In my case, only recently I learned the value of getting an LLM to write and refine a plan.md architecture doc first, and for it to break that doc down into testable phases, and then to implement phase by phase.
Seems obvious in hindsight. But it took too long to learn that that should be my approach. I had been going phase by phase myself- no overarching plan.md for the LLM.
What Trick of the Trade took you too long to learn?
- As a formal test suite in the program's own language?
- Or using a .md natural language "tests" collection that must pass, which an LLM can understand?
1. Make PRs small, but not as small as you can possibly make them.
2. Intend to write at least one nice-ish test suite that tests like 50-80% of the LOC in the PR. Don't try to unit test the entire thing, that's not a unit test. And if something is intrinsically hard to test - requires extensive mocking etc - let it go instead of writing a really brittle test.
3. Tests only do two things: help you make the code correct right now, or help the company keep the code right long term. If your test doesn't do either, don't write it.
4. Ok - now code. And just keep in mind you're the poor sod who's gonna have to test it, so try to factor most of the interesting stuff to not require extensive mocking or shit tons of state.
I've found this workflow works almost anywhere and on almost any project or code. It doesn't require any dogmatic beliefs in PR sizes or test coverages. And it helps prevent the evils that dogmatic beliefs often lead you into. It just asks you to keep your eyes open and don't paint yourself into a corner, short term or long term.
An investing prof at Chicago puts this on the whiteboard at the start of semester, saying this is really all most people need to know and this class is unlikely to learn anything in his or any class that will let them, personally, do better.
Mostly on the tax side. Some specific examples:
- after maxing out your 401k what should you do next? IRA? Mega backdoor roth? Something else?
- If you have kids, how to best save for future education expenses? Hint: consider 529 plan.
- HSA is technically the best tax advantaged account, most high earners don’t realize it and “waste” the HSA funds to reimburse typical medical bills. HSA has triple tax benefits: contributions are tax-free, growth is tax-free, and withdrawals are also tax-free after age 65 for any reason, not just medical expenses. So basically investing without any tax obligation. You can also withdraw tax free before 65, but for medical expenses only.
i could go on…investing is great, but reducing your tax obligation is an even more powerful technique if you want to grow your net worth.
529 plans can get a bit more complicated because you'll want one from your state (if your state has an income tax) and they may offer several, but then it's less about knowing tax code specifics than about what the differences are between their offerings.
It’s really not that hard and i don’t understand why more people aren’t interested. Let’s reframe for a minute…if i said a high earner could retire a year earlier, or maybe even a few years earlier just by learning some semi-advanced tax strategies. Should they do so? Yeah. They’d be crazy not to lol.
I wouldn’t consider those options needing much motivation or research. The key with all of them is investing early and leaving it alone.
I do agree people should call vanguard. But just blindly following steps they give you is unlikely to be productive if you don’t understand why you’re doing those steps. Furthermore, those people who don’t understand _why_ will freak out every time there’s a huge market correction. They get scared - because they don’t understand any of it.
I’m also curious, do they offer financial advice for your accounts outside vanguard? Genuinely curious since i’m unsure.
Replace Vanguard with any other firm but the key is picking low fee ETFs and leaving them alone. Vanguard tends to have a reputation for the lowest fees.
One additional trick though is that it looks like you can pay for any HSA-eligible medical expenses (incurred after you created the HSA) out-of-pocket now, and reimburse your bills at any point in the future? Thus you can still earn interest on the cash before withdrawing it at any point in the future (treating it as tax-free liquidity).
(I don't fully understand this so these are questions not statements, but hopefully I'm correct!)
That's what I understood too. That claim that you can completely skip taxes looks wrong.
You can pay cash for a qualified medical expense in 2025 and take out that amount of money from the HSA decades later.
What I should have said is that after 65 you can spend it on non medical stuff without penalty. BUT if you do so you’ll owe tax that year (withdrawal).
So to summarize, you can avoid all tax if it’s spent on medical stuff. For non medical (post 65) it’s still good, but not as good.
Still an amazing deal because old people tend to spend a lot more on healthcare.
Cigna refused to lift a finger unless i sued them both.
yeah, i wouldn't recommend that.
I was lucky, my physics department administrator told me the same thing when I was graduating.
The 2ND best piece of advice is to rollover your 401k when you move to a new company -> this cost me at least 500k because they effectively stagnate when your company isn't paying the maintenance cost (AIUI).
Is this true? My understanding is that the fees come out of the account itself. There's other good reasons to roll over (primarily investment flexibility) but I have not heard of something like this.
It's definitely got a solid track record and good fees, but these are things I'd feel weird about advertising it on HN for.
1. Invest enough to get the company match in an S&P 500. It probably isn’t Vanguard that your company uses
2. Pay off all of your debt except your house (and maybe your car)
3. Max out your HSA - if you are married it’s - $8550
4. Max out your 401K - again that’s probably not through Vanguard - $23500
5. Step 5 - then call Vanguard and depending on your income just do a Roth up to $8000 (?).
(Unless you are over 50 then do catch up contributions as 4.5)
If you are under 50, you can do $40,500 tax advantaged and over 50 $48050
Also, on step 4, you may need to do a backdoor Roth IRA if you’re over the Roth IRA income limits.
The issue is that most companies don’t allow it because of compliance reasons and rules regarding highly compensated employees. Of course the one company that did allow it was BigTech.
Not that I’m missing much. I doubt I will be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than I am now and I live in a state tax free state.
These are obviously champagne problems but if you’re a high earning W2 it’s worth considering.
I had a class where the teacher did something similar, but she showed that if you started a ROTH today and contributed only the 4 years you were in college and then stopped forever. You would have nearly the same amount of money as someone who started 1 year after they completed college and invested every year until retirement.
Ultimately she was encouraging us to take out student loans and invest it or use any excess scholarship money to max out a ROTH IRA. She even advocated for investing all student loan money and opening credit cards tp actually pay for college, making minimum payments until graduation. Then moving away to a LCOL country and learn the language for 8-9 years while remaining in school taking 1 online class a year and travelling the world on student loans and not to worry about starting a career until 30 and start paying once you are back and start a job.
This is a fantastic course. It covers a lot of ground.
If you want to actively invest, this will help you learn the mechanics. But in the end, what you really learn, is that you can't beat the market.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-401-finance-theory-i-fall-200...
Starting my adult life with the markets in freefall made it hard to get in the habit of investing. All through school, people told me "most people don't start investing until their 30s, and end up in a worse than they ought to because the time-value of money compounds a bunch if you add a few more years." I thought I knew better than to be one of those people.
Instead, I ended up keeping a lot of savings in cash during years when the interest rates were approximately 0. I've tried to get better at putting money into the markets over the past few years, but my financials look very different than they might have.
> In other words, 2008 had no meaningful impact on you then.
People who graduated in the late 00s might not have accrued big financial losses, but it had a very meaningful impact on my comfort investing.
There are still a few special cases where macros are useful, such as the multiple #include trick where a macro #defined before the #include determines what the macro invocations in the include file does -- really helpful for building certain kinds of tables.
The #include trick is called the "X Macro". I used it extensively, and eventually just removed it.
(I have never played with it -- I saw the ads in Byte but I never met anybody who had tried it. It seemed so ridiculously cheap that I felt it had to be a scam ;) )
Using timing coincidences in particle physics experiments is incredibly powerful. If multiple products from the same reaction can be measured at once, it's usually worth looking into.
Circular saws using wood cutting blades with carbide teeth can cut aluminum plates.
You can handle and attach atomically thin metal foils to things by floating them on water.
Use library search tools and academic databases. They are entirely superior to web search and AI.
also in general bayesian statistics
random medium article: https://medium.com/pythoneers/monte-carlo-simulation-ideas-a...
The main example is, you're considering leasing new equipment that might save you money. What's the risk that it will actually cost more, considering various ranges of potential numbers (and distributions)?
I think it's harder to apply to software since there are more unknowns (or the unknowns are fatter-tailed) but I still liked the book just for the philosophical framing at the beginning: you want to the measure things because they help you make decisions; you don't need perfect measurements since reducing the range of uncertainty is often enough to make the decision.
There may exist an analytical solution for this, but I wouldn't trust myself to derive it correctly. It would certainly be a huge mess.
If we add that the source is also a right cylinder instead of point source, and we want to add first order attenuation of emitted gammas by the source itself, the spreadsheet becomes only a bit more complex, but there will not be a pen and paper equation solution.
In this example every row of the spreadsheet would represent a hypothetical ray. One could randomly choose a location in the source, a random trajectory, and check if the photon intersects the detector. An alternative approach would be randomly choosing points in both target and detector, then doing additional math.
The results are recovered by making histograms and computing stats on the outputs of all the rows. You probably need a few thousand for most things at least. Remember roughly speaking 10k hits gets you ~1% statistics.
