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

it was only after I had to manage others that I realized the logic for a lot of these simplistic metrics and rules. they are in place to hold accountable the worst performers. a simple example is when i introduced flexible work hours. it was fine with most people, but there are always a few members that abuse the system. they stretch it to the very limit to what can be interpreted as "flexible". as a manager it posed a dilemma for me. i didn't want to take away this privilege just because of a few abusers, but it was both unfair and set bad precedents if I allowed them to get away with this. and let's say they couldn't be easily fired. most of my peers simply ended up going back to a system where people punched in and out.

Any system is going to have a free rider problem. I genuinely believe that if we stopped trying to force a large chunk of the population to look like they're busy when they have zero intrinsic desire to do anything well and will continually cut corners wherever they can, we'd reach a productivity golden age where there would be enough surplus for them to fuck off and be lazy out of the critical path. The stumbling block here is always the perception of unfairness, and it's a big one, but for anyone that really cares about their work or its quality, do you really want to always have to work with people who will only do the bare minimum to survive? Hopefully you aren't cold enough to want them to starve, but should they be forced to participate and drag everyone else down just to prove some kind of innate moral ethic? I wish that we as a society could approach this pragmatically instead of moralizing under a veneer of pragmatism.

Could not you just say to those few: 'you can't because I do not trust you'? You are the manager after all, your job is not to make them feel good but to make them work.

I don't think "some people on the team have privileges and others don't based on the manager's discretion" would be healthy in the long run either. Can you imagine interviewing for a team, asking about the PTO policy, and finding out that it varied like that? It would look pretty indistinguishable from "the people who that manager likes have special treatment" to me. You could hide it from prospective employees, but not knowing about it beforehand and then finding out from one of my teammates that the manager revoked their privileges (who presumably would have a chip on their shoulder about it and present the info with their own biases) would make me concerned that there was a bait-and-switch and now I'm stuck on a toxic team.

Yeah, I understand but on other hand you can't reward everyone with the same thing for different outcome. This is exactly what is happening with they pay, some people earns more, some less. People complain about it too. Do you think it is toxic too?

We people being people, and being manager when there is no outcome when everyone is happy, this is why I am not going to be manager. I just wanted to know honest opinion about how to solve it from the OP, or even if this is solvable.


A healthy company already needs to have processes for dealing with employees that aren't meeting expectations that don't involve revoking benefits like PTO. Those should be suitable for issues like this rather than crafting punishments specific to the nature of what specifically is going wrong.

What that would be for example?

even if this were true, PG (who can code, and can tell if someone else can) didn't think it was an issue when handing over YC to Altman.


Perhaps that says less of altman and more of YC.


this function will be a must-have for all home security systems. I used to spend hours going through home security cameras to check if our cat went out the house when the door was accidentally left open (turned out it was just really good at hiding within the house).


my question has always been why (I think most vertebrates) stop at two? It seems that an extra eye here and there could be really helpful. Maybe it's because all verterbrates evolved from an ancestor that had two eyes, and once the template is in place, it was simply too deep a local maximum to evolve out of? Similar to the 5-digit hand design that all vertebrates share.


TFA is about the fact that originally the vertebrates had at least 3 eyes, 2 lateral eyes and 1 median eye (pointing upwards towards the sky, in the middle of the head).

Most vertebrates, with the exception of a few species, like tuatara, have lost the middle eye.

The subject of the parent article is that it was expected that if the third eye was lost, the retinas of the 2 lateral eyes that have been preserved are derived from the retinas of the 2 ancient lateral eyes, but despite this expectation, the retinas of the modern lateral eyes of the vertebrates are derived from the retina of the ancient middle eye.


Well, from what I've read...

Spiders have 8 eyes. As with vertebrates, this number doesn't change, but there is variation in what it means.

A "normal" spider doesn't really use its eyes. It just has them.

Some spiders are different and rely on their vision. Those spiders have two primary eyes, which they rely on, and six secondary ones, which they don't.

Moving to insects, they often have compound eyes. Two compound eyes. A mantis has two primary compound eyes and three secondary non-compound eyes.

All this convergence suggests to me that even if you have the option to grow more eyes, the correct number is two.


There are also spider species with 6, 4, 2, and 0 eyes.


i'd love to watch its rendering of any of the recent big budget sci-fi productions


I thought this a pretty mature technique? I have seen more than once our local vet using this technique to treat cats with large wounds -- with great results by the way. Interestingly, they too used tilapia fish skin, and not any of the more common local fish species. I wonder if there is something special about tilapia fish skin, or it was simply the species on which the technique was developed, and nobody bothered to try using other fish species.


> I thought this a pretty mature technique? […]

Yes, it is very mature. The article was written in 2017.


