I think my only crossing of paths with someone from Data General was actually only a few years ago. A startup was building cutting-edge phototonic computing tech for AI, and one of the key people for the electronic hardware side was a graybeard from DG. Nice mild-mannered guy, and very capable and sensible. I recall a major tapeout working the first time.
(They also had an engineering executive who had been a computer engineer from a major CPU company. In one engineering reporting meeting, when a team mentioned they needed to do something with a particular facility of the off-the-shelf CPU, the executive volunteered that he could help with that, since he designed it. Everyone laughed.)
Hardware companies are a mixed blessing for us software people, but I wonder whether hardware engineers are more likely to keep it real (old-school high-powered engineer style) than software people?
I too had a crossing of paths with one of the micro kids. She was descibed in the book as the lone female engineer on the team. She is a very sharp and talented individual and was a pleasure to work with.
I read this as a kid, and found it both exciting in some ways, and miserable in others, which was formative.
At age 21 (and accomplished, since I'd started working in my teens), I mentioned the book to my girlfriend, who was getting into software. As a serious English major, she immediately went and closely read the whole thing. I stupidly hadn't realized that of course she was going to that. And I'd neglected to mention that parts of it are a frustrating slog, as the reader suffers along with the characters/subjects. As a reader with empathy, she came out of the book fatigued and somber.
(But she'd said "an artist needs a craft", so she stuck with the field, was very successful, retired early, and has a second/third career doing something brilliant but much less lucrative.)
Despite learnings from the book and experience, I've had a few such unpleasant project slogs. But more projects that I was able to help make non-unpleasant, because I could anticipate and avert some of the problems.
I think the book probably contributed to my tendency to commit seriously to projects. That's been good and bad. It's good, in that you can learn and do things that you otherwise couldn't. It's bad in that it takes you longer to understand that other people are not you, and the ways that they aren't as committed to the project.
Many/most people are about putting in their hours with some standard of professionalism, such as satisfying whatever metrics (e.g., Jira tickets, sprint tasks, KPIs, OKRs, bonus/promotion criteria) they're told are their job. Those, you can work with, once you know that's their mode. You can also try to improve the company incentives that determine outcomes.
(But occasionally you'll encounter people who are misaligned with project/team/company success in a way you can't find common ground with. You have to recognize that hopelessly toxic situation before it's too late, and get them out of the way of the team of aligned people.)
This book of Tracy Kidder told the story of some early computer industry engineers doing something great, through brains, effort, and perseverance -- and that's a great accomplishment for a book. But an additional accomplishment I think was that a lot of us kids who read it then signed up to "play pinball", with an informed idea of what we were sometimes getting ourselves into, and we signed up anyway.
* Bypassed any logging that might be used during crime investigation.
* May have increased the likelihood of the system failing.
* (more theoretical) Increased the attack surface, and invited more crimes of digital opportunity.
So they may be partly or wholly responsible for some bad things that happen.
And also may be held responsible by others, with criminal and civil liability.
> [...] so if you’re in the same position as Frank, give it a try!
Don't, if you're in the same position (i.e., sneakily doing it to landlord's access control box, which is relied upon by multiple other neighbors).
But if you're in some different position -- such as it's your own property, and there's some kind of informed consent of all legitimate parties affected -- then kludging the system, by splicing a solenoid wire, might be good and appropriate.
It could be that height says nothing about competence as a CEO, or it could be that the people who attain CEO and succeed despite height bias need to have an exceptionally strong mix of merit/will/effort.
I've heard the latter theory at least a couple times about US Navy SEALs.
The first time, it was a retired SEAL I knew (well over 6', and a brick wall) who one day out of the blue said something like, "You shouldn't feel bad about being short. The best SEAL I knew was a short guy, and he could kick my ass."
I've heard a number of times that you want to be worried about the guy who looks out of place because he's there through pure grit, skill, and determination.
I've heard that special forces guys tend to be smaller, but I'm not sure that's true. It seems like there could be a few tactical advantages to being shorter, less likely to bump your head maybe, but who knows.
Spec ops tend to be more averaged sized, with denser builds (as opposed to bulkier muscle mass)(1). Although, quick caveat, take a look at old photos of Vietnam War era special forces vs modern late GWOT; the difference in average muscle mass is rather stark.
Historically, military selection emphasized calisthenics and load carrying capacity (body armor/weapons/rucks) + endurance. Although modern assessments have somewhat shifted towards weightlifting components, calisthenics/rucking are still a major focus. There is generally a disadvantage with height, where longer limb length creates more leverage to overcome, which is a disadvantage in both calisthenics and moving external weight around.
I've heard the expression "gazelle build" used there. Think more long distance runner than weight lifter. Long legs, short back. Strong sure but even more than that, high endurance.
I'm now an AI bro, and a long-time fan of the EFF (though they occasionally make a mistake).
I think this EFF piece could be more forthright (rather than political persuasion), since the matter involves balancing multiple public interest goals that are currently in opposition.
> Organizations like the Internet Archive are not building commercial AI systems.
This NiemanLab article lists evidence that Internet Archive explicitly encouraged crawling of their data, which was used for training major commercial AI models:
| News publishers limit Internet Archive access due to AI scraping concerns (niemanlab.org) | 569 points by ninjagoo 34 days ago | 366 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47017138
> [...] over a fight that libraries like the Archive didn't start, and didn't ask for.
