> The biggest predictor for people who prefer starting late is how crowded their schedules are. Managers tend to have very crowded schedules which means they want a break between meetings, while ICs prefer not having to waste time waiting.
I have had a few senior managers (at Google) who ask for all the meetings _they_ attend to start 5 minutes late.
This seems 100% reasonable to me. No need for it to be an org policy. Just a affordance for the people who spend 95% of their working hours in meetings.
I've also had several senior managers at Google who _don't_ do this, but are 5 minutes late for every meeting anyway. This alternative is pretty annoying!
The problem is that final decisions tend to be made in the last 30 seconds of a meeting. If you're a manager with a stake in the outcome, you can't leave the meeting until you've ensured that the outcome works for you. Leaving 5 min early is often simply not an option. While arriving 5 minutes late is. It's not an ego thing -- it's the fact that meeting leaders often let meetings run long.
This isn't just useful for high-level application logic! (If I'm catching your drift from "the compiler writes the state machines for you).
I used to write extremely low-lebel NIC firmware that was basically a big bundle of state machines. Rust wasn't ready back then but I was desperate for something like coroutines/async. I think it would have been incredibly valuable.
(There are tricks to do coroutines in C but I think they're too hacky. Also, back then we believed that RTOS threads with their own stack were too expensive, in retrospect I'm not sure we ever entirely proved that).
I may be naïve in this case but I think it would also have been super useful for the high level protocol stuff. Like: 802.11 association flows. If we could have just spun up a Tokio task for each peer, I feel the code would have been an order of magnitude smaller and simpler.
A way to implement coroutines in C is via protothreads. I admit that they are a bit hacky - but you can get quite far with them. I used them to implement an Esterel/Blech like environment: https://github.com/frameworklabs/proto_activities
Protothreads are amazing, but really expose you to a lot of subtle bugs. I would not recommend them for any new projects if something like async rust or an RTOS are options.
Yeah this was exactly my conclusion at the time. It's a cool trick but I just don't think I wanna write a serious system in a special half-language like that.
Why should we want prediction markets to be fair? I want them to reveal facts about the world.
They only need to be fair inasmuch as it serves that goal. I don't think it wouldn serve that goal to forbid insider trading?
(Why do we forbid insider trading in the stock market? Not because it's unfair. Because it makes the market worse at doing what we want it to do, which is funding the most productive enterprises).
>Why should we want prediction markets to be fair? I want them to reveal facts about the world.
I do not think this is a reasonable position. The problem is that predicting "real facts about the world" creates a situation where you could take out an place a sizable bet on your neighbors house burning down. Allowing prediction markets is, thusly, inherently problematic. Allowing them to be anonymized with insider information, and you've a recipe for disastrous externalities.
And to spell it out, you can then go burn your neighbours house down and profit from it. Predictions markets don't just predict, they can cause "unlikely" things to happen because they give a way of profiting from making "unlikely" things happen. This is a problem with plain old stock market insider trading too, and with sports betting when the participants take out bets on themselves.
You can say you don't want prediction markets and that's fine. It's not responding to my comment though which is saying that if we have prediction markets, the goal should be for them to reveal facts about the world.
If you think prediction or stock markets should be "fair" then you have a very bizarre definition of fair (one that's compatible with a game that only rich people can win).
Also desiring "fairness" implies that to imply the market's primary purpose is as a game. If it's just a game, it's nothing but toxic gambling.
ANYWAY: pointing to one possible case of misuse and then leaping to "inherently problematic" is pretty weak IMO. Hopefully you can tell I'm not a prediction market booster, there's a lot about them that I think it's pretty suspect. But this is a pretty lame line of reasoning IMO.
"Someone might shoot people with it" -> valid reason for gun control. Guns are for shooting people.
"Someone might stab someone with it" -> not a valid reason to ban knives. We already ban stabbing people. We take precautions to try and mitigate the dangers of knives, because they have a very big upside.
