On H1B, its abuses, and big tech capture in general, it's a shame we can't generally admit that the democrats are terrible on this without others perceiving this as an endorsement of everything the other side wants to do.
Both major parties suck really bad here. I'm not partisan anymore, I'll vote split-ticket for whatever individual best represents my individual interests because if I'm going to exercise my apparently useless vote, I might as well use it to meekly voice my preferences in the extremely remote chance someone will decide pretending to give a shit would be helpful for them.
Our problems predate the current regime and they'll last past it. Pretty pessimistic if I'm honest.
I have a CS PhD from a good (but not top 5) program and have published in top venues. I perceived my chances of getting a job at Microsoft Research (MSR) to be low (on par with getting a faculty position at a top place) and didn't feel like going through the unpleasant prospect of coming up with job talks and slides, sending off to universities while I'm at it, writing diversity statements, etc, for fairly low chances at getting something at MSR.
I could have gotten something at a 'lesser' place, but my guess is they'd be even more likely to be disrupted by budget cuts.
Even getting one of these roles though leaves you in a position where the next guy who wants to save money can just axe the whole division and then you're on your ass and due to a general paucity of research roles and high competition, this can be very, very bad.
I went bog-standard industry and the PhD probably didn't help much there. My industry job largely wastes my training and research experience. In retrospect, I was foolish to get a PhD and people choosing to not do so are generally making the right choice.
My understanding from PhDs in the research business at major companies is that once you're in the club, it's a lot easier to get a position at another one.
You'd want to keep your network alive. Publish, be on program committees doing reviews, etc. If the number of jobs is fairly static and you're doing this and your area doesn't collapse, (e.g., the AI winter), your network can probably land you okay. Networks in the academic world is a pretty big deal and it's a small world. Some people like doing this kind of 'service,' I wasn't one of them.
If there are general headwinds (i.e., research spending in general drops, which seems to have been an ongoing trend), there is almost definitionally more people getting cast off than there are actual researcher roles, not including new entrants to the market.
As with all things, the better off you do (very high quality lab, for instance), the more places you have to try to grab onto if you get cast off.
My peers from grad school have gone every which route, industrial labs, academia, more applied research-lite positions, finance, and fairly direct software engineering jobs. A decent chunk that started in academia or at labs have migrated into more standard software engineering roles. Personally, I really miss research, but it is what it is.
I have anecdata that shows that plenty of intelligent, highly motivated, affable people with (hard science) PhDs still struggle to obtain employment of the "club" caliber, even after they're in the "club".
From a business perspective, did it work? Was the team more, less, or equally effective than one where you didn't expend the time and expense of hiring a more homogenous group? Was turnover better or worse?
I know you can't absolutely know the counter-factual, but I've always wondered this. Incidentally, when I was a young man and CS major, I changed majors and went into a different field because I wanted to be around more women, but I've never known if being outside that kind of monoculture actually is better for the business or not.
Is the business perspective the right one to go with?
Let's say it's legal to discriminate on race in hiring in the US. Then a Japanese restaurant hires only Japanese workers because they find customers prefer it. Do we want to have this?
The purpose of our state is to provide for its citizens. So we decided to use a market economy because it seems the most efficient way to do that. But we make up the rules that it runs by and we can change the rules as we see fit.
So it seems now we are saying DEI is not a good rule. Can we make a better rule or is the goal of that rule not good?
There are multiple axes upon which something like this can be evaluated. I'm not against us as a society collectively deciding we should enforce rules that may be counter to business logic (e.g., child labor laws to pick something uncontroversial).
When something is more controversial, it's common to look at the business case. It has commonly been argued that 'diversity' is good business even disregarding any desire one may have related to restorative justice.
Put simply, if it's good business and good morals we should do it, if it's bad business and good morals or good business and bad morals, we have to weigh the balance of it (bad business can lead to morally bad outcomes, like layoffs), and if it's bad business and bad morals we ought not do it at all. I was just focusing on the business case under the assumption that the poster believed it to be good morally.
sure, but absent infinite energy supplies with which much is possible, it falls under the general rubric of "no free lunch," which often in the physical world may fall under the conservation of energy (e.g., perpetual motion machines like wind turbines on cars) or the laws of thermodynamics.
The layman's "no free lunch" is a pretty good heuristic though.
The truck isn't to my taste, but absent any indication that this was due to something unique to this automobile I don't see why it's news anymore than people tragically dying in a Camry running into a tree at 3:00 am after a party.
There's nothing in the brief article to indicate any Cybertruck specific issues .. external bystanders were able to pull a survivor from the vehicle (eg: doors sprung open or were able to be opened), speed seems to be the probable cause, etc.
The only unique to Tesla possibility here (unconfirmed) would be "late night drunks relying on self driving" .. but that remains to be reported.
> would be "late night drunks relying on self driving" .. but that remains to be reported.
Alcohol and speed are the cause of _most_ fatalities on our roads. It's a pretty good bet.
I'm personally waiting for the story wherein a police officer finds an unattended child in one of these vehicles because the parents couldn't be bothered to bring their child somewhere. Much more likely to happen once these systems become more affordable.
Absolutely alcohol and speed kill across the board for all vehicles .. the point here is this isn't specific to a Cybertruck (or self driving vehicle in general) unless it's also drunks putting their faith in FSD and not paying attention and being ready to take over.
If you define 'speeding' as driving above the speed limit, then FSD absolutely speeds.
