not a formal cs education by any means but I've found it's enough to get people past the constant beginner part.

Ok how about imagine that friend was stalker. Someone potentially dangerous to me and those around me. They know we live in the same building so yes in that case it would make perfectly sense that I could compel you not to give away your address to that person.