jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
The correct answer is not the passing answer. The purpose of an interview, both for the candidate and the company, is to see if you're the right fit. If you say "Oh yes I agree with your DEI goals" and you don't, you'll be miserable pretending to care about them your whole job, same as if you said "Oh yes I love showing up at 8 AM wearing a suit" if you don't to a company that cares about you doing so.
they don't resent him. They absolutely love him. He can be a handful at times (what is isn't?) but they do love him.
I regret I’m 20 years past my “have the entire opus memorized” days, but that doesn’t ring any bells.
It would seem to me that copyright might be the issue here. I don't see why telling the story of a similar incident requires that anyone be compensated. Unless they want to use real names.
Inflation and changes to the money supply are not the same thing. This conflation gets pushed by libertarians/techno-libertarians constantly. The money supply can increase and inflation (the price of goods and services) can go down.
I know it would be fine with a lot of sensible people, but a lot of people just lock in on what they perceive to be a problematic remark and stop listening. You must have experienced it yourself at many points where someone you talk to just took something you said and refuse to listen to anything else. This is just as prevalent among all political sides, just that you are familiar with the group you grow up with so you don't trigger their irrational reactions as much.

Now I've read a lot about American culture and politics online, but a more ignorant person with my experience would just bluntly say that as if it was common sense and as you saw you homed in on forcing people to speak English yourself. If you were a bit less understanding it would have ended the hiring process right there.
This sounds like an echo chamber
[0] and [3] are current-dollar (i.e. not inflation adjusted). Easy to calculate, but rather difficult to evaluate (in terms of purchasing power) with a figure 60 years later.

[2] is inflation adjusted. Methodologies for that can vary quite a bit (other inflation adjustment sites give a value >$20K) but the result is a more meaningful comparison.

I have no idea what [1] is supposed to be, and they don't seem to be giving any sources or listing any methodology.
There is no formal process for assessing the complexity of a theory or an interpretation, which leads to some interesting disagreements.

Consider the Many-Worlds Interpretation[0] of quantum mechanics. Its proponents say you need just a pretty small assumption (the Universe branches under certain conditions), and its critics say assumption is a huge deal, because it postulates an astronomically high (erm, cosmologically high) number of Universes that we can't observe.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

> Would it be reasonable to think of the "true model" of the universe as having infinite complexity, and we are trying to approximate it by adding features and interactions stepwise?

Nobody knows.

So far, we have very successful theories (general relativity, quantum field theory) that rely on a small number of equations with a small number of terms each. That gives hope that at least the laws that govern the Universe are not infinitely complex, but we cannot really know for sure.
Are you willing to relocate, for a better (ie great) role?
I once played chess against one of the owners of the company at the Friday afternoon drinks event. When things started to look good for me he just left the drinks event. He does not seem to hold it against me in any way, though. When the other owner arrived a bit later at the drinks and was told about this, he found it rather funny and said that it was typical of the other owner. All in all, it was kind of funny.
League of legends I've noticed is pretty popular among women too.
By pretty much the same argument strong encryption cannot work because governments would prefer it not to exist; terrorists and rogue states can use encryption, and it is not technically possible to build encryption that "only works for the good guys".

In reality there is an ongoing battle over encryption where various governments try to ban it, people fight back, etc. I suspect that we will see the same thing play out over cryptocurrency.

In any case I don't see anyone on hacker news asking how we can design an encryption algorithm that prevents all and only the bad uses of encryption. It is generally understood to be a dumb question because good and bad are complicated enough that we cannot hope to formalize them right now, and ad-hoc attempts to make a technology only work for the good guys have been repeatedly shown to help the bad guys (e.g. backdoors etc)
“By curing 99% of cancers you created the very context for people dying of cancer.”

Making some people rich doesn’t create poor people. They were poor before.
> This blog post is intended for a non-technical audience

"OK, folks, let's start briefly with bridging firewall/NAT/non-static-IP-addr/UX by network port-forwarding, and then move on to the protocol scenario event trace diagrams..." :)

I appreciate this writer's work to document the surprising technical failings, and to try to protect people. And there's some good effort to make it accessible to non-technical audience, though some of it seemed a bit confusing/intimidating.

This might be a good occasion for coaching from (or collaboration with) a professional journalist or other writer. As a techie myself, I can only guess what the result of expert help might be, but maybe even more inverted-pyramid writing style for this audience's perspectives, getting into understandable threats/implications near the top, and then supporting that with the minimum technical explanation necessary. With a pointer to a very technical separate post, for credibility, and for the benefit of journalists and other techies.

BTW, maybe my contemporary US cultural bias is showing here (and the article mentioned UK)... I saw some mentions of "parent" where it seemed some of the threats might be more understandable, and more persuasive to some of the people who could benefit, were it to include something to the effect of "...or ill-intentioned computer-savvy person, outside the daycare, or even anywhere on the Internet". Not to promote paranoia over stranger-danger, but those aren't hypothetical additional vulnerabilities to which I think a parent would want their child exposed for (what appears to be) absolutely no reason.
>Q: Can you explain the value proposition of DSLs?

A: Cognitive Impedance Matching
One thing I rarely see addressed in these discussions is the effect that tech salaries have on cost of living generally, and how that affects tech hubs and the communities they take root in. My city (Seattle) has long been Microsoft adjacent and not quite as long home to other tech behemoths. But the real tech boom here has drastically increased the cost of living and I’ve heard similar stories from other cities.

It’s already a burden for many of the people I know who work in the service industry or other lower paid jobs that don’t scale with median income. I’ve seen one major wave of gentrification push out families who’d been in their neighborhoods for generations, and I can’t imagine the impact it would have if Seattle tech workers distorted the market with SV salaries, all else being equal.

It’s not that I don’t want everyone to be paid their value, and I’m glad there’s increasingly an openness to more transparent wage information geographically. But I think something important is missing in the conversation and I think it could also be important to tech workers when negotiating their own comp: solidarity isn’t just looking out for one another, it’s also looking out for oneself.

I could imagine the fight against location based pay being a lot more effective if the fight was part of a coalition that supports and coordinates with much less privileged workers who are far more affected by huge capital influx in their communities.
Looks like github1s really kicked off everyone making these git previewers.

Thread about git-peek (which the author here cites as inspiration) from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26108039

And the top commenter there created a cute bash 10-liner that basically implements the same functionality: https://git.sr.ht/~alexdavid/dotfiles/tree/master/bin/git-pe...
This professors grad students must be well paid!
> The NYT has wide latitude to do as it wishes in any given case and isn’t obliged to be perfectly consistent.

I think the NYT is perfectly within its legal rights to publish bad journalism. If the NYT decided tomorrow to transform itself into the left-wing equivalent of Breitbart, that would be entirely legal, and so it should be.

But just as NYT has every right to publish what it wants, others have just as much a right to judge it negatively for doing so.

It is not legally obliged to be consistent, and I don't think it should be legally obliged to be consistent either. Giving the legal system the power to police journalism is very risky business, and I don't think the risk is worth it.

However, I personally think it is morally obliged to be consistent, and I will judge it negatively if it fails to be so – you may disagree, but maybe that's a sign that you and I have different moral values.

> The only interesting question here

Maybe the questions that interest you are different from the questions that interest me.
The actual HN discussion -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26134954
I like to imagine this is Gavin Newsom
What you have now isn't too bad, but figure out if you can get it down to one single command. Have a look at what netdata does (https://learn.netdata.cloud/docs/agent/packaging/installer#a...) - this is a single command to install, works really well and is super quick to get started on a single node.
> What's truly brainless is thinking we can just bury our heads in the sand and ignore an ever expanding Totalitarian dictatorship bent on becoming the world's most powerful country.

I'd be more in line with this reasoning if the intent of the trade war was to incentivize better moral outcomes. This war won't end in China becoming less of a totalitarian power, nor will it stop China growing as an economic power. The real worry, is if China become even more powerful, and technologically advanced, but without the expense of having to provide human rights and freedoms, those rights and freedoms will be compromised for all other countries that now need to compete at the same level. The casualties will be workers' rights and welfare all over the world.

If the US administration wants to bring people, and the populations of other countries on-side with this trade war, it needs to be working towards an even playing field. I don't see how what the US is doing now is making this happen. In the short term they are weakening the domestic economy which simply can't replicate the manufacturing infrastructure of China, and alienating itself from the rest of the world.
I used to be legally blind and heavily vision impaired. Even then, the most accessible web browser is Lynx since it runs in a Terminal which has a fixed and rigid UI.

I'm frustrated for you.
Theorists of capitalism long argued that it and it alone could efficiently distribute resources across an economy (though not, oddly, within a firm).

This might be true in an economy whose rules about contrantracts, commerce, and property relations were fixed and predictable, but most economic simulations overlook or sidestep the fact that the most powerful economic incumbents can and do adjust the legal conditions to maximize their own gain.
[Author of blog post here] This is what I am alluding to with the post - the goal is less so about "remove stuff that doesn't spark joy" rather than to focus on things that empower one to get their job done. If it's a desk with 1,000 papers spread all around it - so be it, if it works for you. As long as you can focus and minimize wasteful time spending, that means it's working.
If you have a narrow optimum that's dragging your whole cost/benefit analysis towards it, and that optimum is externally created and controlled, you too become what's called a slave. A good example is wage slavery.

But perhaps this isn't about the fact that we're optimizers under pressure. Maybe it's better viewed as a problem with the shape of the optimization space. It looks vastly different for rich vs. regular people - the slopes are gentler when you have the means, so you don't have to worry so much about falling into local minima you can't ever escape from.
Our competition is companies that help open source contributors to be hired or paid in one way or another. Additionally, any companies that help open source projects get funding would be considered competition.

Competition includes:
* Bounty-based companies like Gitcoin, BountySource, and IssueHunt
* Donation-based companies like Github Sponsors, Liberapay, and Patreon
* Subscription-based companies like Tidelift

However, there is no direct competitor creating a marketplace that connects open source stakeholders with organizations to facilitate funding for new development and maintenance.
There was a direct link from the original webpage.
At this point, sending humans to Mars is also just an engineering problem, not a science problem.

The trip time using conventional chemical rockets is limited to modified Hohmann transfer orbits of around six to eight months each way, and the duration on the surface would be about eighteen months before the next orbital launch window between Earth and Mars. With basic well-understood radiation mitigation techniques, total radiation exposure for each astronaut over the duration of the mission is around 50 rem, less than the amount needed to increase by 1% the chances of a 35-year old adult of developing cancer at some point later in life, a lower risk than by spending the same amount of time smoking cigarettes on Earth.

Getting the astronauts back isn't prohibitively more difficult than getting them there in the first place: the energy expenditure for escaping the surface is 17% of the Earth's, and using the Mars Direct mission architecture, you can send a return vehicle ahead of time with seed hydrogen to manufacture liquid methane propellant and liquid oxygen oxidizer from the carbon dioxide air, through the Sabatier reaction for both and also with electrical dissociation of the carbon dioxide for more oxygen. You can also test it in flight after producing its fuel before deciding to launch the humans to Mars in the first place.

We still need a heavier-lift heavy lift vehicle of at least 100 to 140 tonnes to LEO to start being able to send major assets to the Mars surface in one shot, but SpaceX is becoming increasingly credible as a possible creator of such a vehicle. Putting humans on Mars within twenty years would require at least a few billion dollars a year (a small fraction of NASA's budget) and ironing out some engineering details, but is entirely doable. The biggest obstacle is just having leadership with a sustained focus on that goal over the course of the couple of decades required, and that hasn't been forthcoming from within government, but perhaps could be supplied from a private entity. SpaceX has been laying down a solid record of presenting visionary plans for spacefaring capabilities and then making them happen.
In Btown. Contact me via my site.
I was hoping the article would mention Cue. I find the syntax so much better.

Cue needs to be adoption ready and is getting close. The big one will be the 'cue mod' command, when that lands we should be in good shape. I think v0.4 will be when people start looking hard at Cue, but maybe a later 0.3.x
Facebook used react native for a while, which isn’t a web view wrapper, and then went away from that towards native: https://engineering.fb.com/2020/03/02/data-infrastructure/me...

So far the only actual success I’ve seen is electron on the desktop, and in that world everyone complains how apps use huge amounts of RAM.

