jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Manufacturing was sent overseas because of cheap labor and plenty of available raw materials in other countries. Am I wrong?

Inexpensive thin-film solar panels made by cheap labor might be a net win, if we spend less on solar panels then we do on oil. We just need balance of payments, we don't need to make EVERYTHING here.
One thing you touch on here that's rather important is disclosure of information honestly to potential employees.

Whereas investors (hopefully) have done their diligence on the company and are privy to the full financial situation of the company, employees quite often aren't. Employees generally don't get a copy of the term sheet, or know much about their options beyond the "40,000 shares valued at .03 each with an outstanding number of shares being 10mm".

When you ask investors to take risk, that's one thing. They have the most to gain (due to more favorable terms) and aren't actually having to put in the sweat equity to make it happen, and they also get the best information. Employees however often have no idea what the burn rate of the company even is or what the current equity structure of the company looks like.
Clickable: http://www.khanacademy.org/badges/view
There are probably lots of shades of complexity. Check out "Toba catastrophe theory" for an interesting perspective on "out of Africa".
Why not ban all the criminal activity? It will surely stop the criminals.
> The problem is defining what constitutes as being within the scope of a legitimate operation

Of course, the final authority of interpretation should lie within the public. But it should be defined very narrowly. Basically, if public cannot reason about it, it shouldn't be a secret. Specific details can be a secret. In cryptography, this problem doesn't exist. There is a distinction between algorithm and key. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to accountability of government as well.

> which seems to amount to outlawing private agreements to not divulge certain information

Again, such private agreements should be very very narrow, and defined by what they can do, not by what they cannot do. In particular, they shouldn't prevent talking about events that happened to you.

> Constitutional free speech exclusively concerns the governments right to decide what you can say

Yes, and it shouldn't. Government is just another type of social institution. Just limiting government doesn't equate to freedom. Free speech, in my view, should cover all social institutions, including private companies and religious organizations.

> Your envisioned platform is essentially wikipedia

It isn't. First, I am talking about primary, not secondary sources of information. Second, Wikipedia isn't very anonymous. Third, there is no automated (or collective) assessment of trustworthiness of the sources.

The disagreement problem can maybe be resolved, but in a different way than on Wikipedia.

My thinking was that the system would have 2 types of information, sources (primary information) and edits (reviews of information drawn from sources). Sources would be optionally anonymous, while edits would be public. You would be able to "invest" your trust into an editor (producer of edits) in the system. Editing the information would be then redistribution of the trust. This would result in calculation of how much you should trust the primary sources, based on their reliability when reporting other things. This would allow you to get a "consistent" view of reality.

I am not completely sure how such a system should work, and how secure it would be possible to make it. But it's not at all like a Wikipedia.
It's a tricky one, legally running jammers in the UK is a no-no on the books (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforc...), however I'm not sure whether there's an exemption clause for prisons, or whether you can apply for a license for a jammer for specific circumstances.
We still require a warrant in the UK which is the major issue. In the US this is probably still required but is by fact not honoured. The data centre we have moved to has financial guarantees that they won't let anyone in without a warrant and will inform us if anyone issues one immediately. The datacentre also don't have access to our cages (they are locked) so only forced entry is possible which requires a warrant issued.

Also we can drop the SAN fabric encryption keys remotely or on network events (such as peer disconnection) which will warrant the cluster useless until someone physically reloads the keys off the KMS.

This all puts the onus on the authorities to prove access is warranted and necessary.

This is what our clients want.

You are saying "including the UK". We deal with ONLY wholly UK based companies as we are very specialist.

Credit companies and banks in the UK do not share this data voluntarily. Sometimes there are leaks and cock ups but they are surprisingly rare.

The worst people for data leaks are utility companies.
this is wrong interpretation actually.

There is no "maximum" for a reason. Because it should be evaluated as "hey hardware developer, you will have guaranteed 10 ms from System Software to resume". If you don't wake up in 10ms, you are clearly violating the spec.

9.2.6.2 states:
After a port is reset or resumed, the USB System Software is expected to provide a “recovery” interval of 10 ms before the device attached to the port is expected to respond to data transfers. The device may ignore any data transfers during the recovery interval.
After the end of the recovery interval (measured from the end of the reset or the end of the EOP at the end of the resume signaling), the device must accept data transfers at any time.﻿
I've tried something similar once. I got asked about the binary search algorithm. After some high level discussion on the idea behind it, I told the interviewer I hope I won't have to implement it. The algorithm is known for being easy to get wrong [1].

Nevertheless the interviewer asked me to write it down on paper (using python). I've done so, but made a few mistakes. I still got the job offer, so the mistakes weren't a factor. I just wanted to point out that some interviewers are really set in their ways and don't change their minds.

[1] http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-...
Stronger marketing, better prices, better UX and I think that a lot of people is still buying their first smartphone, so lack of apps isn't really an issue since they have never had apps in the first place.
Yeah, people seem to ignore this part of the argument and just focus on US equities. There was a time not long ago - but long enough that most 20/30-somethings on this site don't study - that Japan was the obvious future steward of the technology age which even led to spikes in Asian-American hate crimes and lax policies of those events (Vincent Chin comes to mind), culminating in the clearly-better Japanese auto industry and their breakthrough JIT manufacturing methods.

A few years later, their economy crashed (along with ours), but ours recovered through various means, mainly immense untapped natural resources, net inflow of immigrants (skilled and otherwise), the Internet, and well, Andy Grove, if we want to give credit to at least one individual here.

Japan is now a funny country across the ocean we marvel for their cultural weirdness and spotless streets. It wasn't like that just 40 years ago, and the idea that the United States can't go down that road for some reason is... well, naively optimistic.
Science is where almost nothing is proven. Most findings are mutable, preliminary and incomplete.

Engineering is where things are proven, by building things using or that are proving scientific findings. For example, Randomized Controlled Trials are one of the final engineering steps for drugs, with partial engineering step being chemistry and process chemistry. Similar steps should be done but are often omitted for social sciences.

The exception to this is pure mathematics.

Example from biology: you found some fun cellular process model description. Fine, now you have to mess with it using engineering to prove it actually works in the way you described, is not missing crucial steps and so on.
This for example happened a lot in gerontology - studies of aging. People latching on to small pieces of mechanism which actually are not very relevant or actionable.

Examples from physics are machines that use physics theories, such as quantum communication devices, particle colliders, clocks or nanostructured devices.

Examples from chemistry are evaluations of synthesis processes step by step by introducing various process changes.

Analysis is rather on the side, as without engineering first you cannot really proceed with it.
It is not clear to me at all how to make a good version control at GUI apps.

Let’s start with diff - If this is a text doc, diff seems easy. Show old and new text next to each other, somehow highlight new and old version. Immediate problem: what if you choose to highlight “new” with purple + underline, but user is already using purple + underline as a part of their text. Do you choose a different color? Or just hope it is “clear from context”?

Now for spreadsheets: the formula has changed, how do you show this? You can expand the cell to show formulas, but those can he huge, so your document can become unreadable. Or maybe just highlight the cell and let user click on it to see the formula difference - but then you can no longer see the changes at a glance.

What about things with no text representation, like conditional cell format? Are you going to come up with text representation just for display purposes, or are you going to design special text formatting dialog which shows “new” and “old” values?

There are hundreds of questions about GUI diffs which simply do not exist in texts.
Well, the main purpose of a central bank is to issue currency, so an economy without a central bank would need to use something else as currency (either a foreign currency, or some sort of commodity like gold or grain).
Instructions on how to make the vagrant box: https://gitlab.com/mjwhitta/drifter/blob/master/docs/iso_onl....

Or use the ones he's already made until he gets told to take them down: https://atlas.hashicorp.com/mjwhitta
I bought the book, because $29 for a math/physics book is cheap and if I learn one single thing from it I'm going to get many many times that amount back.

Anyways: point being, flipping through the book, it is decided not like that image you posted. It's mostly casual prose with lots of diagrams.
First time to hear that. If you are Chinese grown up in PRC as well, it's most likely you are younger than I am. Also, what I said is not some content directly from a specific source. Even there is some kind of "standard" from the authority in some way, the possibility that people have exactly same consensus in this regard.
I also find it funny that they sort the program's lines by statement type to float all declarations to the top (or bottom, depending on how you look at it; loading the source code in reverse order makes that a bit ambiguous)

That works with fortran because it doesn't (didn't; that has changed since) have dynamic memory allocation or recursion.
A guy I work with already did this.

Instructions on how to make the vagrant box:
https://gitlab.com/mjwhitta/drifter/blob/master/docs/iso_onl...

Or use the ones he's already made until he gets told to take them down:
https://atlas.hashicorp.com/mjwhitta
Here's an article on Slate about what might be happening (albeit a bit old) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/03/tick...

Also, generally there are pre-sales. I get notified about early sales on quite a few events either via American Express or Visa Signature.
I have a rather vague recollection that gold has been transmuted from other elements in experimental (fission, I presume) reactors as well, although the best reference I can find right now is [1]. Accelerators do seem to be the modern/"practical" approach though.

Which properties in particular make it a good target?

Edit: more details from wikipedia[2] suggest starting from either mercury or platinum, although it's all a bit fiddly and isotope-specific. That page has some other interesting facts as well - I'd never really thought of element synthesis as economically practical (and with capital equipment costs, probably still isn't), but tungsten ($30/kg) -> rhenium ($6k/kg) -> osmium ($12k/kg) sounds like a nice business to be in if you can solve the practical problems.

When the balloons all run out, we might want to start making our own helium as well, which has the bonus of being really quite easy to do.

[1] http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.h...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#G...
Do you like pervasive surveillance?
And here is where we must put the obligatory link to Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker review of Operation Mincemeat:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100...

...in Peter Ustinov’s 1956 play, “Romanoff and Juliet.”... a crafty general is the head of a tiny European country being squabbled over by the United States and the Soviet Union, and is determined to play one off against the other. He tells the U.S. Ambassador that the Soviets have broken the Americans’ secret code. “We know they know our code,” the Ambassador, Moulsworth, replies, beaming. “We only give them things we want them to know.” The general pauses, during which, the play’s stage directions say, “he tries to make head or tail of this intelligence.” Then he crosses the street to the Russian Embassy, where he tells the Soviet Ambassador, Romanoff, “They know you know their code.” Romanoff is unfazed: “We have known for some time that they knew we knew their code. We have acted accordingly—by pretending to be duped.” The general returns to the American Embassy and confronts Moulsworth: “They know you know they know you know.” Moulsworth (genuinely alarmed): “What? Are you sure?”

...

At one point, the British discovered that a French officer in Algiers was spying for the Germans. They “turned” him, keeping him in place but feeding him a steady diet of false and misleading information. Then, before D Day—when the Allies were desperate to convince Germany that they would be invading the Calais sector in July—they used the French officer to tell the Germans that the real invasion would be in Normandy on June 5th, 6th, or 7th. The British theory was that using someone the Germans strongly suspected was a double agent to tell the truth was preferable to using someone the Germans didn’t realize was a double agent to tell a lie. Or perhaps there wasn’t any theory at all. Perhaps the spy game has such an inherent opacity that it doesn’t really matter what you tell your enemy so long as your enemy is aware that you are trying to tell him something.
I love "next gen platforms" based on technology from 1986. At least it doesn't use punch cards, I guess.
For context:

http://blog.deliciousrobots.com/2010/11/27/sonys-changes-to-...
Yes -- as they say, war is diplomacy via other means. If you skip over the diplomacy part, then you annihilate anyone who breathes on you wrong.

It's hard to imagine how exactly this ethos could reasonably manifest.
As other's have mentioned, the WebUI is a major no-no.

Evernote's strength lies in its Desktop application and very useful clipping service.

The fact that Evernote uses its own cloud storage instead of say an encrypted folder in Google Drive/Dropbox etc is a negative of the service. Sync is required but implemented in the most undesirable way in Evernote currently.

Paperwork is promising, but seems to have replicated the negative of Evernote, while foregoing the reason why people use Evernote in the first place.

So, if you want to Paperwork to take off:

1. Implement it as an offline Chrome App with Dropbox+Google Drive sync.
2. Implement a web clipping+screenshot extension.
> This is also why it reads like a rambling bunch of thoughts jumbled together, rather than like something coherent

I was wondering about that too... plus a few grammar errors (then -> than)
Don't they also have to pay licensing fees to MPEG-LA? What's the overall impact on the bottom line? IMO it would have to be pretty substantial for it to really be a driving factor in the decision-making.
As it already has been mentioned - Future's poor performance is mostly due redundant context switches on pretty much any operation. If you do `future.map((i: Int) => i + 1)` it can be executed on a different thread, which doesn't make much sense. It was the case in 2.11 stdlib and they're doing lots of improvements in this area, but Future still lags behind all widely-used "IO monads".

But put aside performance, any day of the week I'd choose ZIO (or Cats Effect IO or Monix Task) over Future even if ZIO was 10x slower. Amount of safety and composability "IO monads" give is outstanding.
I'd argue you've put those points in the reverse priority.

1. Admit you screwed up and apologise

2. Moving forward: make repairability a priority and use durable components

3. Open source some of the software, or allow third parties to scrutinise it
As I am slowly acquiring the habits of thought that make it possible to read and write FP code at a reasonable speed, I'm horrified by how much idiomatic Scala FP code relies on projecting certain assumptions onto types and operations that seem, at first glance, to be neutral mathematical abstractions.

For example, I find myself hating the Either type, because I feel like there is a socially established convention that one half of the Either is the type that matters, the value that you want, the value that is the point of the computation you're doing, and the other half is a garbage value that should never be directly handled. So I really feel like I should conform to the convention and reserve Either for cases where one of the possible types doesn't matter. But how often is it true that one side of the Either doesn't matter? People want me to encode success/failure in an Either type, but if I do that, are they going to treat failure with the care it deserves?

I often handle Either (and Option) using pattern matching when I feel it's important to give both code paths equal importance and equal visibility in the code, but people change it because flatMap is supposedly more idiomatic, and they believe that eliminating pattern matching from their code is a sign of sophistication.

I feel like this stems from a strong desire among FP folks for the happy path to be the only one visible in the code, and the non-happy path to work by invisible magic. Maybe there are some brilliant programmers who achieve this by careful programming, but there are people mimicking them who seem to rely more on faith than logical analysis. They just flatMap their way through everything and trust that this results in correct behavior for the "less important" cases.

I'm sorry that this turned into a bit of a rant, but I'm entirely fed up with it, and it accounts for a lot of what I dislike about the code I work with on a daily basis.
I'm living in an EU-member country. Our currency has lost half of its value compared to the USD since 2008.

How? 'Slowly and steadily.'
> It’s literally there for that purpose specifically.

Theoretically. It's also a massive money printing industry full of for profit companies with little to no scruples. The problem, again, isn't "What are the consequences of something in a perfect world, with morally perfect people who only want the best for humanity?", the problem is that every systems are corruptible and most are corrupted, playing god won't do any good in such a framework

> Why research medicine at all if we don’t want to actually prevent death?

Because it makes tons of money. That's why most companies prefer researching and selling symptoms relievers instead of cures. Spend any amount of time to research about the pharma industry and you'll quickly understand that it's not so much about "preventing death" and "foster health/vitality"
> Engineering is external facing, their customer is the end user and they generate revenue.

I have always seen Engineering to be a cost center and not revenue generating. This is the case, since Engineering doesn't directly add to profit but still costs money to operate.
I'm already using them in nightly and they are amazing.

The only thing left that I want with generics is variadics/tuples. The only way currently to implement a trait over a generic tuple is to write a macro and call it for however many sized tuples you want. I've not seen any convincing RFCs about it yet though so I'm not confident we'll get them any time soon
So I haven't used Windows in a while, but the thing that kicks me back to Linux (1st choice) or OS X (2nd choice) every single time was file locking.

I think the majority of windows software opens files with an exclusive lock, making it really annoying to use, e.g. you can't delete a dir if anything in its subdir is open for whatever reason.

With the amount of software running on a system nowadays, and things like windows update, nothing bothers me more than having files locked in Windows for whatever reason and forcing me to update.

I've also never had a good experience with Windows Update (it fails all the time)
While it may not be the best, it still does the job.

My partner smokes indoor when I am not present and there's no smoke odor when I get home.

According to the chart on their app, the peak low air quality from several cigarettes goes away within an hour or so. https://imgur.com/a/0qgwT1F
I don't think the reasoning behind this has much to do with "communications", but has rather a lot more to do with the industrial and financial infrastructural systems that have ended up connected in one way or another to the Internet.
You mail them the password, not email.

Use a secure website per person.
No, but it might require all default-free ISPs to honor some kind of court order requiring them to install certain ACLs.
I know it's a shot in the dark, I'm also guessing that you don't have kids of your own. If you did, you would understand wanting the best for your kids, not the minimum.
Sure, but someone who is skinny and wants to get in shape is 98% of the way there already -- they won't actually have any difficulty. Losing fat is the hard part of getting in shape, and not coincidentally, is needful for the vast majority of Americans.
Because the ISPs could just say "no".
CondoInternet (and CenturyLink) are only going to newer very large buildings though, it doesn't make economic sense to go to older/smaller buildings for them. So your only option is Comcast.