It's using "Fortnite" as a synecdoche for Epic Games, because "I have to give an age verification company owned by Epic Games my passport to use Bluesky" isn't quite as effective at revving the outrage engines, even if it has the benefit of being true. Personally, I don't think people who are willing to do that are showing themselves to be trustworthy but you might feel differently.
Two years ago there were also hundreds of people constantly panic-posting here about how our jobs would be gone in a month, that learning anything about programming was now a waste of time and the entire profession was already dead, with all other knowledge work guaranteed to follow. People were posting about how they were considering giving up on CS degrees because AI would make them pointless. The people who used language like "stochastic parrots" were regularly mocked by AI enthusiasts, and the AI enthusiasts were then mocked in return for their absurd claims about fast take-off and imminent AGI. It was a cesspool of bad takes coming from basically every angle, strengthening in certainty as they bounced off each other's idiocy.
Your memory of the discourse of that era has apparently been filtered by your brain in order to support the point you want to make. Nobody who thoughtlessly adopted an extreme position at a hinge point where the future was genuinely uncertain came out of that looking particularly good.
Bro. You’re gonna have a hard time finding people panic posting about how they’re going to lose their jobs in a month. Literally find me one. Then show me that the majority of people posting were panicking.
That is literally not what happened. You’re hallucinating. The majority of people on HN were so confident in their coding abilities that they weren’t worried at all. Just a cursory glance at the conversations back then and that is what you will see OVERALL.
I was in one of those early cohorts that used Octave, one of the things the course had to deal with was that at the time (I don't know about now) Octave did not ship with an optimization function suitable for the coursework so we ended up using an implementation of `fmincg` provided along with the homework by the course staff. If you're following along with the lectures, you might need to track down that file, it's probably available somewhere.
Using Octave for a beginning ML class felt like the worst of both worlds - you got the awkward, ugly language of MATLAB without any of the upsides of MATLAB-the-product because it didn't have the GUI environment or the huge pile of toolbox functions. None of that is meant as criticism at Octave as a project, it's fine for what it is, it just ended up being more of a stumbling block for beginners than a booster in that specific context.
I did that with Octave too. I didn't mind the language much, but it wasn't great. I had significant experience with both coding and simple models when doing it, so I wasn't a beginner; I can see it being an additional hurdle for some people. What are they using now? Python?
Believe Andrew Ng's new course is all Python now, yeah. Amusingly enough another class that I took (Linear Algebra: Foundations to Frontiers) kinda did the opposite move - when I took it, it was all Python, but shortly after they transitioned to full-powered MATLAB with limited student licenses. Guess it makes sense given that LAFF was primarily about the math.
Durov is also, relevantly, a naturalized French citizen in addition to his various other passports. It's not just "some jurisdiction", it's one he opted into!
The vast, overwhelming majority of chess games are not played in front of cameras or even in-person. The accusation in the article was about online play, and specifically blitz which is played online even more commonly than slower formats of chess because moving quickly is easier for many people with a mouse than a physical board.
The way people cheat online is by running a chess engine that analyzes the state of the board in their web browser/app and suggests moves and/or gives a +/- rating reflecting the balance of the game. Sometimes people run it on another device like their phone to evade detection, but the low-effort ways are a browser extension or background app that monitors the screen. The major online chess platforms are constantly/daily banning significant amounts of people trying to cheat in this way.
Chess.com and Lichess catch these cheaters using a variety of methods, some of which are kept secret to make it harder for cheaters to circumvent them. One obvious way is to automatically compare people's moves to the top few engine moves and look for correlations, which is quite effective for, say, catching people who are low-rated but pull out the engine to help them win games occasionally. It's not that good for top-level chess because a Magnus or Hikaru or basically anyone in the top few hundred players can bang out a series of extremely accurate moves in a critical spot - that's why they're top chess players, they're extremely good. Engine analysis can still catch high-level cheaters, but it often takes manual effort to isolate moves that even a world-champion-class human would not have come up with, and offers grounds for suspicion and further investigation rather than certainty.
For titled events and tournaments, Chess.com has what's effectively a custom browser (Proctor) that surveils players during their games, capturing their screen and recording the mics and cameras that Chess.com requires high-level players to make available to show their environment while they play. This is obviously extremely onerous for players, but there's often money on the line and players do not want to play against cheaters either so they largely put up with the inconvenience and privacy loss.
