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

I agree. That's why universities should never teach any practical real world programming languages. They should stick to Scheme and MMIX.

I don't mind Scheme - love it. But MMIX is one heck of a convoluted, "fantasy-alien" assembly language that I cannot stand. Gave up reading TAOCP because of it. Knuth should have stuck to pseudo-code or plain C.

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but when I was in uni (late 90s), it was C++, which was very much a practical real-world language. There was a bit of JavaScript and web stuff, but not much (but Javascript was only 4 years old when I was a senior, so...).

Except they won't. They will just hire those new people away from the firms that trained them. That's what happens now and there's no reason why it won't happen in the future.

This is why firms that do actual training have clauses written in the employment contract that says if you receive x months of training from them then you have to work for them for at least y number of years otherwise if you leave then you have to pay them for the cost of training you (which is written as a dollar amount in the contract).

Companies that don't have that kind of clause in the contract are going to get screwed over when their newly trained employees get poached by other firms.


Yes and no.

I started my career with a graduate program from a larger company. I stuck around in that company for close to 5 years and would have liked to stay longer. My reason for leaving were the absence of a career progression. The first 3 years, the company had a great career progression path. Clear outlines what it needs for a promotion, fair and transparent pay, etc.

That changed and despite hitting/exceeding my goals, I was denied a promotion twice with no good reason. My boss, who is fantastic, told me that he cannot give me a good reason because he himself did not receive one. So I left.

Generally speaking, my cohort of the program was part of the company much longer than most employees. I don't think a single person left in the first 3 years. Attrition only started now that there was a general shift in the companies culture and communication.


It might happen, but there are risks. The obvious one is that the existing employers will make an effort to keep the best (promotions and pay rises) so people hiring away from them will get the people they do not need to keep.

Those sorts of clauses are not legal everywhere. They would certainly be at least heavily restricted in the UK (on the other hand there are subsidies for some employer training and education here - which is why my daughter has an engineering degree without paying any fees). The author of the article is in Israel, and as an academic is in a different position to people in businesses.


That dynamic is nothing new. Years of experience to become a senior engineer is not “training” and not covered by what you’re describing.

The shortage of senior engineers will be even worse than it is today.

Not sure your argument really holds any water over a 10+ year period as I originally described.


It honestly seems a little control freakish to think this way. People leave companies and that’s a good thing, they explore the industry and generally become more capable. If you leave on good terms there’s nothing holding back a renewed relationship, now with the added benefit of new perspectives; maybe meeting at conferences or working on a project. My gut is telling me these companies don’t part on good terms with their employees.

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The entire YouTube video has only two short clips of the actual rocket being fired, and in both cases the clips are very short and only show the rocket being fired and then following an erratic flight path, and then get cut before showing the rocket hitting anything.

For all the technical info given in the video, there is a curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system. What percentage of rockets tested managed to hit anything and at what range?


I suspect a major problem is the quality and consistency of the propellant and getting a symmetric burn.

The video references "future tracking systems," so I don't think it aims at all yet.

> curious lack of any data regarding the actual accuracy of the system

No lack of entrackment data generated by [edit] d̶i̶g̶i̶t̶a̶l̶ ̶t̶w̶i̶n̶ github repo of "the system".


"digital twin"?

Is there a simulation that has been documented to have the identical behavior and flight characteristics as the real thing? Does not seem like it.

If there is a difference, it is not a twin.


Thanks for the correction.

And what is the idle power draw that you're seeing on the NUC? Out of the box or did you have to mess around with BIOS and powertop?

I get 3-5W, mostly 4W on my N100 nuc. WiFi disabled through bios. And I ran powertop and made the suggested changes. 1 stick of 16gib lpDDR5, 1 nvme ssd, 1 4TB SATA ssd. Under full cpu load usage goes up to 8-12W. When also the gpu is busy with encoding the consumption grows to 20-24W. This is with turbo clock enabled. With it disabled power draw stays around 4W, but it is annoyingly slow I enabled turbo again and just content with the odd power peak.

I'm seeing 4-4.5 Watt idle. I've disabled WiFi in the BIOS (using wired Ethernet) and ran `powertop --auto-tune`, but not much else.

You don't need a super powerful GPU to do computer vision. There are cheap small devices that can do it.

Mark Rober did that one


If that's the case, then how comes China, which has a massive excess of males, hasn't erupted into civil war yet?


China does not have a "massive" excess of males, just around 3-4% overall. The worst hit generations showed 15% more males than global averages, but this seems to be largely an administrative effect where girls were simply reported with a delay.

That being said, China does face a bride price crisis (caili), that has reached tens of thousands of dollars, an exorbitant sum for the the rural areas where it is common. This has led to unrest and public pressure on the government to intervene and regulate this market.


Extremely effective social controls designed to suppress an insurrection for all the other reasons Chinese would have wanted to revolt over the years.



I knew a lot of this, and had a good idea of how bad this whole thing was but... damn, how comprehensively horrible a parade of bad, multi-decade decisions this is turning out to be.


Sorry, but how would this have prevented the xz backdoor? The article seems to be insinuating that it would have, but I don't see how it could.


> The article seems to be insinuating that it would have.

I disagree, the article clearly states:

      Montgomery and others were careful to say that Linux ID 
      will not magically prevent another xz‑style supply‑chain 
      attack, but they argue it materially raises the cost.


xz backdoor? What's that?


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47166473

- the video is well worth a watch.


Thanks, I'll give it a watch! <3


Offshoring generally improves the lives of the people who get the offshored jobs. Usually foreign companies pay more and have better working conditions than the local companies.


Yeah, that's a lie. It's propaganda.

Consider as just one example the lawsuit over child slavery against Nestle, etc [1]. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Nestle can't be held responsible for the child slavery even though they have full knowledge of it happening. Go figure. In fact, that's what they pay for.

The whole shipbreaking industry in Bangladesh is incredibly dangerous for those involved and couldn't possibly be done in any developed nation.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/12/m...


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

Search: