Same feeling here with easymotion, sneak and others.
The built-in / with hlsearch on enter and nohlsearch on leave, together with the built-in <C-G> [1] for next match and <C-T> for previous match **while still in /** provides a faster and more natural solution because no need to read labels. From :help incsearch,
set incsearch
augroup vimrc-incsearch-highlight
autocmd!
autocmd CmdlineEnter /,\? :set hlsearch
autocmd CmdlineLeave /,\? :set nohlsearch
augroup END
From there, type / and search for 1,2,3... characters (however many you want) and see the matches on the screen thanks to hlsearch being turned on. Go to next/previous match with <C-G> or <C-T> as desired. To close the movement, hit enter as usual with /.
For instance to delete until the second match of fum, type
d/fum<C-G><ENTER>
and it is very easy to follow the current match among all highlighted matches because the current match has a different color.
It is Google so it gets that much publicity which is good for that particular case because it will be investigated and sorted out. Sexual abuse and discrimination enablers will be investigated. Good.
Too bad for the other large size company where similar things happen which won't get similar publicity and won't ever be investigated.
Not working at GOOG, but I don't get the hate in the comments or the idea that it is a google thing. The tough interviews that everyone is very critical about are actually a good edge against that sort of system (recruiting members of your cult). Too bad the process/interviews aren't that hard for contractors?
"I was a TVC — which stands for “temps, vendors, and contractors,” a designation within Google for workers who aren’t full-time employees and are hired by third parties companies, not by Google itself. We do the same work as full-time Google employees — I worked right alongside them — but we don’t have the same corporate benefits."
This is another way to screw workers, allowing large companies to hire "employees" without having to pay benefits or FICA taxes. If Google managers are directing and controlling these contractors as if they were actual Google employees, doesn't this violate IRS rules on independent contractors?
For example, if I hire a company to do my video productions, that's fine. But if that company's employees all are required to work in my building, and I supply the desk, chair, computer, and have a employee/manager who directs their daily actions, they are not functioning as independent contractors according to IRS guidelines. In that case, the contractors might be able to sue Google for benefits and past taxes they've had to pay that Google employees don't have to pay.
Probably not, but there's no legal issue with a W2 employer directing you to work on the campus of another company whose own employees have better benefits.
Didn’t this already go through the court system long ago because of Microsoft and this is why these kinds of workers can only work for a particular company for 11 months and then have to be off for 3 months before they can get a new contract with the same company?
The kid is barely 18. The emotion and stress resulting from mistakenly sending a notification to 400,000 is likely overwhelming. Now his real name is going to stay at the center of the internet for a while thanks to being 1st on HN. I would definitely not have coped well with that much internet attention at his age. Some Github replies are more immature than the initial action and I hope he does not receive any threat.
I hope the Epic developers reach out to him nicely with constructive feedback and maybe a thanks for his well-meaning PR.
> The kid is barely 18. The emotion and stress resulting from mistakenly sending a notification to 400,000 is likely overwhelming.
Huh? I don't think it's "the kid"'s fault that some random organization is using GitHub orgs as a proxy to get people to sign their Terms of Service. If the org or group is on GitHub, it's only a matter of time before someone is going to mention it.
The emotion and stress should be on the org admins who thought that asking every user who signs their ToS to a group called `developers` would be a good idea.
I don't think the parent commenter was arguing that the creator of the PR is to blame. But even they're not to blame, it's probably not a pleasant experience.
I disagree, the PR is some pointless wordsmithing and then to comment "Verify the pull request and merge asap" is a bit ridiculous. Also, no one is going to care in a day.
> An email requesting system access went out to all employees . It triggered a reply to all frenzy that resulted in my blackberry pinging constantly for over an hour with people replying-to-all asking to be removed from the distribution list. Even Mike Lazaridis replied to all asking this to be stopped. Then as different parts of the globe started work, they would reply to all. Classic evening. I think system admins eventually shut down the frenzy at server level. Some of the replies were hilarious though. I think I still have some screenshots somewhere.
