jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Well, it's a little sketchy. It's never clear from an employer's point of view why someone is looking around. People look around for other jobs for lots of reasons.

If they're not satisfied at work due to reasons other than money such as lack of autonomy or boring projects and their employer offers them more money then they'll stick around without solving the underlying issue. It's very hard for an employer to distinguish which case an employee falls under. Does this person just want more money or do they hate their job?

When the time for promotions or layoffs rolls around, this kind of stuff is a factor. Maybe not on purpose, heck, maybe not at google. But for two identical candidates - except for this one trick for a raise, people are going to tend to pick the loyal one for promotion.

Loyalty doesn't count for anything in the modern workforce except it does. It factors into people's decision making in spite of their best intentions, because it's part of biological wiring.

It's unfortunate that poeple can't get raises without leverage. Using leverage brings all these other factors in to play.
At the time of the seizures that was the stated reason but later when officials were testifying before congress they implied that the enforcement against MtGox was related to the SR investigation. They hadn't moved on SR at the time so they were keeping quite about the scope of their full intentions.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/23/feds-seize-another-2-1-mill...
Complete agreement. If the central bank is defending a rate, "defending" means spending money, and you want to be on the side that's getting the money. Simple. Russia has/had been pouring money into propping up the ruble, said money was received by FX traders with the correct positions. The worst outcome for central banks, which is frequently what comes to pass, is they spend a ludicrous amount of money defending their position and in the end they still lose.
What is your retirement plan?
In our scenario, The tool had no requirements. A student project did something which a team found useful and saved money. More students were given similar projects. Then an engineer comfortable with coding glued the code from all these students. This happened for 17+ years (converting several person months of work to few hours). The team lead for this team got promoted to a very high position in the firm and he hired a software team to redo everything with coherent code.

For us the first project acted as requirements analysis. In most cases bad software is mainly because of lack of proper requirements. In hindsight, its easier to make complex tool coherent.
I think some times the conversations about debuggers is one where developers talk past eachother because a developer who uses a high level language debugger in a fancy IDE to debug only high level code, vs. one that uses a native language debugger using a command line tool, will have wildly differnet experiences and expectations of what the tool can do, and especially about how discoverable and simple those features are.

I belong in the first camp (Debugging to me means "running", It's not a tool I dig out to actually de-BUG something, it's just the tool I use to run my code every time).
It is harder to track who's listening to which FM station and might be useful if your internet is being blocked or censored
>I wonder how long until the cycle comes full circle, and Youtubers are co-opted as subtle spinmakers for political ends. I can imagine a future where politicians are elected on the basis of a lulzy hashtag, and that scares me way more than what we have now.

This is how Barack Obama got elected in 2008 and 2012 #hopeandchange
Agreed. I'm not ready to embrace driverless cars yet myself, either, but in the long run automation probably increases safety. It's a bit of a callous view, but software mistakes can be fixed and ironed out - human mistakes are harder to fix. We've known for decades the dangers of, say, drunk driving yet it still happens.
"Trawling" is using nets.
"Trolling" is using lines.
The anti-GG side claims that no reasonable person would expect journalism about video games to be ethical or free of corruption. Therefore, the "true" purpose of GamerGate must be something more sinister.

On misogyny:

1. Many of the gaming journalists GamerGate have specifically called out as unethical (Nathan Grayson, Ian Miles Cheong, Shanley Kane, Arthur Chu) are public advocates of identity feminism.

2. Gamer culture, in general, leans more toward equality feminism. Many of the gamer bloggers doing the calling out (Georgina Young, Jennie Bharaj, Angela Night) are public advocates of equality feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers, the founder of equity feminism (a related branch), has issued several pro-gamer videos.

3. Identity feminists consider equality feminism and equity feminism to be reactionary, misogynist, anti-feminist movements.

With these factors combined, you get a category 5 internet shitstorm. Wealthy white men are writing newspaper articles denouncing women as misogynists, because those women wrote blog posts calling out the journalists as corrupt.
Adopt a beginner mindset - you are a beginner. Sounds like there a few things you know you are good at, and the rest is "out of your depth". Build a new depth. Jump into something you have never done before. Sounds like you have some webdev experience, so do something else, something you know nothing about. Some ideas - use an NLP library, or something in distributed systems, or learn a very different language - e.g lisp/haskell, or build a parser/compiler, analyze images, make an AI for a game, make mobile apps... anything different. It should be confusing,hard,time-consuming and completely new all over again.

