If you need AI to understand and answer interview questions, you are probably among the weaker candidates. Why would the company give you money? Why not hire someone who is smart and skilled enough to think by himself, and then if he uses AI to increase his productivity that's great! AI is not a replacement for your brain, otherwise why would we hire people at all?
Good point! AI is a great tool at work, but the issue is real-time AI assistance feeding answers during interviews. Lyra doesn’t aim to block AI entirely—just ensures candidates can explain concepts independently. Our AI asks verbal questions and diverse scenarios to estimate a candidate's potential.
I agree 100%. Virtual threads have drawn a lot of skepticism but even Rust once had a version with them. They enable the strong structuted concurrency patterns. Async/await works nicely as long as your use case is "do this work on another thread, free this one up, resume here when the async task is done", but I've found that to be most common in UI work, and still not all that common (like if you want to track its progress, you still got some async state management coding to do). And even then you end up with a function coloring problem. People can try to downplay that, bit it is a giant wart resulting from that approach. I'll take Java's virtual threads combined with their structured concurrency efforts over async/await almost every time.
I’ve thought about this, a lot. My price is way higher than it once was, but still, if someone came along and dropped $10bn on my desk, I’d hear them out. There’s things I’d say no to, regardless of price, but otherwise things are probably negotiable.
It might sound fun to 'have' $10bn but consider losing your family, knowing that every person you meet is after your money (because they are), not having anyone give you responsible feedback, spending large amounts of time dealing with lawyers and accountants and finance bros, and basically never being 'normal' again. Winning a huge amount of money in a lottery carries a huge chance of ruining your life.
There's a limit to the amount of money I'd want (or could even use), and it's well below $10b. If someone came around with $10m and an honest deal and someone else offered $10b to buy the morality in my left toe, I'd take the $10m without question.
It could have been a more extended article, I agree with that, and perhaps in more detail. Having said that, I don't think in general many people would read such a long article. Sometimes stuff given in a nutshell can trigger curiosity for one to do their own research and actively find what the differences are between Java and Kotlin. One note though, virtual threads aren't per se directly connected with Java. Though they are frequently presented under the context of the Java programming language, they are part of the JVM ecosystem and have nothing to do with the programming language. And there are also coroutine implementations in Java, though extremely verbose and horrendous, that work in the same way as Kotlin coroutines. In principle, we should be able to use Java Virtual Threads with any language in the JVM ecosystem and we can also implement the continuations with ForkJoinPools principles associated with Coroutines in Java. One thing doesn't stop the other and although in the beginning most of us seemed to be led to believe that they belonged to the discussion between Java and Kotlin, they actually do not. Have a good one!
Im not saying it was satire; it wasn't meant to be humorous or hypocritical. It was an intentionally hyperbolic example to illustrate what the concept of radical social engineering is, and how it could drive a sense of immediacy.
Why is it a stupid thing to say? It wasn't proposed as a validated or effective solution. I agree that a marriage ban after 25 probably wouldn't help.
The point wasn't to propose viable solutions - they were repeatedly stated to be bad.
I agree that the concept could have been presented more clearly, and used an unnecessarily distasteful example.
I just dont think that justifies the lying, disinfo, and manufactured outrage about what he said.
He clearly was not "advocating for a ban on women marrying after the age of 25 and having their uteruses removed at the age of 30." and didn't "[suggest] barring women from attending college after the age of 18"
If the headline read "politician uses horrific example with unclear point" there would be fewer clicks. Lies sell adds and fear drives up engagement.
Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?
If so, it might have been more useful to start with a more plausible example. As it is, it looks like it's trying to make the notion of "radical social engineering" look bad.
Unfortunately, it's hard to "think outside the box" because the box often exists for a reason. Most of what's outside the box is bad. Maybe it has also excluded something extraordinarily good, but you won't find it by casting about at random. Just telling people to think more radically doesn't seem to be helpful.
>Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?
That was my take away from the interview. And yes, I would agree the interview did not present the well.
My point is that those are legitimate criticisms, deceitful journalism and outright lies are not legitimate criticism.
We can debate how valuable it is to think outside the box is, and when to do it.
That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.
Heck, there are even legitimate reasons to be upset by what he said, but that doesn't justify lying about what was actually said. That benefits nobody but those who profit from clicks.
Agree 100%. I recently found that Kant had pretty much introduced this concept as categorical imperative[0]: 'Act as if the maxims of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.'
Another post from this author also appeared on HN recently[0]. What he so eloquently writes I have definitely experienced at more than one of my past large enterprise employers. Especially this weird allegiance to faux-Agile (I'm thinking of things like SAFe) in which their solution to all of the enterprise's problems was adding more process and giving middle managers more boxes to mindlessly check.
Switched to linux when they EOLed Windows 7 (slowly migrated my workflow over in advance using Linux distros in a VM). Couple that with how good Valve has made Windows gaming on Linux, I've never looked back.
99% of the time its always someone who has never actually used a proper Linux desktop OS lol and/or someone who couldnt even figure out how to list files on a Linux terminal.
reply