My understanding is that these sorts of questions come up in ML, and there are ways of dealing with it, but they can't converge nearly as fast as simple iterations like Newton's method. Even if I have to take a series approximation instead of a simple formula, I'll be able to use autodiff (or at worst, symbolic differentiation) to get quick and precise answers to these questions.
I would call these databases complementary, not "entirely superior". There are two main advantages. One is that these databases will contain many things that you can't find on Google. The second advantage of these databases is that they are designed for advanced searchers and have more powerful query languages. Google on the other hand is dumbed down and will try to guess what you want, often doing a poor job. You can get very specific on these databases in ways that you can't with Google.
Related: I'm somewhat fascinated by more specialized bibliographic databases because they often contain things that can't be found on Google or the major commercial databases I listed above. I started keeping a list of them. https://github.com/btrettel/specialized-bibs
and academic/library search is indeed so underrated!
What is likely to happen if I do (or don't do) this thing one thousand days (or times) in a row?
Examples:
- exercising 2h per day and eating right --> I'm going to look and feel great and my health will be far better than that of my peers
- Should I buy these cookies along with the rest of my groceries? If I do that 1,000 grocery trips in a row …
- spending 30+ minutes per day reading the highest quality material I can find; taking notes; and figuring out ways to implement the knowledge and ideas I gain --> …
I think you'd like Atomic Habits [1] if you haven't read it already.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Habits-Proven-Build-Break/dp/0...
1. Discarding the bullshit. A consistent practice of weighting assumptions and conclusions on evidence/numbers helps identify biases and motives from other people.
2. Measures allow for value identification and performance. Most people just guess at this. Guessing is wrong more than 80% of the time and often wrong by multiple orders of magnitude.
Most people don’t think like this and find this line of thinking completely foreign, so I often just keep my conclusions to myself. To see a movie about this watch Money Ball.
And then iterating on it over time, and I find what’s valuable and what’s not.
"Everything worth doing is worth doing badly"
And as a corollary, every complex system that works came from a simple system that works.
I learned this in programming, but now I apply it on everything from motorcycle maintenance, home appliance repair to parenting.
--
Often the easier way to fix a complex system is to pretend that it could be simpler and then reintroduce the complexity-inducing requirements.
I had a professor who taught debugging as a whole another skill from programming and used to say "Most of programming is starting from an empty editor and debugging until your code works".
The debugging "lab" in Java course (in the year 2000) was one of my transformational after-school classes - where I got a java program which fits within 2-3 pages of print code with a bug and was told to go find it in print for ~20 minutes, then given 40 minutes with a debugger instead.
"Do the simplest thing that works" is one of the few core architecture principles I stick my neck out for time and time again. Why write a simple function when you can spend a week accounting for every imagined corner case and implement modular expansion capabilities! Please... stop...
I empathize with the debugger story. If you're super deep in a language it makes sense to know the debugger inside and out. But stdout is universal and I've never been a specific language developer rather than being able to jump into whatever is needed.
journal before you start your day
buy some sort of electric kettle
Shellcheck (and Wooledge) are crucial!
My advice is look at the numbers very carefully and choose something that is (below) or fits your budget. Sudden financial issues like the loss of a job or new vehicle purchase can put a big strain on all this.
Americans are obsessed with owning a home at all cost. This means that you are effectively bidding against people that do not even do the math. They are ready to spend Millions of dollar on something that is comparatively cheap to rent.
The fact that absolutely everyone wants to buy pushed prices through the roof. The good news is that you can take the other side of this bet. it's called renting.
Currently in most places in the US you will save literally millions over the 30 year mortgage by renting and investing in the market instead.
Reminder that renting and owning is functionally almost exactly the same thing.
Never trust your realtor and never trust other homeowner that most of the time never did the math (We all know those people: "I bought my home for 500k 15 years ago. It is now worth 1M$, therefore I made 500k$").
In other words, let other people take the irrational side of this bet and take the rational side by renting. It's an arbitrage opportunity.
In fact, even when taking them into account, it still doesn't make sense for most Americans to own. (In today's market).
Renting and investing is still the way to go for at least 75% of Americans (this is slightly more nuanced for low cost of living areas, but hold true for any MCOL or HCOL areas).
Eventually the math could make sense again, but right now owning is a huge luxury that will cost you millions in the long run.
I invite you to play with this calculator: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
Owning can feel suffocating at times, and like a ball and chain at others. You can't just decide you don't like it or the area anymore and go. Maintenance is also no joke.
Renting feels ephemeral. Getting kicked out at lease end sucks, it's hard to uproot everything and start over. Having inane rules and a landlord constantly drive by can make you feel both infantile and spied on.
I've done both off and on and those are my own thoughts on the two.
Financially only it's easy to pick a winner. But for some, one of these factors may be worth the extra however much money the difference is.
Ok, but how much do you really value this over? Is it worth 2M$ over 30 years? Because in a lot of cases this is what you leave on the table by deciding to own.
Why? Because rent inflates like crazy over here! In the Bay Area 7%+ a year is completely expected, and 10% is not unusual. I have been all over the Bay Area for more than a decade (San Francisco proper, East Bay, South Bay) and know this well. It's been nuts.
Random example: the 1 bedroom apartment that I lived in 2012 and was then going for $1,500 a month, is now going for $3,800 in the exact same building (with no/minimal renovations it seems, I just looked it up). An ~8% YoY increase. That will do it to any buy vs rent calculator, very easy to break even in under 5 years, and that's excluding the speculative ability to refinance if interest rates go down from the current 7%, in which case it becomes a huge boost.
Renting as a long term choice just works in European countries where normal people can lock in 5+ year leases with no or minimal rent increases. America is too profit-seeking and greedy for that.
I still rent for flexibility reasons, but I definitely see it as a luxury lifestyle choice, the most financially responsible thing would be to buy, even in HCOL.
All this in my opinion and personal experience, totally fine if people see it differently.
Even if rent increases a lot, the buy to rent ratio is so horrible that it could continue to increase for MANY more years before buying could make sense.
I invite you to use the NYT Rent or buy calculator, It is clear as day: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
- Rent: $3,500
- Home price: $700,000 (a similar unit just sold for this price a few months ago in my building)
- Rent increase: 8%
- All other parameters left as default, which seem reasonable (and as I said, there might be chances of refinancing over the next 10 years, which would drastically skew the picture, but I'm leaving that assumption out)
The ratio of 0.5% monthly rent/price is common for non-luxury "dated" condos all over the city, so I think my situation reflects well the typical renter.
Once again, in my personal experience, guided by a decade+ of living here, what people miss is the crazy rate of rent inflation. There is always a massive rent increase right around the corner, and God forbid if you are forced to move (because the landlord wants you to, it happened a couple times), then you take a gigantic hit at market rate. Once you factor in these occasional resets and the standard yearly increase, you get very close to 10% rent increase.
I guess people now expect free shipping via Amazon and boy does this make things sell faster.
- Buying a house: Is this the best return I can get on a downpayment. (Spoiler: It is not).
- Accepting a specific job offer: Is this the best way to spend 8 hours a day?
- Not making a successful trade, is as much as a loss than losing money explicitely on a trade.
- If you own something, you should consider what could you do with it's cash value if you sold it instead.
- If you have a paid off home, could you sell it and get a better ROI with the cash equivalent and rent instead? (The answer is yes and you should do it).
Also regardless of the quality of the examples, it may be the case that the point (opportunity cost is important to consider) is still valid.
I have seen too many of my loved ones work until their 70s because they didn't think about those concepts enough. That is what is sad.
Smaller and more recent: iTerm has deep tmux support. Just do `tmux -CC` to start your session or `tmux -CC a` to attach to it and you don't have to memorise all the tmux commands.
Doing the real math is the trick of the trade. The math for owning has been made so that it looks like a good deal while in reality it is not at all. Most people will literally compare mortgage to their rent, or "I sold my house I bought for 500k for 1M$, therefore I made 500k$".
Treat owning as a luxury item. The same way you would own a sport car or travel on a private jet. Do the (real) math and realize Owning is costing you money.
Also don't let yourself get emotional about buying a house. Society has made it look as if buying a house was a proof of success. A lot of research shows that once people buy they lose flexibility, feel more stuck, cannot access higher paying job in a different places etc. Renting has a ton of advantages.
This calculator get most things right. As an exercise, you can try to retroactively put the numbers for the house you bought and the rent equivalent. The results might surprise you: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
This calculator get most things right. As an exercise, you can try to retroactively put the numbers for the house you bought and the rent equivalent. The results might surprise you: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
I’ll bite: what’s the problem? If anything mortgage is even more favorable than rent because part of it goes to paying off the principal. Which is still your money, just in a different asset. But I guess you include this and still reach the opposite result?
Are you talking about taxes or maintenance or something ? Which country / locality? What time span? How many places are there where you would’ve been better off renting than buying in recent memory… not where I’ve lived but you never know!