Tilapia are cheap and abundant, and the skin is an industrial-scale waste product.

They're incredibly hardy, and unlike most other food fish you can easily grow them in simple container setups.


Horrible to talk about a living creature this way.


(i pick mackerel at random)

A female Atlantic mackerel typically lays between 200,000 and 450,000 eggs during a spawning season. However, larger, healthier individuals can sometimes produce up to a million eggs, often in multiple batches over several weeks.

it is the mackerel themselves who consider baby mackerel lives to be industrial in scale. they produce that many in anticipation of consumption. Each foodfish humans consume has already slaughtered untold thousands of other fish to grow themselves to size.


The thrive because all the fish who laid less eggs got eaten out of extinction. They don’t anticipate anything.


"Fish are friends, not food"—Finding Nemo. ;-)


"It's okay to eat fish

'cause they don't have any feelings" - Something in the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg5behq8PlM


What's special is that tilapia is probably cheaper than even the local fish since it's farmed in massive quantities and shipped all over the world as food.

If other fish skins were tried it must have been similar results.


Tilapia imports are heavily restricted to Australia, The live fish will not be allowed, they are considered "restricted noxious fish".

The rules are:

Illegal to Keep: You cannot keep tilapia (dead or alive), sell them, give them away, or use them as bait.

Immediate Euthanasia: Humanely kill the fish as soon as you catch it.

Disposal:

Bury: Bury them deep and well away from the water's edge to prevent scavengers from dragging them back in or floodwaters from releasing eggs.

Bin: Place them in a rubbish bin.

No Filleting: You cannot take fillets and dispose of the rest; the entire fish must be destroyed.

Various state departments have hotlines for reporting tilapia.

There are different hotlines per state:

Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) (13 25 23)

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (1800 675 888)

Victoria (VFA) Reporting hotline (13FISH or 13 34 74)

Western Australia Dept. of Primary Industries & Regional Development (1800 815 507)

I've had rewards for reporting them (fishing reel, free bait, etc).


For those that don't know why, and I didn't, the reason for this is that Tilapia are "mouth brooders", that is they keep the fertilised eggs in their mouth. So throwing away a dead female can cause these eggs to hatch, and reinfect the waters with new Tilapia.


I also hear you can dispose of them by placing them in a pan with fresh pulverized tomato, garlic, olive oil, basil, then a little lemon juice, oregano then finally, salt and pepper to taste. Highly effective, efficient and delicious.


Where I grew up (in northern Australia) a lot of people targeted and ate tilapia out of local estuaries .. there were a lot of them and they were big.


Hello cousin (Daintree adjacent here).


No need for antibiotics because the fish got ample amounts while growing up in the farm.


It's probably a mix of "this species happens to be unusually well-suited" and "this is the species people bothered to study rigorously first."


>I have seen more than once our local vet using this technique to treat cats with large wounds -- with great results by the way.

I'm not surprised, a lot of vets I know from Iraq and Afghanistan had used Tilapias for battlefield dressing. Worst case there was a Tilapia MRE people kept around for this purpose. Honestly it's great to see them taking those skills from war and translating them into helping street animals such as cats.


but then again in this day and age maybe marketing skills are more important than anything else...


I have never heard about Manus before that post about them reaching 100M ARR or something. Where did they advertise?


AI influencers on YouTube were going wild with demos for about 2 weeks around the middle of this year. It was enough to get me to sign up to the manus wait list but by the time they told me I was in I’d realised how superficial the recommendations from the YouTube crowd were. Also I’d seen a few waves of hype like that and realised how bogus the content was.


They're promoting it on Chinese social media. Although those media outlets are some AI-related self-publishers


I am getting the sense that the 2nd deriative of the curve is already hitting negative teritory. models get updated, and I don't feel I'm getting better answers from the LLMs.

On the application front though, it feels that the advancements from a couple of years ago are just beginning to trickle down to product space. I used to do some video editing as a hobby. Recently I picked it up again, and was blown away by how much AI has chipped away the repetitive stuff, and even made attempts at the more creative aspects of production, with mixed but promising results.


What are some examples of tasks you no longer have to do?


one example is auto generating subtitles -- elements of this tasks, e.g. speech to text with time coding, have been around for a while (openai whisper and others), but they have only recently been integrated into video editors and become easy to use for non-coders. other examples: depth map (estimating object distance from the camera; this is useful when you want to blur the background), auto-generating masks with object tracking.


I see the same, and there is a posting of that title (and linking to the correct paper) also on HN frontpage. wondering what's going on.


You're not alone. I saw that FHE paper earlier, so... what's going on?


I wonder if it's really just a function of how much work is involved in taking care of pets. I have had pet turtles and cats for years. Cats easily require 10x the amount of work to keep them happy and healthy.


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

Search: