Readit Newsjennyyang commented on Electricity over $900/MWh in most of Western US now caiso.com/pricemap/Pages/... · Posted by u/everybodyknows
900/Mwh is 90c per kwh. Normal wholesale is about 5-7c. Retail national average is about 14. Higher cost states are around 20c with Hawaii near 30c.
PG&E charges much more than 20c. Depending on the tier, it could be over $0.30/kWh. If you have time of day charges, it's even higher during the day, something ridiculously high.
jennyyang commented on Why “Trusting the Science” Is Complicated lareviewofbooks.org/artic... · Posted by u/pseudolus
Sometimes, the "science" is wrong. Everything from low-fat diets, to high sodium diets, to DDT, to MSG. Many of the things that we have literally been indoctrinated with have been fully wrong.
Most recently, when the government, most especially the Surgeon General and even Fauci, told people that masks don't work. That infuriated me and they instantly lost credibility with me. And it caused a split in Americans where too many believed that masks didn't work, even after they changed their tune. It was absolutely unnecessary to lie and it killed people.
So read the science. Listen to the science. But read up further, and make educated decisions. Don't just listen to "experts" blindly.
jennyyang commented on Teaching Students How to Cheat During the Pandemic daveeargle.com/2020/09/11... · Posted by u/reimbar
Absolutely ingenius. I love it!
Feels like we constantly talk about how interviews suck, but we kind of all know why.
1. It's tough to fire people (in that, if you ask someone to move and it turns out they aren't a good fit, it's kind of a jerk move to then drop them like a hot potato).
2. Performance indicators are tough. How do you know someone is doing bad vs good?
3. Keeping on a bad hire (especially one you can't identify), is damaging as heck. Best case scenario they don't get much work done, worst case scenario they suck away the time of all your good hires through bad decisions.
So while I agree that interviewing sucks, I've come to terms with why it is so bad.
If these ridiculous interviews don't produce top notch performance reviews after a year on the job, then the interviews are worthless.
If I were to ever try a startup (I won't), my philosophy would be to hire easily and fire easily. Do my level best to interview fairly, and give people a chance. But if they don't work out, fire them quickly and give them a 2-3 month severance bonus.
Then I would remove most titles and pay in the top tier. I think at the beginning of hiring, it would probably have a high turnover, but as the company matures, if it survives it will be filled with a lot of happy engineers that won't want to leave.
jennyyang commented on Pattern matching accepted for Python lwn.net/Articles/845480/... · Posted by u/eplanit
We seem to be seeing a paradigm clash. On one side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable. On the other side, there are people who are concerned with whether or not a feature is desirable and also Pythonic.
Yap. It doesn't make sense to destroy the language just to get in a particular feature. You don't need a language to do everything. It needs to be good at everything it's meant to be good at.
jennyyang commented on Pattern matching accepted for Python lwn.net/Articles/845480/... · Posted by u/eplanit
Core dev Larry Hastings [0] puts it well. The cost-benefit case for this complicated language feature is limited.
"I dislike the syntax and semantics expressed in PEP 634. I see the match statement as a DSL contrived to look like Python, and to be used inside of Python, but with very different semantics. When you enter a PEP 634 match statement, the rules of the language change completely, and code that looks like existing Python code does something surprisingly very different. It also adds unprecedented new rules to Python, e.g. you can replace one expression with another in the exact same spot in your code, and if one has dots and the other doesn’t, the semantics of what the statement expresses changes completely. And it changes to yet a third set of semantics if you replace the expression with a single _.
I think the bar for adding new syntax to Python at this point in its life should be set very high. The language is already conceptually pretty large, and every new feature means new concepts one must learn if one is to read an arbitrary blob of someone else’s Python code. The bigger the new syntax, the higher the bar should become, and so the bigger payoff the new syntax has to provide. To me, pattern matching doesn’t seem like it’s anywhere near big enough a win to be worth its enormous new conceptual load."
This while we have elephants in the room such as packaging. Researching best practices to move away from setup.py right now takes you down a rabbit hole of (excellent) blog posts, and yet you still need a setup.py shim to use editable installs, because the new model simply doesn't yet support this fundamental feature.
I can't afford to spend days immersing myself in packaging to the point of writing a PEP, but would help pay someone to do it well. I can see no way to fund packaging efforts directly on the PSF donations page (edit: see comment). It's great to see Pip improving but there is still not even a coherent guide that I can find for packaging using up-to-date best practices. This appears to be because the best practices are currently slightly broken.
[0] https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
Anything that breaks and changes semantics should not be allowed into the language. Let Python be Python, not a Frankenstein's monster of ideas like C++. If it were an idea that were Pythonic, you would not see the confusing examples I've seen in the comments. C++ is the poster child of trying to do too much with the language and it losing itself due to death-by-committee. It's very sad that Python has started down this road.
Just another example of how a virtual monopoly can get away with terrible, shameful and nonexistent customer support because they can. It's monopolistic behavior, but an passive form of it. Instead of actively engaging in monopolistic activity, they remove essential customer support because they have no competition. This really needs to be regulated quickly. Amazon, Google, Facebook all coomit the same behavior by hiding behind bots and algorithms with no customer support and there's nothing we can do because they are so dominant.
We need regulations to enforce adequate customer service and SLAs in these huge companies.
Google is getting away with this behavior because of their monopolistic behavior. If they had competition, they would be spending billions on customer support, but because they have a monopoly, they can get away with having virtually none. This is their way of saving money and taking advantage of their monopoly. It's a shadow version of monopolistic behavior where the absence of services can be done because we have no choice. We need to politicize this issue.
Facebook is exactly the same way.
When a company reaches such dominance, and when people completely rely on a company like we all rely on Google, Facebook, et al., then we need regulations to prevent what is happening right now, which is using their monopoly to make life easier for them by not spending any money on customer support.
But overall lack of testing capability is one of the stupidest things that happened over this past year. The US should have free testing available to everyone at least once a week. The capacity to test 100 million people in 2 days should have been built up, because testing is so vitally important to understanding what is going on. The fact we don't have that should be a crime because it has lead to so many deaths.
One thing to keep in mind is that a very bad flu went around in February/March. I know at least 10 people that thought they had COVID but didn't, because this flu was occurring at the same time. The other thing that many people have gotten mixed up with COVID is severe allergies. Try taking daily antihistamine to see if that clears up her coughing. Antihistamines need to be taken for weeks at a time in order to get good effectiveness, doing it one-off isn't nearly as effective. Her illness last March, be it COVID or not, may have made her more susceptible to alleriges or anything that irritates her lungs.