My partner is a H1B tech worker employed by Meta; not working on AI/ML.

Given the Chinese government opposition to the Manus acquisition, is there any risk they could encounter for their upcoming H1B visa stamp in China?

Big Tech teams want to ship features fast, but measuring impact is messy. It usually requires experiments and traditionally every experiment needed one Data Scientist (DS) to ensure statistical validity, i.e., "can we trust these numbers?". Ensuring validity means DS has to perform multiple repetitive but specialized tasks throughout the experiment process: debugging bad experiment setups, navigating legacy infra, generating & emailing graphs, compensating for errors and biases in post-analysis, etc. It's a slog for folks involved. Even then, cases still arise where Team A reports wonderful results & ships their feature while unknowingly tanking Team B's revenue— a situation discovered only months later when a DS is tasked to trace the cause.

Experimentation platforms like Statsig exist to lower the high cost of experimenting. To show a feature's potential impact before shipping, while reducing frustrations along the way. Most platforms will eliminate common statistical errors or issues at each stage of the experiment process, with appropriate controls for each user role. Engs setup experiments via SDK/UI with nudges and warnings for misconfigurations. DS can focus on higher-value work like metric design. PMs view shared dashboards and get automatic coordination emails with other teams if their feature is seen as breaking. People still fight but earlier on and in the same "room" with fewer questions about what's real versus what's noise.

Separating real results from random noise is the meaning of "statsig" / "statistically significant". I think it's similar to how companies define their own metrics (their sense of reality) while the platform manages the underlying statistical and data complexity. The ideal outcome is less DS needed, less crufty tooling to work around, less statistics learning, and crucially, more trust & shared oversight. But it comes at considerable, unsaid cost as well.

Is Statsig worth $1B to OpenAI? Maybe. There's an art & science to product development, and Facebook's experimentation platform was central to their science. But it could be premature. I personally think experimentation as an ideology best fits optimization spaces that previously achieved strong product-market fit ages ago. However, it's been years since I've worked in the "Experimentation" domain. I've glossed over a few key details in my answer and anyone is welcome to correct me.

Business-wise, I think getting acquired was the right choice. Experimentation is too small & treacherous to build a great business, and the broader Product Analytics space is also overcrowded. Amplitude (YC 2012), to date, only has a 1.4B market cap.

Joining the hottest name next door gives Statsig a lot more room to explore. I look forward to their evolution.

I’m curious (as a solo dev) if there’s a market for such a product.

Smells like a strong bias against employees in favor of management and founders.

If the OP consulted with Turso on this blogpost, then Turso probably believes the reported behavior is indeed a failure or a flaw, which they think a local db should be responsible for.

The confusion is that Limbo, their solution to this presumed problem, is not mentioned in the article which means that everyone has to figure out where this post is coming from.

It makes sense for our age. Amid a thousand distractions, typing on the keyboard gives the illusion of getting a grip. Note-taking on my computer gives the illusion of a second brain. Ululating on the internet gives the illusion of sharing thoughts.

Instead of "writing is thinking", I prefer "thought precedes speech" https://inframethodology.cbs.dk/?p=1127; it fits the small human mind better though I've yet to learn it properly.

It's the organizing principle of the second generation of Rust's leadership[1]. Formally, it means "zero runtime cost"[2], but the now-former maintainers operated as though it meant Rust could get rid of all cost. The belief was that they can have a language that's faster than C, safer than Ada, more ergonomic than Java, more memory safe than Go, by either making the compiler do more work, or working more on the compiler. In practice, I think this belief caused massive complexity in the compiler, trade-off dishonesty in the community, and bad evangelism in domains unsuited for memory safety (e.g. games programming)

[1] Graydon, the original author of Rust, was against this idea.

[2] The term originates from C++ as "zero overhead" which was smaller in scope, and not a governing principle of the C++ language.

The Chinese Government backed up their mandate with money. Lots of money, allocated well, over a long period of time. In the absence of that sustained political will, I think this initiative would have succumbed the infighting and finger-pointing that the article above describes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_industry_in_C...

Rather, I saw the start of a flamewar below (not caused by you) and I figured I'd say my piece. But it came out wrong and you got flagged undeservingly.

Sorry about that :\

IMHO, the GP has a right to share his experience here as we do ours. A thread on the election of a pope, with a subthread on the beauty of church, is a fair venue for sharing. There's no need for prejudice, disguised as policing, on either side.

It's taking some of the addictiveness out of my screen viewing.

Children need grounding. "I need to win arguments with my own kids" is a vanity, that gives up a lot of the ground kids need for growing up.

Ton was actually against a UI overhaul for decades. There’s a video where power-users and Ton were vocally dismissing the need for a better UI, using GIMP-like arguments. There was at least one failed UI redesign in the early 2010s which I think Ton was quite involved with.

But something happened, the nature of which I don’t know. Then, Ton became hands-off and allowed the UI overhaul to take place, which I recalled made actual UX designers work with engineers.

My memory is foggy and I don’t have sources readily available. But I’m hoping someone will fill in the gaps or correct my understanding of events long past.

Specific to Bible Scholarship, I wager the two big sides are scholars who have faith (i.e., Nicene Creed) and scholars who have little. Bruce Metzger who had some faith, and Bart Ehrman who has none. RSV/ESV which says Jesus is the "Son of God" in Mark 1, and NRSVue which deletes "Son of God" from Mark 1.

It's quite a fault line.

That's quite a sweeping, even caustic, indictment.

Can you explain this statement more?

  [Update (2025-02-12): This post, which I thought of as a hasty update to the handful of people who followed my links, was posted to Hacker News for some reason. Yes, I should have provided evidence for the above judgment had I thought more people would read it. As ever, use your own judgment for these things.]

The part that's not addressed is "I want to reluctantly recommend even less services(/people?)." An eagerness to detract may not be hate but we're right to be wary of it.