> Verify the pull request and merge asap" is a bit ridiculous
I see you're not familiar with Indian-English. What he said sounds quite "reasonable" (if not a bit unnecessarily, but understandably urgent) to someone like me (am Indian).
Downvoting folks aren't understanding the context.
Understandable is in the Indian context. Generally a lot of things in India are slow/delayed so it's pretty common for people to want everything "fast" (which is probably "regular speed" in the US etc). I agree the content is hardly urgent, but for an Indian everything is urgent.
It is not reasonable at all for "non-Indian" English -- still that would perhaps be a reasonable explanation, just he should learn it is not reasonable.
The patch itself is indeed worse than useless, it's the kind of rephrasing just to say "I did something", but which actually makes it worse (adds useless words and English mistakes). If the "kid" is ready to send this kind of useless "contribution" (which takes some deliberate effort), they surely are ready for being reprimanded (or, more likely, they will be actually proud of it).
Either way, it's pointless to "reprimand" the perpetrator. This could have just as well been a deliberate spam attack eg. someone using the @-mention to promote their scam-coin or penis enlargement product (and some people in the thread seem to have already used the opportunity to promote their band etc.) Telling a spammer they are doing an evil thing is obviously useless as they are well aware of it. This should be viewed and handled as a security / access control failing on Epic's part - that this was ever possible was a mistake and only a question of timing when someone would stumble upon the vulnerability. Whether their purposes for exploiting it are nefarious, sincere or even accidental is irrelevant.
On the one hand, I agree that paying attention to the spammer is bad; on the other, I do believe there might be some use in publicly stating that such PRs will never be merged and are frowned upon; hopefully other people reading (many of them likely beginner programmers) will get the message.
But there's likely a better way to do the "teaching" without drawing any attention to the perpetrator.
Some have speculated based on the changes that it was not a well-meaning PR, that it was just an attempt to game the system (similar to what hordes of people do on Hacktoberfest). Of course it's hard to know
Does it actually matter? Like even if the PR is bad / the request to merge was demanding, I don’t think that justifies the response, which I guess was roughly the expected response to a the PR times 400k (plus network effects). I’m not convinced that the people responding can use the same excuse for their immaturity but maybe they should not be expected to be mature given the trivial requirements for becoming members of that org.
Speculating or repeating speculations on why he did this is not moving the ball forward at this point. It has been a harmless event so far. Github is now aware of an issue that would have come up eventually anyway and they can add future warnings when notifying >10,000 people, Epic can update the structure/permissions of their Github org, and the kid can keep his passion for tech intact. Win-win-win.
But also, this is a random comment thread on an unrelated site, no one here needs to "move the ball forward". Let people speculate, it makes no fucking difference.
> The kid is barely 18. The emotion and stress resulting from mistakenly sending...
Look at the actual contents of the PR. This wasn't an attempt to contribute anything remotely meaningful. It's not quite vandalism yet either, but only because it didn't do any harm.
Seems like he is trying to increase his reputation with minimal effort, see all the badges collected in his profile. It's the usual social network effect, and the same reason HN doesn't have notifications or actually relevant karma. Microsoft wanted a new social network, there they have their community of naive gamblers.
BLAS is great and must be used whenever possible. That was not my point.
I don't want to turn my back on the beautiful loop notation. For some algorithms, the loop notation is clearer than any "vectorized" version. It is absurd that the language penalizes you for that. Loops are alright.
For example, the optimization of np.einsum has been passed upstream and most of the same features that can be found in this repository can be enabled with numpy.einsum(..., optimize=True).
So numpy should provide the same perf for most cases.
The looped matrix multiply that you show is very hard to optimize for in the general case of einsum. Often the looped GEMM is found permuted such as `kbi,kjb->bij`. In this case, heuristics are needed to determine if GEMM is worth it due to unaligned memory copies.
`optimize=True` is generally best when there are more than two tensors in the expression.
Parents bringing their kids to playgrounds, that have not much to do except talking to other parents. Being at a playground with their own kid filters out most mentally unstable or interested parties.
Very easy to strike conversations if kids have the same age. Lots of opportunities for new and sane friendships, with who you can then double-date when their kid come home to play with yours.
