th-th-throwaway

Gamified Nuance. What a brilliant idea.

I don't know if this particular design will work but I expect to see a lot more attempts now that the idea has entered the public consciousness.

Current social networks are gamified for virality which implicitly rewards the lack of nuance. So statements that are as short, simple, and wrong as possible will spread faster within the supporters while encouraging flaming from the opposition. This is such an inherent property of every social network in existence that I didn't even realize fixing it was an option.

Have you seen this paper? https://openreview.net/pdf?id=ByldLrqlx

You can see some of the simpler programs that can already be generated on page 12.

This also came up on HN the other day: https://3dforreddit.com/r/pics

He has a lot of other projects which are also 3d websites:

https://prior.co.jp/discover/en

https://www.orano.group/experience/innovation/en/slider

Unfortunately I got tired of the gimmick pretty quickly and didn't make it to the next few examples. Having to drive a car just to open a link is too much work!

Are there some hidden constants/considerations that prevent suffix trees from being used in the real world?

Every time I expect it to show up (e.g., for pattern matching in databases), I almost always see something else used instead (e.g., trigrams)

There was a good link about why AI algorithms tend to approach human level performance rapidly for some tasks: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/machine-learning-projects/w...

The answer turns out to be pretty boring: As long as humans are still better than machine, humans can provide algorithmic insights and be a source of cheap labels.

So I am pretty pessimistic about this particular task. There are only a small handful of humans in the world who are qualified to help! (according to IMO scores: https://www.imo-official.org/hall.aspx)

People are saying there isn't enough info but I think the author definitely made the right analysis here.

The purpose of partial rollouts is to observe if there are bugs. The unusual case here is that version B's bug is forgetting backward compatibility, causing it to rapidly take down version A too. This means you can't simply rollback B as usual. After you rollback you still need to fix broken A instances. It's a lot of work but it would be the right thing to do.

Instead, they went all in on version B to avoid the bug they just introduced. This is completely reckless. You're skipping your usual process so you never get a chance to observe for other bugs in B. You should actually expect B to have even more bugs in it given you know it already has one major production breaking bug.

Going all in on a version that you're not confident in just to fix the one bug you know about is stupid.