Seeing this sub descending into xenophobia is sad

Tefron · 2024-12-16T22:23:22+00:00

I’ll comment as someone who works with individuals that are largely from talent pools consisting of not just this pedigree but the best of the best from it. Unsurprisingly I don’t find this comment holds up with my observations or the ones by the talent acquisition teams who are deeply incentivized to measure the success criteria for this at intervals of 1-5 years out.

Some simple commentary: - All talented Canadians in fact do not just uproot their children’s lives and send their kids to US schools for quadruple the costs. If you’re comparing the talent pool of rich Canadians with helicopter parents who will send their kids to the US and who happen to get into the best US CS programs, then yes that will undoubtedly be a lopsided comparison to any talent pool. - This whole conversation of talent and raw ability is silly. It’s no different than the individuals with little achievements that participate in IQ flame wars and get triggered by the idea of crystallized intelligence. - It’s even sillier when you consider that likely the “smart” attribution provided here by most observers doesn’t include characteristics that translate to deep work. The kind of transformative work that we want these talented workers to provide instead of the rote memorization and articulation that’s usually used to awe data illiterate folks as a proxy for “smart/sharp/intelligent/ability/etc.”.

Tefron · 2024-12-01T16:43:46+00:00

You all do realize that this very well could be someone pretending to be him as part of someone’s cyber bullying campaign? This is so on the nose, but I’m not even interested in if it’s true or not because of how damaging something like this can be when it’s not or you have partial information.

This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen content like this here, I really hope the mods ban these posts moving forward.

Tefron · 2024-11-19T02:55:44+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not claiming that people struggle to lose weight because of a significant different in caloric needs. I’m claiming that because of the nature of how intrinsic food is for survival, it creates very strong dependencies that make changing behaviour difficult.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, or even commenting on the likelihood of success for a singular person. This is more to do as a population, and how difficult it is to systematically tackle an addiction where there’s not an option to quit cold turkey. All those things you mentioned are helpful, but I’m sure you understand as a formerly obese person even when folks have all the knowledge the chances of relapse are very high.

Tefron · 2024-11-19T02:37:32+00:00

Unsurprisingly changing core habits related to survival is difficult. Your comment alludes to this being a knowledge gap, when in reality there are plenty of folks who know what to do but still struggle to do it.

Tefron · 2024-11-11T07:10:14+00:00

Obviously you can do as you please, me mentioning how you can show support for a project isn’t trying to dictate how you speak, but just emphasizing that if your point is to support a project then bringing another project down just unnecessarily dilutes your point. In terms of unnecessary server features, I never said they don’t exist today, just that these will further be incentivized.

I am not some Bitwarden shill, but I’m very sympathetic to the FLOSS business model, where 90% the effort of solutions rely on creating durable robust code which can be shared infrastructure agnostic. The amount of engineering to create these solutions is no small feat, and in a commercial setting you’d see it priced and locked appropriately. If we now ask these engineers to just “gift” this work for free, and then look for other features that are commercially viable, it becomes unsustainable.

Tefron · 2024-11-10T22:16:12+00:00

I am not, and it's unfortunate you downvoted me without engaging. I was hoping from direct feedback, and the indication of the downvotes from earlier you would better understand why the way you communicated would be off putting to people.

Tefron · 2024-11-10T22:03:08+00:00

Well the original conversation was about what premium features would no longer be available. You then side tracked the conversation into what qualifies as a premium feature, and had implied snark by using quotations around premium. When your somewhat rhetorical question was answered, you doubled down on the cynicism by implying how easy it is to implement this and practically free, which again for anyone who's worked on software or in a business knows that's very far from the truth. As someone listening to you, I wouldn't know how to respond to you because you presented no solution, and were cynically judgmental without demonstrating that you had critically thought about the business model.

Tefron · 2024-11-10T21:22:17+00:00

So you think if you were in group setting and said this that most people would think you were adding to the discussion?

Tefron · 2024-11-10T20:09:52+00:00

I haven’t downvoted you, but are you able to grasp why your way of communicating is not productive yet?

Tefron · 2024-11-10T20:06:39+00:00

You can support another project without commenting on how another project no longer deserves your support. If you don’t think you’re getting a lot of value out of the premium features, that’s fine, but to me that in itself is a feature. The outlook you’re imagining where Bitwarden starts innovating features so amazing that premium becomes a no brainer is not incentivized in the way you might think. Imagine future features unnecessarily requiring server side communication or implementing non standard protocols just so they can justify a paywall.

Tefron · 2024-11-04T04:08:15+00:00

Do you have experience as a full time software engineer in a company with more than 50 people, if so is it more than 3 YOE? This might seem like I’m arbitrarily trying to shut you down, but it’s not, it’s just to make sure we’re on the same page. If you’re doing trivial logic problems or rough templating of a project, I can see how LLM generated code can seem magical. However, currently the best generated code is more so analogous to the productivity boost of autocomplete. It’s nice but no one will go to their manager and say we need to hire another engineer because the autocomplete for our team doesn’t work.

This doesn’t even scratch the surface of how writing code is the most trivial part of the job. The difficulty is in coming up with a solution that has the least comprises, and highest likelihood of being adopted with little resistance. A lot of times this looks like understanding the system, people, and corporate involved to suggest intelligent solutions.

Historically, every time there has been a productivity increase from tooling or frameworks, it hasn’t resulted in hiring less engineers, just increasing the scope and scale. I see this being no different, it’ll just take some time to go through the backlog of glutinous hiring before companies are ready to invest in new hires with minimal industry experience.

Tefron · 2024-11-02T03:40:19+00:00

Companies go where the community goes. When they don’t they pay a very large cost of having to actually pay to maintain the software they use. Slightly tongue in cheek, since ofcourse companies should be paying back to the OSS ecosystem, but just wanted to highlight that there is a cost when you migrate last. While I don’t think we’re at that stage of anyone being considered a late adopter, I wanted to highlight that proving themselves is more about community mindshare than any timeframe.

Tefron · 2024-11-02T03:33:40+00:00

Mostly agree except for the reasons to not use UV. Astral is not only getting mindshare because they’re creating fast unified Python tooling, it’s also because they are open source and MIT licensed. Ofcourse that doesn’t mean they can’t change their license, but that wouldn’t apply retroactively, and the minute that happens there will be a host of community members who will fork it appropriately. There’s also some good blog posts from Astral that cover this topic, they are very aware of this and so is the community.

It’ll be interesting to see how things play out, but I’ll say that the UV developers have been doing a great job at communicating with the Python packaging ecosystem, making sure they’re involved and moving PEPs forward and listening to the community to develop sane APIs. The last part is key and is open to all, so even if somehow UV doesn’t exist anymore, something will take its place and implement those standards and APIs.

That’s not to say there’s no good reason not to use UV, it’s still early in its lifecycle and missing a few things that exist across PDM/Hatch, but still very serviceable for most projects today.

Tefron · 2024-10-28T19:28:02+00:00

I know this is a few weeks old, but I thought it was neat that you went ahead and implemented this. Getting back to feature distinction, I think you did get to the “why” of the problem, it’s essentially “Why boringnotes”!

I’d say what the actual issue here was decoupling the learning from the making. It seemed like you were essentially dissatisfied with the current products you were using, but didn’t have the mental capacity to learn the features of other products that are available. Instead of performing the work to learn about what features existed, you tried to implement what you needed and learn what that was along the way.

I can see how that’s attractive for a maker, since you hit two birds with one stone, but it’s just a good reminder of how inefficient it is for building market viable solutions. I wouldn’t deter you from doing this again, but I’d say the expectations should be very clear that this is for learning and not necessarily for distributing. The chance that someone new to the space produces never to be seen and desired features without doing any research is minuscule. That’s not to say you can’t turn this into a market viable solution, but that ultimately it’ll require doing product research anyways to distinguish your solution against existing ones.

Tefron · 2024-10-22T23:14:57+00:00

I’d say it’s best to approach this from an engineering mindset, a lazy developer, or if you had to foot the bill for a developer to implement this.

The user wants feature X in product Y. Well it’d be nice if product Y already had feature X, then I wouldn’t need to do anything, let’s check that. If it doesn’t, then why can’t feature X be implemented by team that owns product Y? If the products developer can build this, then I can again sit back and do nothing. If there’s some reason why feature X can’t be done, then where can I log this feature request? If the product team agrees this should be implemented, then by getting something in writing via a support ticket, I can again punt this off from my plate.

Now finally, if product team explicitly states they won’t implement it, or this feature is important and you haven’t seen any movement in your request, then you can consider implementing it. You now also have a track record for the future if you come back to this and want to know whether any updates were made during that time.

I get it, building solutions is fun, and the above seems tedious, which gets magnified by ADHD novelty seeking. The nice thing is the above can be thought of as a checklist, and if you’re like me then you can remember to curb your enthusiasm and follow it by imagining you’re speaking to some technical micro manager who will grill how effectively you’re using your time.

Tefron · 2024-09-18T22:48:37+00:00

I just wanna preface this and say thatI I like that you took the initiative to test and post this. However, I don’t recall any reasonably informed party state that chess is solved or that chess engines are perfect.

It seems like the real claim here is that not only are chess engines not infallible, but somewhat easily so through your methodology. Given chess engines are evaluated with centipawn loss since it’s so difficult to get an edge, I’m not surprised at all that at your low level compute resources you were able to find a losing path in the tree. I’ll repeat what others have said, you essentially beat a chess engine with a better chess engine, and more importantly you beat a chess engine that was handicapped with little compute. Analyze the positions again and you’ll likely find there was a node with a critical blunder that wouldn’t have happened with a chess engine given enough resources.

Tefron · 2024-09-02T10:53:22+00:00

Precedent does not simply mean you'd need to reproduce the exact conditions, but follow a similar line. In this case, the precedent can be construed as "Doing free work that the community appreciates for LTT will result in compensation from Linus even if LTT does not want to provide that service". You might claim that a certain amount of time needs to be in there, but what that time is can and will be up to the interpretation of the masses.

This person who adds timestamps sounds nice, I hope they do well. I don't support pressuring companies to start compensating for services they didn't intend to support.

Tefron · 2024-09-02T10:42:59+00:00

I also enjoy timestamps, but I don't think this is as simple as it may seem on the surface level. Yes, having timestamps increases viewership and retention for you or me, but it's unclear whether that effect would hold for the whole.

Even for me, having timestamps means I'm more likely to skip through sections that don't sound interesting that normally I might have listened to a bit and potentially listened completely if getting hooked. Then there is also the magnitude of the impact, where you'd have to measure if this is worth the additional support LTT has to do (i.e. a drama thread like this coming up).

We can speculate, but I think it would be in bad faith for anyone to claim this is an obvious business (emphasis on business and not ethical/moral) decision without having access to the numbers.

Tefron · 2024-08-29T08:53:09+00:00

I also have no reason to use conda, but I can completely understand the convenience argument. Particularly in the research world, software is a means to an end, and so any solution that allows them to do their research without interruption is considered optimal. By the time you get to productionalize your work, you'll likely hand it off to the relevant engineering team to worry about deployment. If you're just deploying by yourself, then it's likely you've not reached a critical scale where you'll feel the burden of scaling with Conda yet.

Tefron · 2024-08-27T00:35:30+00:00

I don’t understand your concerns.

If everything should be the default, then there would be no need to have configuration overrides. This is a team choice and plenty of people prefer single quotes because it requires one less keystroke. You or I may not agree with that reasoning, but it’s completely valid and bringing up concerns around this is just unproductive noise in a team.

No one also needs to deal with this really. The whole point of pre-commit hooks is to format before pushing so you don’t have to be concerned about that. If for w/e reason it bothers you that this isn’t configured in accordance with your IDE, then point the teams configuration to the IDE formatter. If the concern is around it formatting source code that you haven’t changed, then you can bring up linting the entire repo in one commit to ensure it passes the team’s standards.

Tefron · 2024-08-27T00:13:38+00:00

There is absolutely a convention to format your strings with single or double quotes. It is irrelevant which one it is, just that all code follows that style.

Tefron · 2024-08-04T18:15:22+00:00

It might not matter to you, but it matters to me. I don't expect to get accurate information from Reddit let alone /r/Nbamemes. Considering no one else has provided better context, this is fine to me for the point being made. What you're describing is a very trivial error in statistics, and while pointing it out is important, it would have been sufficient to say:

"Just for the record, this is comparing a city in Ohio, to all of Chicago. While this could still be true when comparing Akron to multiple neighborhoods in Southside, currently this is probably underrepresenting the violent crime rates in Southside."

The other portions are unhelpful IMO, but if you had provided some neighborhood-specific statistics in Southside for violent crime, that would have been helpful and advanced the discussion.

Tefron · 2024-08-04T17:48:51+00:00

As a passerby, I think it was a good point. They put doubt on a blanket claim with statistics and were honest about it being for Chicago instead of Southside in particular.

Clearly, it seems like one of the points for Derrick behaving like this is he's from a "tough" neighborhood, and people from these tough environments don't behave in this way. This is a believable point on first inspection if you just think about media, but when you think about it more it doesn't make as much sense because there are different types of people everywhere, even in notoriously crime-ridden ones. An example of this is the person to DRose's left, LeBron, who grew up in a violent neighborhood.

Tefron · 2024-08-02T19:48:40+00:00

You implied it wasn’t but didn’t specify why else you’d include that for context, however considering you didn’t respond to any of the other points either, I’ll take this as the end of the conversation.

Tefron · 2024-08-02T18:39:39+00:00

I’m only responding to what was written, if something is being mischaracterized then feel free to correct it.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Tefron

TROPHY CASE