Having a kid really expanded my social circle. Im a shutin hermit and she is a social butterfly and makes friends in seconds, so she probably knows 100x more people in our community than I do. So I frequently have to stand there hanging around with stranger parents because my kid is suddenly best friends with their kid. These interactions have grown to the point where we have a “local dads” poker night and all we have to do with each other is our kids’ social circles. It’s actually kind of wholesome.
There is a selection bias at ski resorts. And plenty of the interactions are a single serving, so comparatively safe. I presume you can still get an elevator/lift pitch.
What is missing here so far is maybe what happens on the other side. Some researchers meet for a few days at NSF headquarters to discuss the proposal with some NSF officers. It is called the "panel".
The researchers essentially rank the proposals and decide the outcome:: proposals at the top of the ranking will be funded until money dries out.
Researchers do not know how to evaluate grants the way the NSF wants them to do it. Researchers know how to review papers but not NSF proposals. The broader impacts expectations of the NSF are as obscure to the researchers in the panel as for everyone else. At a panel, after discussing the scientific merits of the proposal, the NSF officers asked the researchers in the panel for broader impacts in the proposal. The first day, the researchers kept pin-pointing (what they thought could be) broader impact items that the NSF officers rejected. As time went by, researchers in the panel started figuring out what kind of broader impacts the NSF officers expected, and could use it to push proposals they liked because of the science. Broader impact sections of the proposals were used to supercharge an already interesting proposal based on the science.
While 15-20 researchers may be in the panel, a few of those will be leading the discussions because of character and interest of looking at these proposals. If these researchers have integrity, the panel will do a decent job. I am sure it is highly dependent on the panel, but the ones I participated in, I thought we did a decent job, maybe with an inclination towards funding young PIs who never got funded before. But networking with NSF officers didn't help any PI; the science dominated the ranking.
Polished broader impact statements appear naturally in tier 1 universities that have many examples and templates of previously funded proposals. Most of it is window dressing; of course there are genuine initiatives but that's not the norm. Asking for diversity statements or whatnot will favor applicants from the alumni and PIs of the Stanfords and Harvards who can network with their peers to gather existing successful statements. After a few generation of sharing these statements, the polishing gets really really good and looks quite serious. It's fairly easy to write broad impact statements with 5 funded examples, much harder when you have none and nobody to talk to (does requiring diversity statements in applications actually hurt diversity candidates? Who knows, studying that question would likely not get funding).
Successful proposals read really well, so well that you wonder how much of the proposed research is already solved. That is a strategy used to write some proposal: when the NSF deadline comes, pick your 1 or 2 most significant unpublished working drafts and write a proposal on the results. Some results you know you already have, others could be interesting generalizations that are within reach, and add to the mix maybe one sexy moonshot. Because you had the paper underway, the story and notation are things you already thought about for a while, and the resulting proposal looks pretty good. If the proposal gets funded, you already have some results to show; good job.
Source: academic who also got CAREER the first time, somewhat burnt out by all these games. Don't get me started on academic awards (the ones with a famous name attached to it)--but let me just say that staying away from those will delay the burnout, a bit; those games are much more rigged than NSF panels.
Coming from NIH-land and occasionally dabbling in NSF-funding via EEID, RAPID and some collaborations with CS folks, the broader impacts section remains the thing that's most opaque to me.
In many fields, students do not need extra grants for funding. Startup funds, teaching assistantship (TA) and other sources fund PhD students. You can advise 3-5 students who TA at the same time, without writing grants. Some fields on the other hand need more external grants to fund students. It really is field-dependent.
The built-in / with hlsearch on enter and nohlsearch on leave, together with the built-in <C-G> [1] for next match and <C-T> for previous match **while still in /** provides a faster and more natural solution because no need to read labels. From :help incsearch,
From there, type / and search for 1,2,3... characters (however many you want) and see the matches on the screen thanks to hlsearch being turned on. Go to next/previous match with <C-G> or <C-T> as desired. To close the movement, hit enter as usual with /.For instance to delete until the second match of fum, type
and it is very easy to follow the current match among all highlighted matches because the current match has a different color.[1]: see :help /_CTRL-G