Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | antonp's commentslogin

6 year old article in dutch [1] about Zoraya (the woman in question) already back then planning her premature death:

> She claims the right to a dignified ending: euthanasia. "You can buy a rope, you climb up an apartment and a train also runs. But why is it made so difficult for us? Why do you have to be 75 before you have a completed life? Say that maybe we can get better? That's what you say not even against a cancer patient who has completed treatment."

Rough read. Jesus.

[1] https://www.tubantia.nl/oldenzaal/zonder-juiste-medicijnen-w...


Hm, no major cloud provider offers intel gpus.


Intel GPUs got quite a bit of penetration in the SE Asian market, and Intel is close to releasing a new generation. In addition, Intel's allowing for GPU virtualization without additional license fees (unlike Nvidia and GRID licenses), allowing hosting operators to carve up these cards. I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more Intel offerings available.


No, but for consumers they're a great offering.

16GB RAM and performance around a 4060ti or so, but for 65% of the price


and 65% of the software support, less I'm inclined to believe? Although having more players in the fold is definitely a good thing.


Intel is historically really good at the software side, though.

For all their hardware research hiccups in the last 10 years, they've been delivering on open source machine learning libraries.

It's apparently the same on driver improvements and gaming GPU features in the last year.


I'm optimistic Intel will get the software right in due course. Last I looked, it wasn't all there yet, but it was on the right track.

Right now, I have a nice NVidia card, but if things stay on track, I think it's very likely my next GPU might be Intel. Open-source, not to mention better value.


But even if Intel have stable optimized drivers and ML support, it'd still need to be supported by PyTorch/etc for most developers to want to use it. People want to write at high level, not at CUDA-type level.


Intel is supported in Pytorch, though. It's supported from their own branch, which is presumably a big annoyance to install, but they do work


I just tried googling for Intel's PyTorch, and it's clear as mud as to exactly what's run on the GPU and what is not. I assume they'd be bragging about it if this ran everything on their GPU the same as it would on NVDIA, so I'm guessing it just accelerates some operations.


Lots offer Intel CPUs though...


I've owned 3 phones starting with nexus iirc. Looking forward to getting a refresh when current one gives out.


My guess is "total comp 0". Blind has a culture that somewhat turned into a meme that any post should be accompanied by you disclosing your total comp at the bottom of the post. To the original poster: if you're in the EU I can see if I have anything in my network to help you get some interviews. Feel free to reach out.


The idea that TC is a meaningful measure of anything is kind of silly given how incredibly volatile it can be. If you’re working at a company whose stock is on a constant rise, your TC also skyrockets for as long as your RSUs take to vest, and then you often get a cliff-fill, so your TC basically just keeps ratcheting up as a function of the stock price. I’m not complaining, but quoting my TC at you as if it gives me some kind of clout is kinda delusional if 2/3 of that TC is due to the stock doubling since my RSU grant.


Add me too please. Good initiative.


Brace yourselves for more stories like these. Recently I got served a youtube add for a dapps (distributed apps) development workshop where the instructor went something like "learn how to create financial apps without any prior experience in just X days/weeks/months!!!". If crypto and decentralized finance is going to make good on the promise of democratizing finance then we have a bumpy road ahead of us. I'm still optimistic that in the end this will lead to a greater good, but there will be casualties while we work out the kinks.


What are your thoughts on daily stand-ups and scrums with fully remote teams with different chronotypes. Does that work for you guys?


We just have a bot that asks you when you wake up what you're up to.

It's mainly so I know what I'm interrupting if I start writing to someone, but everyone can look in the bot's channel for the same purpose.

As for everyone being on different times, it's not a problem. There's always someone you can talk to, and you know what everyone else is doing. Plus there's a chat history for every project, and cards for every outstanding issue.


Same at my company. We funnel the artifacts of our work, like commit messages, to a particular Slack channel. Then my manager reads off the Slack channel. They use Zapier (I'm biased, I'm a Zapien) to automate and collate the channel.


That's a really interesting approach to the daily stand-up!

