To be fair the author of this did found two massively successful businesses so I imagine he does understand tackling a business problem.

That applies outside of Scotland as far as I'm aware, whereas in Scotland there is a right to roam on all land as long as you're not disturbing housing/farm activities etc.

Good point

That's not far off the same cost as to get to Glasgow from London, looking for tomorrow it's between £55 and £70. Significantly longer though for yourself, the train here is around 4 hours 45 mins (give or take). It's also generally close to on time, and we have delay repay for anything over 15 minutes.

I assume it's deliberate that they've not mentioned OpenAI as one of the members when the other big players in AI are specifically called out. Hard to tell what this achieves but it at least looks good that a group of these companies are looking at this sort of thing going forward.

I don't see OpenAI as a member on https://thealliance.ai/members or any news about them joining the AI Alliance. What makes you believe they should be mentioned?

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft aren’t members either. But they’ve been mentioned.

I meant more it's interesting that they're not a member or signed up to something led by big players in AI and operating for AI safety. You'd think that one of, if not the largest, AI company would be a part of this. Equally though those other companies aren't listed as members, as the sibling comment says.

I think that's a reasonable heuristic, but I'd also say you have to take into account the human readability aspect of it. It sometimes does make sense IMO to split solely for that, if it allows you to "reduce" a complicated/confusing operation to a string name, leading to it being easier to understand at a glance.

Shouldn't split MegaFunction into Func1 and Func2, you should:

  MegaFunction()
  {
  Func1();
  Func2();
  ...
  FuncN();
  }

People will call MegaFunction() but it will be logically split internally.

This is how it's taught in school but the argument is that you shouldn't do that, instead just inline Func1 and Func2 and comment it better.

By chopping up MegaFunction like this, you've not actually separated Func1 and Func2 if they aren't really independent, they're just MegaFunction in disguise but now split across two places making it more difficult, not easier, to reason about.

If you need the state (implied or explicitly passed in and out) from having executed Func1 to run Func2 then you're just creating spaghetti code. You're taking a big ball of mud and smearing it around instead of actually tackling the abstraction.

This is how you end up with Func(a, b, c, d, &e, &f) which ends up changing your MegaFunction state.

Or just as bad, Func1,2,N are all private functions, never called anywhere else outside the class MegaFunction is in, so logically (and from the point of view of testability) it's no different to having them all inline.

If you're creating a function that's only ever called once, then instead of a function call you're probably better off with a comment to "name" that block and explain the process instead.

> you shouldn't do that, instead just inline Func1 and Func2 and comment it better.

Frankly It Depends(tm). Sometimes you can do this and not pass too much state, sometimes you can not. Sometimes your state is in a class, or global, and you just pass the class around.

I have somewhere a 3000 line state machine with the app state in a class - i just pulled out logically connected states in auxiliary files when it went over 1k lines. In my case it's easy to comprehend because groups of states are kinda separated logically.

Interesting how many people go straight to the cache - seems like we've all been there when we're accidentally overwriting keys with the wrong data!

Experience is the best teacher I guess, although we all seem to be doomed to make the same mistakes.

"There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors." -- Leon Bambrick

Heck, at least it wasn't DNS... This time. DAMN YOU DNS!

The title for this article is misleading. It only says they've agreed to a study to investigate it. There's a world of difference between that and actually approving a 4-day week for all.

They approved a trial for Glasgow city council workers - so they approved it for themselves.

I do see your point though - it could've been a bit clearer

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Submitted title was "Glasgow City Council approves 4-day week on full pay".)

Saying the title could be "a bit clearer" is going too easy. The title is patently false. They did not approve a 4-day week at all.

Title should be changed to say that they approved an agenda item to discuss whether they should think about considering a 4-day work week.

>They approved a trial for Glasgow city council workers - so they approved it for themselves.

Council workers are a separate group of people from the councillors who made the decision.

Got to justify the absolutely massive campus they've built by the Clyde somehow. In my experience, there's been quite the PR push recently on how amazing this new campus is (I'm not a Barclays employee).

I've not seen Storm being used anywhere sane for a few years at least now, and from a glance at job postings it looks unlikely. Spark, Kafka Streams etc. are definitely used in a modern data platform from my experience.

I think we're seeing a big shift with Hadoop-like workloads being moved onto cloud providers, so BigQuery, Amazon EMR etc.

I'm curious what constitutes "big data" anymore. In an intermediate machine learning course, we train on nearly a petabyte of data using Google Colab and Jupyter Notebooks. Nobody discusses the size of the data requiring any special treatment due to its size... would not 95% of a petabyte be "big data"?

Big data is a shifting concept as computers gain more storage and faster commodity processors.

My general rule of thumb is whether it is too big to put on my laptop. So greater than a couple of Tb's.

What course are you taking? Imagenet is only 150 GB, and Common Crawl is only 320 TB.

Big data is a moving target, but I’m comfortable defining it as data too large to fit in memory. Obviously, you can always get a bigger node, my rule is thumb is that if you need generators, you are working with big data.

Not just this, but the prevalence of strokes gained being the key metric to focus on for players has opened up a new understanding of what it takes to score well and win tournaments.