They started or stumbled into this fight through their actions. And (ideology?) they also started and asked for a related fight, about disregard of copyright and exploitation of creators:
| Internet Archive forced to remove 500k books after publishers' court win (arstechnica.com) | 530 points by cratermoon on June 21, 2024 | 564 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40754229
I recently talked with a PI from a well-known university lab, and asked why they were doing a startup, given the ML research problems they were working on.
They said a company was the only way to get access to the compute power they needed for that research.
A startup sounds like probably a good solution, if they get paired with the right product- and business-minded people, and together they find a winning collaboration. (Edit: Or if they get acquired rapidly in the AI boom, and negotiate the right deal to enable their research longer-term.)
When I saw this the other day -- and it just went on and on, like a good human author who was going to write this kind of story probably wouldn't -- I looked for a note that it was AI-generated, and I didn't find it.
All I found was a human name given as the author.
We might generously say that the AI was a ghostwriter, or an unattributed collaboration with a ghostwriter, which IIUC is sometimes considered OK within the field of writing. But LLMs carry additional ethical baggage in the minds of writers. I think you won't find a sympathetic ear from professional writers on this.
I understand enthusiasm about tweaking AI, and/or enthusiasm about the commercial potential of that right now. But I'm disappointed to find an AI-generated article pushed on HN under the false pretense of being human-written. Especially an article that requires considerable investment of time even to skim.
I continue to resonate with the Oxide take when I hear this kind of sentiment expressed about AI prose
"... LLM-generated prose undermines a social contract of sorts: absent LLMs, it is presumed that of the reader and the writer, it is the writer that has undertaken the greater intellectual exertion. (That is, it is more work to write than to read!) For the reader, this is important: should they struggle with an idea, they can reasonably assume that the writer themselves understands it — and it is the least a reader can do to labor to make sense of it.
If, however, prose is LLM-generated, this social contract becomes ripped up: a reader cannot assume that the writer understands their ideas because they might not so much have read the product of the LLM that they tasked to write it. If one is lucky, these are LLM hallucinations: obviously wrong and quickly discarded. If one is unlucky, however, it will be a kind of LLM-induced cognitive dissonance: a puzzle in which pieces don’t fit because there is in fact no puzzle at all. This can leave a reader frustrated: why should they spend more time reading prose than the writer spent writing it?"
I sadly agree with this sentiment. But to add my own thoughts, I wonder if our “human generation” (all consciously existing today) are just plainly dinosaurs. Like in three decades we’ll have a society that knew LLMs from birth.
As such, we can’t comprehend the world they live in. A world in which you ask your device to give you any story and it gives you an entire book to read. I’d like to think that as humans we inevitably want whatever is next. So I’d like to think this future generation will learn to not only control, but be beyond more creative than current people can even imagine.
Did people who used typewriters imagine a world with iPhones? Did people flying planes imagine self landing rockets? Did people riding horses imagine electric cars? Did people living in caves imagine ocean crossing ships?
I kindly can’t tell if you missed my point. As much as past writers and readers could imagine a version of our present, I also imagine that if they got transported here they would still be in awe of what they saw
I agree. I imagine that a writer who predicted modern technology would still be in awe to see smartphone videoconf halfway around the globe finally realized.
And also be surprised by some of the uses to which it's put. And horrified by some of the societal backsliding despite what should be utopian technology.
That commoditization already happened for software developers, years ago. (Just look at the big-tech commodity worker interview process that even startups now mimic.)
Kudos to design studios who can still avoid that, and shine as unique talent.
Businesses naturally see their "suppliers" and "resources" as exchangeable. And to a degree, they really are, at the end of the day.
But it's still a non-trivial activity with long feedback loops, that requires a level of expertise.
Making workers easily exchangeable requires processes that ultimately underutilise their abilities, finding the lowest common denominator. Some businesses clearly can and want to afford that. Pretty much by definition, that leads to mediocre work.
From what I gather, a good chunk, if not the majority of agency work serves that particular need. But there's plenty of clients out there that want something else. Like all of mine.
Debian's interests, whether they know it or not, is for the government not to be able to mandate what features must be present in their open source software. They should be happy to have such a vocal advocate involved in this important fight.
Scene. Ext. Town street. Night. Invader military vehicles patrolling, announcing curfew through loudspeakers.
TEEN: *runs at invaders* Hey, you thugs! You can't make me obey! I support Bob, over there! *points at Bob's house*
THUGS: Grrr! Thugs smash!
BOB: Please! I have done nothing! I don't know who that teen is!
JOE: You should be happy to have such a vocal advocate in this important fight.
NARRATOR: Ironically, Bob and Jane were quietly plotting strategy and tactics for the Resistance. Until they and their children were dragged out into the street that night.
I think this site is either satire, or serious but with a certain kind of humor in which both they and the reader know they're lying (but it's in everyone's interest to play along).
They do say this:
> Is this legal? / our clean room process is based on well-established legal precedent. The robots performing reconstruction have provably never accessed the original source code. We maintain detailed audit logs that definitely exist and are available upon request to courts in select jurisdictions.
Unless they're rejecting almost all of open source packages submitted by the customer, due to those packages being in the training set of the foundation model that they use, this is really the opposite of cleanroom.
(They also had an engineering executive who had been a computer engineer from a major CPU company. In one engineering reporting meeting, when a team mentioned they needed to do something with a particular facility of the off-the-shelf CPU, the executive volunteered that he could help with that, since he designed it. Everyone laughed.)
Hardware companies are a mixed blessing for us software people, but I wonder whether hardware engineers are more likely to keep it real (old-school high-powered engineer style) than software people?
reply