"FSD (Supervised) can contextually drive above the speed limit or the predicted road speed to match the flow of traffic. [The Max Speed Offset Setting] specifies the maximum speed it is allowed to drive as a percentage offset applied to the speed limit of the road or the predicted road speed."
People can configure this to 40% above the speed limit if they wish. I'm not sure what the default is.
I own FSD. FSD will travel at the speed of traffic. The % above the speed limit you set doesn't change how it drives for the most part.
The only way FSD will go wildly faster than traffic is if you push the accelerator on purpose, at which point the car beeps and reminds you that it won't stop while you're pushing it.
No. I read the text and had no access to pictures.
Assuming the text reporting to be correct, then perhaps they had a can opener and pulled them out through the roof, maybe they broke a window, perhaps the entire car split open.
It's possible the rescuer had a crowbar in their car, there are crowbars in all our vehicles.
My only nitpick with EVs is that they are just too powerful. Acceleration limits + speed limits are obviously required, esp. for heavy vehicles like trucks.
In some sense Tesla already makes most boring vehicles, but IMO driving should be made even more boring. Expressing your personality via your car of choice while killing innocent people is brutal barbarism.
Probably something like requiring an advanced license, like heavy truck drivers require, to operate vehicles that cross certain mass and speed thresholds would be reasonable.
I like a fast car and I've done a little track time, etc. It's not the same as controlling a Camry and recognizing that would be reasonable.
I work at one of the big companies and some people do that even here. People just talk about their experience or other systems that they know. It always feels conservative to me, as often it's said to suggest emulating what some other group or company did to solve an often superficially similar problem, but with entirely different constraints. I think some people with certain kinds of thought patterns just pattern match and try to apply past experience a bit too broadly.
Of course it's objectively easier, particularly if you hold some variables constant (distance or pace) relative to weight.
The wrinkle is that most runners run to a pain point. Over time, I went from neverrunning to running decent mileage per week, and my runs hurt _more_ now than they did when I started because I run to a pain point. I run further, faster, and more frequently and I have a higher pain tolerance, so it hurts more while I run and the recovery is rougher.
So my runs are at least as hard, but yes, I'd absolutely destroy the version of me that thought three miles was an accomplishment by any objective metric.
Thanks, this is what I was trying to articulate with my original comment. I've never heard of a runner who gets a little faster and decides "oh ok, I'll just take it easier now". You don't get fitter by training with respect to yesterday's fitness.
One thing that I think is important to note is that a lot of people in this position aren't going to be wanting to become Runners with a capital R - they're going to be looking for the minimal effective dose to be healthy. Some, of course, will catch the bug and enjoy it enough and start to push themselves, but there are a lot of people who just go find some recommended weekly amount from the american cardiovascular society or something they heard on a podcast and set that as their goal and have no desire to move past it.
I'm on the heavy side for a distance runner, but compared to the general population, I've never been very heavy or very light (BMI currently around 26). I mostly run longer distances (a half marathon most weeks, lots of six mile runs, full marathons and the distances to train for them about twice a year).
In my experience, qualitatively, what you say is absolutely true. I don't even notice a change in pace if my weight floats up or down a bit, I mostly run at a specific level of effort and the pace adjusts itself depending on how much I've over-indulged. However, there are thresholds.
If I try to run a pace that is too slow, there's a point where it almost becomes more shuffle than run, gait goes to hell, and there's a loss of efficiency. As I've gotten more fit (but not lighter) I can now do zone 2 running on the flat with workable form, but this wasn't always the case. It's still less efficient than a fast pace, but at least it looks like running.
So if one is too heavy to even run with actual running form for any length of time, it's harder to be heavy. That's okay, they should probably try run/walk intervals until they get there.
On the other hand, it can also be harder when you're more fit. My pain tolerance has gone way up. I can just beat the ever living snot out of myself, and if I'm not careful, I do just that. It's much easier to do too many miles way too quickly now and that starts manifesting itself in all kinds of noisome ways. Find anyone who considers themselves a runner and get them talking about their injuries and you better not have anywhere else you need to be.
I got up to half marathon walking distance at a little over 3 hours for six weeks this summer, and have been in PT ever since. 'Too hard' doesn't necessarily manifest the day you make the mistakes. It could be weeks later.
Yes, I agree. I mentally consider "running" to include "walking, if that's the speed you should be at for your target intensity". I do a lot of walking on my runs even still :)
Benzos are my flight go-to. I got them for some flight anxiety, since my stupid brain started getting scared of flying, but boy do they just make the time go by and I manage to doze. It's not good quality, but it beats the total lack of sleep I'd customarily get.
Outside of flying, I have no temptation or desire to take them thankfully, so a prescription with ten pills lasts me literally years.
One word of caution there (aside from other dangers of benzos): I had a friend use them on a flight from the US to UK, and apparently was still obviously intoxicated from them when arriving, and got rejected at the border, put in a holding area, and sent back on the next flight. If going through a place where you'll actually have to talk with an immigration officer, not necessarily the smartest thing.
Emacs pauses are almost always due to some operation blocking in the main thread. It's pretty annoying and is mostly a consequence to a lot of things effectively being single-threaded. Stock emacs doesn't do this very often, but third party packages that might do expensive tasks often do
Both major parties suck really bad here. I'm not partisan anymore, I'll vote split-ticket for whatever individual best represents my individual interests because if I'm going to exercise my apparently useless vote, I might as well use it to meekly voice my preferences in the extremely remote chance someone will decide pretending to give a shit would be helpful for them.
Our problems predate the current regime and they'll last past it. Pretty pessimistic if I'm honest.