Alternatively, maybe you are a just little burnt out. In that case, stop programming, reading about programming, thinking abut programming etc. for a few weeks.
Yes, the L2 orbit has many advantages but also many disadvantages. It can't be serviced, and will eventually run out of stationkeeping propellant.
Some might argue that one should avoid appeals to nature [0] (not to mention sweeping generalizations), and rather look to what can be demonstrated to be effective.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
You might want to check Health Sherpa, it does a decent job of sorting through your options for you.
I live in Texas, and am in my 50's, and for me and my family it's around $1000/month.
I am above the ACA subsidy line.
This style of keyboard is called "40%" and, just as you would press shift+1 to input an exclamation mark, they're invariably set up with additional modifier keys (or chorded sequences) to input the values of all the missing keys.

It's hard to say exactly how this one is configured, because it looks like a custom layout. The kit can be found here: https://5z6p.com/products/plaid-through-hole/
This is one of the reasons why I would never use such an app. If a tool would rather guess what I want (and obviously get it completely wrong) rather than ask me then I consider the tool defective and stop wasting my time with it.
For maps in particular the nature of the service means OpenStreetMap may make more sense, just as you wouldn't try to build a commercial general encyclopedia now because Wikipedia makes more sense.

Google just can't care as much about Springfield as the people who actually live in Springfield do. Maybe a government database swears that's a new housing estate with asphalt roads, the reality on the ground observed by mappers who live there is it's still a field.
Heh. Although it's currently really only for system languages (so doesn't do much for your #1), you're basically describing the feature set of Pernosco.
Building a cluster is a fun and relatively easy project. You learn much more by having the hardware at your fingertips. You can simulate network failures and power failures or you can crash an important daemon. By causing problems you can see how K8s responds and manages itself when it does not have the nodes it expects. It is important to know these things because, for example, if you create a pod instead of a replica set then the loss of a node will mean the inability to use the pod assigned to that node. You need to know how a pod and a replica set differ in order to create a self-healing stack. You can learn all of that with the cloud solutions but the ability to answer your own questions will always be the superior means of learning.

The Agile movement has convinced many that the solution that gets you up and running today is the best. A good engineer is not afraid of working and learning instead of just buying a pre-baked implementation and calling themself an experienced user. The cluster that I know like the back of my hand is my “real” cluster. The production cluster is someone else’s that I just rent.
Flamebait? He is pointing out the hypocrisy of Tim presenting himself as the moral guardian of the web.... as Tim ran W3C for all of these years.
I don't think Google has it in them. Something about their vertical integration, supply chain management, cross team coordination, etc etc. They just consistently put out phones that are subpar in the daily usability and quality control fronts. So I'm kinda glad they go for these exotic features. They know they have to stand out somehow.
“Will be wild” was a little sketchy.

But you are more right than wrong, he could easily have channeled all that energy into something truly horrible just by saying “It’s the Socialists! Let’s get the bastards!”
Co-editor of the lecture notes here, if someone has a question.
Does your Canadian USD account have access to the US domestic payments system, so you could make deposits into it over ACH with a routing number and account number?

Back in Denmark I had a USD account, but it could only send and receive USD by SWIFT wire transfer, so it wouldn’t function in the same way as an American USD account.
To answer the title question, it might be best to look for smaller projects in a language that you're very familiar with with issues marked specifically for external individuals to complete.
Smaller scope issues should be easier and they would give you some more experience in reading code which would appear to be the issue at hand.

For the larger codebases, generally you would want to get a vague idea of the architecture and then blind yourself to most of the complexity.
Let's say that you wanted to work on a network based data serialization library and the issue marked out as 'contributor friendly' was adding unsigned integer support building off existing signed integer support.
For that target, there's a large portion of the code that you shouldn't need to understand too deeply and there's a section that is going to be relevant to making the modification.
Try to find the code that is relevant and trace the execution just by reading the code.

As long as you limit the scope of your work and the codebase is somewhat compartmentalized, you can shrink the time it takes to go through large projects by a fairly large amount.
That's not how he presented it, he presented it that they have the info to identify each cheater. He said (I am paraphrasing), "The net is tightening and we will catch you". He dared them to try to get away with it. He was shaking them down. My point is, I would call him on it, if they do have the data then they can prove my (hypothetical me) innocence.

If they don't then he is shaking people down, which is not entirely fair. If they don't have the data then the innocent don't deserve to be shook down for a witch hunt. He should just tell the class, we know some of you cheated, we don't have the data to unwind who did and who did not, so it's a do over for all of you. To the ones that did not, I am sorry but you can thank your fellow classmate.

I would be pissed if they came clean and said they can't sort it out, but I would not blame the professor for the actions of others. As it sits, with the claims that they know who the cheater are, I would hold it against the administration for holding me as a non-cheater to account when they claim to have proof that exonerates me.
Well I'm using the beta flash on the beta ie9 - and much to my great surprise and pleasure fullscreen, while working on another screen, works.
Assuming he means his firm, not himself personally...
This guy pissed me off enough to write this comment.