The rent is the maximum you will ever pay for that period. The mortgage is the minimum you will pay and doesn't include the downpayment, repairs, HOA, Insurance and tax increases. It also doesn't include the closing costs, realtor costs, all the fees.
This is why the math is so complex. People easily forget all those fees and costs to make the math look simple.
This also takes into account that you invest into the US market and equity with all the cash that you would have had to spend on your house.
I'm talking about the US, but this holds true in multiple countries.
To answer your last question: In almost all HCOL (SF, Seattle, ...) you would have been way better renting than buying, except if you time it perfectly. If you look at today's market you would almost definitely be better renting than buying (But nobody knows the future...)
* Insurance and tax increases: real and you have to deal with them, but they don't go up as fast as rent does. Advantage: owning
* HOA fees: don't buy an HOA home, problem solved. You should do that anyway just because HOAs suck ass.
* Down payment: not a real cost, that money is yours in the form of equity
* Closing costs and other fees: real but completely negligible when amortized over the life of the home.
* Repairs: real, and they suck. This is the only place renting can stack up superior, but you can do a lot to mitigate this by doing your due diligence up front and not buying a dud house. Overall, unless you get unlucky you should come out ahead, but you can lose the die roll.
* Realtor costs: greatly depends. When we bought our house we paid zero, because the seller pays the buyer's costs. This can be a serious cost if you're changing houses a lot, but... just don't do that (for multiple reasons).
Overall, after buying my house 7 years ago I'm coming out ahead month over month (thanks to rent going up like clockwork every year, while my mortgage has stayed the same). By the time I die, I will be significantly ahead, and that's not even taking into account unrealized gains in the value of the property. Which I don't count for much, because my home is a place to live and not an investment vehicle. But maybe someday it'll do me good, or my heirs.
Owning a home really is a great deal for the vast majority of people in the US. It's not some society wide conspiracy, it's not an ad to get others into the market so you can benefit, it's the truth.
The things is, I didn't put the same cash outflow in stocks. For various reasons. But mainly, it was just not psychologically palatable to max out my investments on equity by streching my finances. With hindsight, given the buffer in most real estate investments (left with tangible assets, banks shouldering some of the risk etc.) it would have been a lot more psychologically palatable to investment my max in real estate.
My point is not that real estate is "best". But merely, there is a lot more to returns than cold numbers. If you think you already understand it, and are under 30, you are likely underestimating the significance of that. I know I did.
But I don't know if I agree with you, I understood in my twenties that housing was generally a bad investment. We are now 10 years later and I invested everything in the stock market instead and came way ... way ahead than if I bough one or more houses.
I personally find it way way more scary to buy an average 2M$ house that could crash and lose half of its value overnight than the whole American economy that is relatively diversified. What happens if there is a fire in your neighborhood? Or if your city is the next Detroit? We have been made to believe a house is a safe investment. I personally think it's the scariest least diversified investment you could ever make.
Doing the numbers on (most) developed economies, buying freehold housing is typically a worse investment than stocks before leverage, but after, RE almost always comes ahead. Nobody is going to let you mortgage a basket of stocks, but almost any bank will let you do that with a house.
That said - I hate this idea because I think this kind of thinking is what has lead to many of societies problems in the developed world at the moment. But, from a rational point of view the numbers make sense.
The leverage is absolutely required because all the fees that come with real estate (Realtors, Interest, HOA, Taxes, Insurances, Closing costs, Downpayment opportunity cost,...). The leverage makes it an OK investment, but still historically not on the level of a diversified basket of stocks.
The leverage also works in both ways and essentially makes your house an even more risky asset. It supposes that it only ever goes up which has not always been the case historically.
…and now having viewed their calculator, I find it disingenuous that they haven’t added this as an additional configurable step, given how many bells and whistles their tool has. The takeaway from the tool is that you should never buy in HCOL areas, but renting out rooms in your unit is potentially a way to make it work out financially.
In general, real estate rental investment are terrible subpar investment. How would this be different?
This may seem obvious but when I was younger I used to spin out in frustration at bugs.
vouaobrasil•10h ago
juliansimioni•8h ago
Simple example: Can you get more done working 12 hours a day than 8? Sure, for the first day. Second day maybe. But after weeks, you're worse off in one way or another.
It's easy to chase imaginary gains like automating repetitive tasks that don't actually materialize, but some basics like sleep, nutrition, happiness, etc are 100% going to affect you going forward.
* I actually hate that word, and prefer saying "effectiveness". Productivity implies the only objective is more, more, more, endlessly. Effectiveness opens up the possibility that you achieve better results with less.