> It's not responding to my comment though which is saying that if we have prediction markets, the goal should be for them to reveal facts about the world.
My point is you can’t have this without creating a massive incentive for people to create events, and it’s inherently easier to create disorder, which hurts everyone in a free society.
> pointing to one possible case of misuse and then leaping to "inherently problematic" is pretty weak IMO.
This is like saying nuclear weapons are “one possible case of misuse of nuclear technology.” Yes, obviously, but it’s serious enough to justify massive regulation of nuclear technology.
I’m not saying prediction markets should be illegal. I’m saying that they should have a very small maximum wager, require public disclosure of who is taking which bets, and it should not pay out if the actor has any connection to agents that create the change in the world.
Sports gamblers have known about how problematic this concern is forever. Organized crime used predictions markets they could influence (sports betting) as a major source of revenue throughout history.
The result was not, and could never have been, known a priori. All sorts of random things could have gone wrong with the operation causing the raid to fail and Maduro to remain in power. Trump could have just randomly changed his mind, or postponed the raid to beyond the end of January (the cutoff for the betting market). The person placing the bet was still taking a chance, but it was an informed chance that shifted the market probability more in line with reality.
If it helps, you can think of the money made as the payment to a confidential informant for information that contributed to a more complete picture of the world. It just happens via a distributed algorithm, using market forces, rather than at the discretion of some intelligence officer or whoever. The more important the information you have to share, the more it moves the market and the bigger your "fee". It's not being a "grifter" to provide true information that moves the market correctly. In fact, this mechanism filters out the actual grifters - you can't make money (in expectation) by providing false information, like traditional informants sometimes can.
This "intelligence gathering" function is the primary goal of a prediction market. It's the only reason it makes sense to even have them. If you turn it into some parlor game where everybody who participates has access to all the same information, then what are we even doing here?
> This "intelligence gathering" function is the primary goal of a prediction market. It's the only reason it makes sense to even have them. If you turn it into some parlor game where everybody who participates has access to all the same information, then what are we even doing here?
If everyone has the same information, then whoever does better analysis wins. That's far from a parlor game.
Ideally people with good info and people with good analysis can both make money. (And ideally nobody takes real-world actions to make their bet come true.)
> The result was not, and could never have been, known a priori.
This is a level of solipsism not worth discussing.
Yes, Superman could be a real person and we all had our minds altered to think he’s a superhero.
Yes, when someone pulls the trigger of a gun pointed at someone’s head, it could misfire and explode in their hand.
The point is that someone influencing prediction markets can push this probability to very, very near zero. So much so, as to make the outcome effectively certain for all intents and purposes.
Literally everyone can burn their neighbor's house down! Everyone has access to "valuable predictive information" when that information is being created by the person making the bet.
Get the last word in if you must. We're going in circles.
OK, I see now that you're specifically referring to the case where someone places a bet and then actively goes out and causes the event to happen themselves. I was specifically replying to the people who were saying it was unfair for insiders to profit on the information they already possess.
I agree, I can see how that's a potential edge case, though I don't think it's as likely to happen in practice as you do. Certainly, anybody who commits a crime to cause a payout should be barred from receiving that payout, though you can tell a plausible story where someone manages to conceal it. I also really really doubt that that's what happened in this particular case.
I mean, yes, unironically. If the goal of a prediction market is to find out the truth about the world, that's what will get you there faster.
Google might feel differently about whether it's OK in that case, but that's their prerogative.
Ask yourself: If the CIA really needed to know in advance what the top search result was going to be with as much accuracy as possible (for some weird reason, doesn't matter why), how would they go about doing it? Would they spend a bunch of time evaluating all of the public information, or would they just bribe (or otherwise convince) an insider at Google to tell them?
Given that inside information makes prediction markets more accurate, why do you believe it doesn't make stock markets more accurate?
If, say, Enron insiders could've shorted their own stock, that would have improved accuracy and thereby diverted more funding to more productive enterprises.
I guess there could be second-order effects when insiders can actually change the outcome, which is why athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own games.
> I guess there could be second-order effects when insiders can actually change the outcome
You don't need to guess. That's exactly why it's illegal: It creates bad incentives, similarly to e.g. taking out a life insurance policy on a random person you have no financial dependence on.
> Given that inside information makes prediction markets more accurate, why do you believe it doesn't make stock markets more accurate?
He didn't say that it doesn't. It obviously does make stock markets more accurate.
But it tends to drive down the total amount of money available to be invested in stocks, which is compatible with the claim that it makes the market worse at funding productive enterprises.
> But it tends to drive down the total amount of money available to be invested in stocks
That seems like a big claim. For most market participants, there's always a counterparty that's so much more sophisticated that it doesn't make a difference if they're an insider or not.
The only "facts about the world" revealed by prediction markets are facts about what people betting in prediction markets believe. Which I guess is interesting in itself if you're a sociologist. Otherwise, not so much.
In this case the insiders only made their bets a few hours before the kidnapping was publicly announced, so it's not clear whether the betting "revealed facts about the world" in any publicly useful way.
Lol. Why should we make car ownership fair? I want cars to reveal facts about the world. I don't think it would serve that goal to forbid people from stealing your car.
Zed is faster and less annoying than VSCode, I hope to switch to it permanently sooner or later.
Annoyingly the only hard blocker I have right now is lack of a call-graph navigation widget. In VSCode you can bring up an expandable tree of callers for a function. Somehow I am completely dependent on this tiny little feature for reading complex code!
The annoying thing is: "can't you just use an extension for this?" No, Zed extensions are much more constrained, Zed is not a web browser. And I like it this way! But... My widget...
I also have some performance issues with searching large remote repos, but I'm pretty confident that will get fixed.
Does "Find All References opt+shift+F12" function help mitigate this for you? It opens a buffer that you can use to navigate, and it's a built-in feature not an extension.
I'm not trying to "challenge" your experience, it's your experience. But mine is completely different so I'll offer it for anyone who might be reading along...
I've been using Linux at work and at home every day for 15 years and I think in that whole time I've only ever had to reinstall the OS due to system issues once.
(I ran an Ubuntu system update on my laptop while on low battery, and it died. The APT database was irrevocably fucked afterwards. I'm not even sure it's fair to blame the OS for this, it was a dumb thing for me to do. I would also not be at all surprised if it's possible to fuck up a Windows installation in a similar manner).
Nowadays I run NixOS and yes that requires quite regular attention. But I've also used Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian extensively and all of them are just completely stable all the time.
(Only exception I can think of: Ubuntu used to have issues with /boot getting full which was a PITA).
The title is written specifically for UK readers, the actual subject is about the point of alignment leaving GB.
(Also for anyone who was confused by this, it's not about the poles, it's about the point where the bearings for all three norths are equivalent. So a "compass" would point in the same direction regardless of what kind of north it reported. Took me a moment to understand!)
To clarify, it was an alignment of True, Magnetic, and Grid North. It was occurring at a point that happened to occur in England and was travelling slowly North for the past few years and now exists over water.
Magnetic North is the direction a compass points in a particular location and moves with shifts in earths magnetic field as well as local anomalies.
True North is parallel to the axis of Earths rotation and moves as earth wobbles and sways like a slightly unbalanced spinning top.
Grid North is perpendicular to lines of Longitude which is "fixed" to a given geographic reference frame. For the UK that would be OGSB36, GPS uses WGS84, other countries may adopt different systems.
All this means that an alignment of all 3 norths can occur at multiple places on earth or none at all.
Not having thought about it too hard, if the three norths all align at -2 degrees west longitude, wouldn't they also be aligned at 178 degrees East longitude, somewhere near the east coast of New Zealand?
Do the analogous "three souths" also have an alignment, and is it precisely opposite the north poles?
> Not having thought about it too hard, if the three norths all align at -2 degrees west longitude, wouldn't they also be aligned at 178 degrees East longitude, somewhere near the east coast of New Zealand?
There is no required equivalent 'three souths' alignment because the Earth's magnetic field is not a pure dipole. Higher-moment variations can cause essentially arbitrary (but small) deviations of magnetic north/south from its dipole approximation.
Shouldn't this go without saying though? At some point someone has to review the code and they see a human name as the sender of the PR. If that person sees the work is bad, isn't it just completely unambiguous that the person whose name is on the PR is responsible for that? If someone responded "but this is AI generated" I would feel justified just responding "it doesn't matter" and passing the review back again.
And the rest (what's in the LLVM policy) should also fall out pretty naturally from this? If someone sends me code for review, and have the feeling they haven't read it themselves, I'll say "I'm not reviewing this and I won't review any more of your PRs unless you promise you reviewed them yourself first".
The fact that people seem to need to establish these things as an explicit policy is a little concerning to me. (Not that it's a bad idea at all. Just worried that there was a need).
You would think it's common sense but I've received PRs that the author didn't understand and when questioned told me that the AI knows more about X than they do so they trust its judgement.
A terrifying number of people seem to think that the damn thing is magic and infallible.
I opened the review and immediately ctrl-F'd "kernel". It said no upstream support so I closed the article.
I would never buy one of these things without upstream kernel support for the SoC and a sane bootloader. Even the Raspberry Pi is not great on this front TBH (kernel is mostly OK but the fucked up boot chain is a PITA, requires special distro support).
so what would you recommend for arm which has good proper support.
I feel like rasp pi has the most community support for everything so I had the intution that most things would just work out of the box on it or it would have the best arm support (I assumed the boot chain to be that as well)
what do you mean by the boot chain being painful to work with and can you provide me some examples perhaps?
Ok that's mostly a joke, I'm just not up to date on what platforms exist these days that are done properly. Back in my day the Texas Instruments platforms (BeagleBoard) were decent. I think there are probably Rockchip-based SBCs today (Pine64 maybe?) that add up to something sensible but I dunno.
The thing with the boot chain is that e.g. the Pi has a proprietary bootloader that runs via the GPU. You cannot just load a normal distro onto the storage it needs to be a special build that matches the requirements of this proprietary bootloader. If your distro doesn't provide a build like that, well, hopefully you're OK with changing distro or ready to invest many hours getting your preferred distro working.
(Why only "mostly joking?" I recently repurposed an old ThinkPad to use as a home server and it's fucking great. Idles under 4W, dramatically more powerful than a Pi5, has proper UEFI and proper ACPI and all the drivers work properly, including the GPU. Would cost about the same on eBay as a Pi. Only remaining reason I can see for an Arm board is if you're specifically interested in Arm or have very specific space constraints).
Hm, if I may ask, what were they used for in your last job. To me they seem more entreprise focused than indie focused from a quick glance at their website.
I've had a similar case before but for a much more boring reason: a certain YouTube video somehow triggered a spike in power draw and caused my Google Pixel to reset.
Google's response after looking at the crash dumps: "WAI, your battery is degraded" (IIRC my phone was less than 3 years old).
Could be; after ~3 years, my Samsung Galaxy S7 would reset if I tried to make a call with battery below ~20%. I immediately knew it was the battery, because I still remember noticing it as a kid on Nokia 3410 - calling would sometimes drop the battery indicator by one bar, which would come back moments after call ended. That's how I learned about internal resistance and how battery capacity is measured :).
As for fixes in software, it's either treating it as WAI, or secretly throttling down the phone, like Apple did, for which they got accused of planned obsolescence. Neither choice is good (though actually informing the users would go a long way).
I have had a few senior managers (at Google) who ask for all the meetings _they_ attend to start 5 minutes late.
This seems 100% reasonable to me. No need for it to be an org policy. Just a affordance for the people who spend 95% of their working hours in meetings.
I've also had several senior managers at Google who _don't_ do this, but are 5 minutes late for every meeting anyway. This alternative is pretty annoying!
reply