Despite all of the above, high-level online cheating still happens and some of it is likely not caught.
> It's not that good for top-level chess because a Magnus or Hikaru or basically anyone in the top few hundred players can bang out a series of extremely accurate moves in a critical spot - that's why they're top chess players, they're extremely good.
Interesting; I thought I'd read that even the very best players only average ~90% accuracy, whereas the best engines average 99.something%?
Top-level players regularly are in the 90-95% range aggregated over many games, with spikes up to 98-99%. If you have 98 or 99% accuracy over the course of an entire game (which happens sometimes!), it's either very short or you had significant sequences where you were 100% accurate. If that happened in one of my games it'd be clear evidence I was cheating, if it happens in a Magnus game it's him correctly calculating a complex line and executing it, which he does pretty often.
Edit: Even lower-level cheated games are rarely 100% accurate for the whole game, cheaters usually mix in some bad or natural moves knowing that the engine will let them win anyways. That's why analysis is usually on critical sections, if someone normally plays with a 900 rating but spikes to 100% accuracy every time there's a critical move where other options lose, that's a strong suggestion they're cheating. One of the skills of a strong GM is sniffing out situations like that and being able to calculate a line of 'only moves' under pressure, so it's not nearly as surprising when they pull it off.
To compute accuracy, you compare the moves which are made during the game with the best moves suggested by the engine. So, the engine will evaluate itself 100%, given its settings are the same during game and during evaluation.
You get 99.9something% when you evaluate one strong engine by using another strong engine (they're mostly aligned, but may disagree in small details), or when the engine configuration during the evaluation is different from the configuration used in a game (e.g. engine is given more time to think).
Accuracy is a poor measure for cheating since better chess players will put you in a more complicated position. I'm not especially good but I've played some games with high accuracy just because I just did some book moves and the opponent makes a mistake. Accuracy was high but the correct moves were never especially hard to see.
reading your description of the "invasiveness" of chess.com's surveillance of high level tournament play, I realized that chess.com could issue their own anal probe, a sonar listening device to check that there aren't any other anal probes in use. finally! we can be assured of a good clean game played fairly from both seats!
I actually like Helix a lot too, but it is different than (neo)vim in a lot of significant ways. It feels like alternate-universe vim more than just better defaults. It also doesn't just not require scripting, it doesn't support scripting (yet). Very interesting in its own right but it might not be what you want if you're familiar with (neo)vim already.
Lists like these are almost always more accurately titled "How I wish I'd been taught X" and are aimed squarely at a student who has never really existed, one who simply learns whatever is put in front of them and can therefore be steered by a heavy stack of "the best" books away from all the mistakes and dead ends and frustrations that real students face. Real pedagogy's tougher than that!
It has never been anywhere close to certain, we just had 20 years of wild, unsustainable growth that encouraged people to cover their eyes and pretend the ride would go on forever. 20 years of telling everyone under the age of 30 that of course they should learn to code and that CS was the new medical or legal degree. 20 years of smugly acting like we are the inevitable future when we are, in fact, subject to the same ups and downs as every other career.
The feature the person you're replying to is talking about is not arrow functions (`=>`), but what are called "threading macros" in other languages. In Clojure[1], the main one is named `->` and used as a way to thread a value through a series of functions that take it as a first argument, using the return value from the first function as the first argument to the second, and so on. It allows you to compose a series of plain functions to transform a value instead of (stateful) method chaining or nesting functions.
JS does not have a straightforward equivalent. The old and deprecated `with` keyword might seem similar but it's only a surface resemblance as it does not perform the return-value threading that makes the above pattern useful, it was meant for methods that mutate object state. There's a TC39 proposal[2] to add a pipe operator that would accomplish a similar thing to threading macros via an infix operator but it's still a draft.
The same trend is noticeable here on HN. Many threads are full of top-level posts that are just someone pattern-matching on a word they don't like in the headline and using it as an excuse to vent about whatever their pet issue is. Usually posts like that are magnets for zero-effort "me too"s and similar. Sometimes interesting discussions happen deeper in the threads, but it's disappointingly rare. It's really sad watching the entire internet turn into this, and I can't help but feel like places like Twitter/X and Bluesky are the source.