I've never heard of this before, but I'm going to give it a go on my next project - would he interested to hear if anyone else has tried this?


We tried it for a while but switched back to actual stand ups. There were several reasons:

1. Stand ups aren’t status updates, they’re replaning meetings, conversation matters.

2. People stopped answering the bot. It feels like an impersonal management tool.

3. There’s no need to persist the standup output.

4. Remote workers feel more like they’re part of the team. The whole team can chit chat for a few minutes before to start the day.

5. We worked on streamlining our meetings. They are always between 8-12 minutes. Making it async. Means it might be a couple hours before you get everyone’s info, that slows down the replaning process a lot.


This just indicate that it's just a pointless managerial social status and/or micromanagement practice. If you don't need to persist it, or people stop answering the bot, maybe it's because people feel it's meaningless? One can't suggest that as easily in-person to a manager.

Surely healthy communication isn't forced in-person standups every days. Other professions would probably feel insulted by the practice.


1. If you are replaning (?) every day, maybe your project is in chaos and needs some real planning so people can make consistent progress without changing direction every day?

4. Everyone is forced to kill time or disrut schedule so that they can start the day at one privileged time.

5. Aren't you slowing down by waiting for a meeting to get the info? Everyone has to prepare for the meeting in advance, so waiting for the meeting is delay.


I assume he is not talking about changing direction so much as:

- "This implementation of the API was trickier than expected, so it will take a couple of days more I think".

- "Ok, maybe I can help you with it instead of starting with the front end then?"


I thought the software world had generally agreed that adding extra people to something that’s running late is rarely the right answer.


That is when you are running late on a project and adding new people. Someone that is already up to speed in the project does not have that limitation.


Adding new person to project and team member knowledgeable about project helping somebody else with a task are two very different things.


If the only way to do this sort of communication is to force it out through a stand-up surely something is very wrong?


we use a stand-up bot, and currently we are all in the office. We don't have the same work schedule, but it does overlap I probably 6 hours. Having a bot manage stand-up is great because it means that stand up reports are persisted for easy review later, and there is no debate or controversy over the proper time to do a stand-up.

There are disadvantages of course, such as the fact that any sort of communication regarding the stand-up report must be done asynchronously when people get around to reading it. It also puts some onus on members to actually read each other is reports and respond to questions comments and concerns.


This was a big thing around 2011 - 2013 when HipChat was catching traction, then obviously Slack in 2013-2014.

It worked/works well for remote teams and slowly fell out with a lot of big corporations using (Enterprise) Slack.


Am I the only one that thinks stand-ups are pretty much worthless? We have two versions, in person once a week. Then a daily slack version. Recently I asked in a real stand-up "does anyone actually read them", 2 out of 25 hands went up. I was surprised by people being so candid that they don't. I don't, it's generally irrelevant. It's a waste of time.

Interpersonal direct communication and making sure the appropriate people are kept in the loop is far more efficient. Otherwise it becomes a bunch of meaningless chatter.


The Slack versions are probably for the manager more than the individual engineers on the team. If you can't even give your manager a quick update on what you're working on, I think there's a problem. And there's no reason to hide that information from your teammates, so you might as well share it. Boom -- standup.


The manager isn't doing their job if they depend on slack updates. And if they don't already know what you are working on, they are not a manager. Teammates are usually not hiding info, if they the manager has completely failed and so has that. Effective communication is important with the appropriate people. Broadcasting what I'm working on is a complete waste of time, shows lack of leadership in the company and direction. Its only use is to make yourself look, it's bragging right. But it's still a waste of everyone else's time.


How, exactly, do I already know (yknow, if I'm a good manager) what an engineer is working on if he's remote, and has 4 cards assigned to himself in Doing?


They are working on the stuff they are assigned to. If you need to know exactly what they do each minute of the day you could ask them directly. If there are cards they shouldn’t work, then find a better way to prioritize cards that engineers can pick up. Don’t waste other people’s time.

I also think that stand ups are a terrible idea. It feels like extreme micromanagement. With everyone using slack it’s silly to wait a day for this specific meeting to say what they’re blocked on or raise other issues.


Note that I don't want to/don't think I should have to.


Updating status is beneficial for the individual and the senior engineers.


I have never seen that in action. The seniors don't care, don't read the status updates, are not listening to actual stand-ups. We just pretend to. When something needs to be communicated or worked out with team members efficiently it's with the relevant people directly.

Stand-ups are a waste of time.


Why precisely?

Maybe for very new people who need high levels of guidance it could be helpful. But it’s a practice that has no basis in evidence to be so widespread.


> * A solution for streaming out updates that is better than dynamodb streams

What bothers you about dynamodb streams specifically?


Hey thanks for the details, riadd! I wrote a HTML5 browser game in coffeescript several years ago and I share your analysis: I would skip CS and use modern JS for a greenfield project today.

Care to elaborate about the marketing side? How did you manage to get this amount of sales? Did you get any support from Steam on that front? Thanks!


We used to work in AAA and after some mediocre experiences with publishers decided to handle marketing and distribution by ourselves this time.

Steam helped us through their huge market share but the general concensus is that with the increased amount of games being released on Steam it is getting harder and harder to make a living there as an average game developer. When we pressed the big publish button on steam, we checked the new releases page immediately after and even in those 2-3 seconds there had passed enough time for our game only to be the second newest game.

The thing that helped us the most was being early and continously on social media. Here's an presentation that we did on the topic. I think it still holds up.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/153Rz_TPwZ36HVg9-Mhve...


Nice slides! The secret sauce is to start marketing on day one, even if you just have a concept, get it out there, and get people exited about it.


> Another TIDAL subscriber, music critic Geir Rakvaag, supposedly played tracks from Kanye West’s The Life Of Pablo 96 times in a single day – with 54 plays in the middle of the night.

>“It’s physically impossible,” he says.

>The list goes on.

The sql query that generated all those fake listens shouldn't have passed QA. /s


Is he using "physically impossible" for emphasis or is it really physically impossible for him to have listened to the track 96 times in a day? Because according to Wikipedia the longest track on that album is "No More Parties in LA" whose duration is 6:14 so it would take just under 10 hours to play it 96 times in a row. If you use shorter tracks and depending how short a play should be to count (I assume you don't have to listen from start to finish to count?) you could be done much faster. "I Love Kanye" is only 44 second long for instance. I wouldn't be surprised if some die-hard Kanye West fans had listened to more than 96 of his tracks in a day.

What if he simply put the album on repeat and left it running somewhere by mistake? There are 20 tracks in the album for a total length of 66:39, on repeat you'll rich 96 tracks played in a little over 5 hours. It doesn't sound implausible if it plays in the background while doing chores or other things. That would explain the plays during the night as well if he left it running on a muted computer.

Not that it invalidates the rest of the study or that it would surprise me if somebody had tinkered with the numbers, I just thought that it was a bit sloppy to use "physically impossible" when it's just "unlikely".


This is plausible in either direction.

I once turned down the volume for a streaming service one evening probably to talk to a friend. The playlist played through the night and well into the next evening. Depending on the playlist, some tracks could have gotten 15+ plays due to absent-mindedness.

I can definitely see a music critic putting together short playlists (e.g. 3 songs) for work on a specific album, article, or project. 3 songs at 3.5 minutes each in a playlist would take 10.5 minutes to play and loop 5.714 per hour. You could get 96 plays out of all 3 tracks by continuously looping the playlist 16.8 times.

Again, I'm not saying the numbers aren't inflated, but it's possible for some of these to be false-positives.


Perhaps they meant the entire album was played 96 times. 66:39 x 96.

I myself am a serial song repeater. I use it a lot for focus. Noise to drown out other sounds, but familiarity so I don't start thinking about the music instead of work.


The engineer that got told to fake data probably was not overly enthusiastic about the task. Maybe it is even the same guy who leaked the harddrive to the newspaper.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: