At Amazon, their travel trainings always recommended giving out your laptop password if asked by law enforcement or immigration, regardless of whether it was legal in the jurisdiction. Then you were to report the incident as soon as possible afterwards, and you'd have to change your password and possibly get your laptop replaced.
That kind of policy makes sense for the employee's safety, but it definitely had me thinking how they might approach other tradeoffs. What if the Department of Justice wants you to hand over some customer data that you can legally refuse, but you are simultaneously negotiating a multi-billion dollar cloud hosting deal with the same Department of Justice? What tradeoff does the company make? Totally hypothetical situation, of course.
You can make it so employees don’t have ambient access to data, and require multi-party approval for all actions that require user data. Giving away a user password should be treated as a routine risk.
I’m not saying that’s how it actually works, and this process doesn’t have warts, but the ideal of individual employees not having direct access is not novel.
I use Facebook for a specific automotive model group. All the forums that used to host content have either shut down or gone inactive, and it's the literally the only active online community for the car platform. I've learned to scroll slowly over the car posts, and never to engage or linger on other content.
I found even if I am interested in other content (e.g., NFL football) nearly all other interests are flooded with false AI content. A common pattern is pages will paste "BREAKING NEWS" then describe a trade of players between two teams that never happened. Another pattern is "<most popular player on team X> does something <positive or negative> towards the LGBTQ community." These generate tons of engagement with people either for, against, or upset that it's fake. Fortunately the car community I follow is obscure enough to not have engagebait.
I'm glad the absurdity of verification is getting attention. I was "forced" to verify by Linkedin to unlock my account. It was last year, and I had left my previous job, but I had not yet lined up a new job. So one of the only times in my career I might actually get value from Linkedin, they locked me out, removed my profile, and told me if I wanted back in, I'd have to verify. I felt helpless and disgusted.
I gave in and verified. Persona was the vendor then too. Their web app required me to look straight forward into my camera, then turn my head to the left and right. To me it felt like a blatant data collection scheme rather than something that is providing security. I couldn't find anyone talking about this online at the time.
I ended up finding a job through my Linkedin network that I don't think I could have found any other way. I don't know if it was worth getting "verified".
---
Related: something else that I find weird. After the Linkedin verification incident, my family went to Europe. When we returned to the US, the immigration agent had my wife and I look into a web cam, then he greeted my wife and I by name without handling our passports. He had to ask for the passport of our 7 month old son. They clearly have some kind of photo recognition software. Where did they get the data for that? I am not enrolled in Global Entry nor TSA PreCheck. I doubt my passport photo alone is enough data for photo recognition.
The thing about looking straight into the camera and turning your head seems to originate from Chinese apps, including some payment apps, bank apps, and government apps. It’s especially disgusting since it imitates the animation used by Apple Face ID, but of course it’s not at all implemented like Face ID.
> I'm glad the absurdity of verification is getting attention
It's not. The developers' bubble we're in on the HN is invisibly tiny compared to the real life. And normies are not only perfectly happy uploading all their PII to Persona - they won't even understand what's wrong with that.
It's a start. I agree HN is a bubble and doesn't reflect real life as a whole. But I do think HN has a significant bearing on US tech. I've been reading HN for nearly 19 years and in that time almost every new major tech, unicorn, or big culture shift is discussed here before it is mainstream.
There has also been a backlash against verification in other communities like Reddit (also a bubble), mainly stemming from Discord's recent announcement.
The discourse is good, and while I wish every user and potential user understood all the pros, cons, and ramifications, I'm also happy we are finally talking about it in our bubbles.
Evaporative cooling (like a "swamp cooler" for residential homes) is how most data centers in the US are cooled. The water is primarily consumed by evaporation. When you continually evaporate water from a system, eventually the remaining water in the system gets concentrated in salts and other minerals and is dumped and replaced with fresh water.
Much of the day/season, evaporative cooling is not needed and data centers can pull in outside air. Ultimately you state the main reason in your comment: using outside air + evaporative cooling is cheaper and consumes less power than any other approach.
In a lot of cases, even if the server chips themselves are liquid cooled (for example, in an NVIDIA GB200 rack), then liquid is then air cooled through a cooling distribution unit (basically a giant radiator.
It's a shame that Lua did not evolve in a more backwards-compatible manner. In addition to Roblox, lots of others projects started adopting Lua 5.1 as a scripting language in the late 00s. Lua itself is now at 5.4, but it did not keep backwards compatibility. LuaJIT and related projects pretty much only support 5.1. It's similar to the situation Python had with 2.x/3.x, except that the majority of Lua users I am aware of are preferring to stay with the older 5.1.
I think it's even worse than that, luau and luaJIT have evolved in different directions than the official lua project, such that they are now all sublty incompatible with each others. They all branch from lua 5.1 but it feels like there isn't an offical standard anymore.
At the very least, there's a common core of Lua 5.1 that works across Luau, LuaJIT, and PUC Lua, so it's not as if there's no standardization here. We definitely aspire to include _more_ than just Lua 5.1 in Luau though.
The huge difference is that the Lua community doesn't attack people publicly for maintaining backward compatibility, so it's generally pretty easy to write code that works across a wide range of Lua versions.
It's hard to get reliable numbers on this but I believe 5.1 and 5.2 are both more popular than 5.4 which has been out for five years now. And I don't think 5.3 ever surpassed either of them. I'm not sure about luajit it gets a lot of attention but I don't see it around all that much.