There’s only one true success for a generic solution across all platforms: the web. Because it doesn’t pretend to integrate natively, nor depend on native APIs. But with it will always come limitations that cannot be avoided.
Why do we think it's ok for one company to own another?
The cheapest thing to do is to build car-free city streets two stories up in the air. Running utilities in a 4m x 17m box that is completely free of dirt is pretty easy! You can even make the surface streets out of modular sections of prestressed concrete, which you could lift out of the way with a crane.
Alcohol never helps.
We switched our developer environment to k8s instead of docker-compose and our lives improved dramatically. Software is complex these days and having nice orchestration is awesome both in development and in production.
The point is that you won't have to 'embrace' them, it's pretty easy to create an existence proof that they are 100x safer than human cars. Over time, build a fleet of them, and unleash them onto the roads and iterate for as long as it takes to get statistically significant data. If you have the pockets of Google it's pretty evident to me that by the time you have humans sitting in these things saying they are unsafe will be like denying climate change.
Why can't they just reverse engineer the rotten tomatoes API?
great, fellow hackers in china!
> Some people can't be accessed without Facebook.

That means that the people who cant be accessed without facebook had to voluntarily cut themselves off from email-only people first. And while doing that, they had no concerns that they will be missing connectivity, because from their POV the email-only people obviously had such a low social rank anyway, that they simply could afford to sorta blackmail them ("either you get a facebook account or I'll simply cut you off.") without any fear they could be losing anything of (social) worth.

Getting a facebook (or MySpace/ICQ/MSN/AIM/YIM/whatever 1-vendor-only proprietary network) account just because someone forces you to do it is a way to confess to yourself that you must have be pretty low in the pecking order in your desired social circle and that involuntarily creating accounts with service-de-jour wont be the last thing you'll be forced to do to avoid being cut off. Or, alternatively, just get real friends.
Getting ahead of ourselves aren't we
Don't be evil ? Google ?

Apparently their exception handling does't work very well :)
Unfortunately I think you're right that there will probably be a ruling that just shuts them down. Having worked for a company that was sued by large media companies and lost, I can say that while the suit was extremely complicated, the individual details were mostly glossed over as irrelevant. (for instance, the difference between a website and desktop software) The court knew where it wanted to end up, and wasn't all that concerned about how it got there.

As hackers, we'd like to think of the legal system as a big piece of software that responds consistently to commands, but for better or worse it isn't.
Productive conversation is rational and does not mince words.

"Politeness" is nice to have, but sometimes, to be polite is to be uncivil. Just imagine being polite to someone advocating racism. We don't abolish poor behavior by treating it like it's civilized. On the contrary, that's an inversion of true civility.

I don't trust people who elevate politeness above all else.
Make an app that makes a $100M
That there is some bizarre legal reason having to do with 90s export control policy that would lead MSFT to have a special registry token for NSA is far more plausible than the backdoor story, which is implausible by the very nature of the key we're talking about.
And at this point we are really talking about what fits naturally in our own hands. I use a documentation tool (mkdocs) for my blog, but that's because like GP, I prefer working in git+vim.
IT has only enabled copy-paste medicine. Iterating faster is not iterating better.
Why not let the data make the technology choices for you ?
The way I go about making technology choices is by examining the data that I'll be working with in conjunction the data access patterns inherent in the features that I'll need to support.

I look at things like projected read/write throughput, latency characteristics, total data volume, concurrency, and whether or not the problem domain actually requires highly relational queries.

I think that a lot of shops don't put enough thinking into figuring out what kind of data access patterns they'll need to support throughout the life-cycle of the business. This is no big deal if the product doesn't experience growth. But in terms of rich web applications which begin to experience growth the team inevitably ends up with a massive scaling problem unless their system architecture was designed to support these access patterns from the ground up.

It seems that this "growing pains" scaling nightmare has become almost a right of passage for successful tech startups. Founders are generally led to believe that it's a good thing for them to need to sell equity to outside investors in order to "scale out" a much larger team to build out the infrastructure required to perform in-flight rocket surgery on the application before it either explodes or becomes increasing cost inefficient.

While this whole process greatly benefits VCs, the high end tech engineering job market, and recruiters, it's absolutely terrible the founding team because it means they inevitably get massively diluted as a consequence of experiencing success. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but I am saying there is massive financial incentive to keep this kind of technical knowledge about best practices an open secret within the highly paid IT consultancy world.

TLDR: It's my supposition that small teams can build scalable, composable, systems by thinking about web scale data access patterns from the beginning.
I totally agree, that's why I said medium to large. My main point is that you are solving radically different problems with even 20+ engineers than you are with only 5 or so.
(To be fair, the 1000-core prediction is considerably less dumb than the 10GHz one, and the article here is a good one).