I agree with starting with a specific repair is ideal. One thing about electronic repair is devices that need repair and are easier to repair will often have walkthroughs on forums, blogs, or YouTube. Starting with projects that others have solved will be an easier ramp up than starting with an obscure repair.
For example, I had a pair of Samsung LCD monitors that stopped working. I looked up how to repair them and found that they suffered from leaking capacitors. Some video showed how to identify the capacitors and how to desolder an solder replacements. I followed the instructions and got the monitors working again. Another example is I have a Delco car radio from the 90s with burnt out illumination bulbs. Again there are walkthroughs on repairing these.
For in-person roles in larger cities, there is usually one or more tech community Slack groups with a job channel. It's a good format because often the roles are posted by a member of the community, so you can check their message history or DM them for questions.
The IRS does have an option for tax payers to electronically fill and file those mail-in forms directly. [0] No printing or mailing required, and there's no income limit. It's called Free File Fillable Forms, and I've used it for the past 4 tax years.
Having grown up in Arizona and attended ASU, ASU has always been this way. ASU has always accepted students at a high rate and has always been sure to structure degrees and classes to meet existing accreditations. "New American University" has always been more marketing rather than some radical change. There are several public universities with similar goals across the country, such as Colorado State or Indiana.
It's a great model for churning out highly educated workers. We need that, and there is a place for higher educational institutions that do that well. But for all of its graduates, ASU doesn't produce many thinkers, founders, philosophers—people who are going to move the needle of our society. To see this, compare the notable alumni lists of, say, ASU and Stanford (both founded in the same year). Look at Turing Award recipients, Nobel Laureates, etc. It's not a new American university - ASU is the same as it's always been.
When I look at the largest universities in the US by enrollment, I think the closest university to a true "New American University" is UIUC (no affiliation) in Illinois. Enrollment is in the top 10, similar in size to ASU. They have multiple programs ranked in the top 10 including computer science. While past success doesn't predict the future, there are some heavy hitters on the UIUC alumni list - Marc Andreessen, Steve Chen, Max Levchin. Would love if anyone happend to attend both ASU and UIUC and could compare the two.
As a CS faculty member at Illinois (aka UIUC), I don't think that we fit this model.
At least according to my quick reading of the article, ASU has a significant focus on inclusion as a core value. Overall Illinois does admit a large percentage of applicants: about 50% over recent years. (The number dropped a bit after we began participating in the Common App, which makes it easier for students to increase the number of institutions they apply to.)
However, that number hides the fact that admission to top programs like computer science is extremely selective and exclusive. Admission rates to CS have been around 7% recently. And while we've made a CS minor somewhat more accessible, we've also closed down pathways that allowed students to start at Illinois and transfer into a computer science degree. (At this point that's pretty much impossible.) We do have blended CS+X degree programs that combine core studies in computer science with other areas, and those are less selective, but they have their own limitations—specifically, having to complete a lot of coursework in some other area that may not interest you.
I think what's fooling you about Illinois is the fairly odd combination of a highly-selective department (CS) embedded in a less-selective institution. I'm sure that there are other similar pairings, but overall this is somewhat unusual. If you think about other top-tier CS departments—Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU—most are a part of an equally-selective institution.
So with Illinois you're getting the cache of an exclusive department combined with the high acceptance rate of an inclusive public land-grant university. But on some level this is a mirage created by colocated entities reflecting different value systems. And, unlike places like Berkeley and Virginia, which have been trying to admit more students into computing programs, no similar efforts are underway here at Illinois. (To my dismay.)
Overall, unfortunately it's still very obvious to me that exclusivity is part of what we're selling to students as a core value of our degree program. You're special if you got in—just because a lot of other people didn't. Kudos to anyone moving away from this kind of misguided thinking.
I imagine location is a big part. That said it's probably an unfair comparison to put a wealthy private school to a public school, especially when prestige is so essentially self-reinforcing. ASU is obviously a fantastic school, but it's ability to offer attractive faculty positions to top researchers will be limited compared to schools that are essentially the educational arm of a hedge fund.
You bring up Stanford, a school with a sort of comparable start historically would be Clark University (which might surprise some it's notability has somewhat waned in this century). I think Clark's trajectory would demonstrate the importance of location. Both UIUC and Stanford have enough nearby schools where it doesn't really compete heavily for resources, but also enough where you get strong collaborative efforts. There's also a technology bias in both who we're looking at as notable alumni, as well as where both schools are pretty much best known for. If we were talking about financiers, we'd probably see more UMich and UVA I'd hazard.
I know that UIUC is huge, but my understanding has always been that it was extremely difficult to gain admission to. Northern Illinois, Iowa and Purdue are filled with kids that couldn't get in...
UIUC published stats for 2022[1]: 1 in 4 for engineering and business (roughly top-50 university odds), 1 in 15 for computer science (roughly top-10 university odds), a coin flip or better for most other majors. General admit seems pretty relaxed at 44.8%.
One big difference in determining performance for a manager versus an engineer is the length of the feedback cycle. A software developer can start getting feedback after a few code commits. A manager needs a few months at a minimum at most companies to assess progress towards goals, hiring, etc. Unfortunately this means a bad manager can wreak havoc and jump ship before upper management notices.
That kind of policy makes sense for the employee's safety, but it definitely had me thinking how they might approach other tradeoffs. What if the Department of Justice wants you to hand over some customer data that you can legally refuse, but you are simultaneously negotiating a multi-billion dollar cloud hosting deal with the same Department of Justice? What tradeoff does the company make? Totally hypothetical situation, of course.
reply