Classical fear tactics. By offering a level of "immunity" for those who come forward, he's creating fear for those who actually did cheat.

Look at what he's offering to those who come forward:

"Any permanent record of this will be wiped from your transcripts. There will be no further action taken."

Then he goes on to taking a reverse psychological approach by saying:

"You want to take a high risk gamble, take it! I challenge you to take it…."

What he essentially did was scare the students into believing that his statistical analysis would be enough to expel them from college.

Sure, matching previous student batch's midterm results vs. current batch of midterm grades gives an insight. If you further compared that with the students other grades of similar subjects, then it is statistically possible to say that there's an anomaly present.

As far as I know (maybe the rules has changed since I went to college), you can't get kicked out of school because the administrators believe that it is statistically possible that you cheated.
37CFR1.45(c)

If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.

I would recommend getting legal advice, collecting all documents related to the invention, and keeping a diary of all contacts with parties involved.

At some point he will need to sign a declaration (viz. 37CDR 1.45(a)):

Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly and each must make the required oath or declaration: neither of them alone, nor less than the entire number, can apply for a patent for an invention invented by them jointly, except as provided in § 1.47.

However, the provisions of 37CFR1.47 allow:

If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and the nonsigning inventor. The oath or declaration in such an application must be accompanied by a petition including proof of the pertinent facts,...

So, simply refusing to sign the declaration is probably not an option.

The post does not identify the offending university. I think that the aggrieved inventor should check to see what his university policy provides. For example, Stanford University policy can be found on the web at http://rph.stanford.edu/5-1.html. That policy provides that inventions of this sort can be placed in the public domain.

The inventors, acting collectively where there is more than one, are free to place their inventions in the public domain if they believe that would be in the best interest of technology transfer and if doing so is not in violation of the terms of any agreements that supported or related to the work.

Sadly, there does not seem to be a provision for resolving potential conflicts between named inventors nor a policy for determining whether a person should be named as an inventor.
Yeah, I have a designer I use on contract. I would give you his info but I have him booked solid for awhile. :)
I read like 8 paragraphs of blather before I got to the first bit of useful technical information, a confirmation that they were using Erlang.
When visiting the Technikmuseum Speyer recently, I had the opportunity to see an actual Buran, the Russian Space Shuttle, on display.

Today, it is easy to forget that the Russians percieved the Space Shuttle as a weapons platform. The tactical advantage of "coming out of space" to deliver a payload made them build their Space Shuttle clone.

Buran never had any civilian purpose. After all, they were quite happy with Soyuz for all research purposes.
And it's such a different set of goals. You're unlikely to break something fundamental with Javascript, which is fantastic. It's a safer thing to play with than a kernel. Put sub-par code in the Linux kernel, and your computer doesn't boot. Mess up your JS and your webpage renders off-center. The severity of failure is so different that it'd be silly to get bent out of shape over it.

Of course, you can do insane things in JS, but that's part of the fun. Even at its worst, it'll crash a program or browser tab that can just be reloaded. Annoying and inconvenient, but the computer's still chugging and no harm's done.
Yes, but 8 props will be considerably less efficient then one prop in generating that thrust in the first place. For instance:

One 300x8 inch prop will generate roughly 1 ton of thrust while spinning at 330RPM and consuming 12kW of energy. So, let's say we go with your prediction, and assign a 30% air flow efficiency to the one prop system. So in reality, according to you, it is generating 700 kilos of thrust. 700/4 is 87.5 kilos. So now we need to figure out how big of a prop we need to generate 1/8 of the thrust of the 300 inch prop, or roughly 88kg. I am going to use 60 inch props, because that will allow us to space 8 props in a circle roughly the same size as the original 300 inch prop.

Ok, so a 88x8 prop, spinning at 2350 RPM will generate roughly 88 kg of thrust wile consuming 6.7 kW of energy! That's 6.7 kW x 8 props, or a total of 54 kW, or almost 4.5 times less energy efficient than the one prop system, and that's taking into account your proposed 30% efficiency gain from multi-bladed systems and ducts.

I build these things all the time, there is a reason why the industry still uses helicopters with a single prop. It IS more efficient.
Definitely not to disparage them.
True, but that doesn't really negate the hypothesis. What are those rules? Are they the same as the ones generated by a neural network? Or are they qualitatively different?

(Diagnostic experiment: Is there a significant subset of "cups" that a naive neural network would always fail to include or only include when also including a significant subset of non-"cups"?)
>Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author.

this is what photons do to silver on the film the moment you press the button on the film based photo camera. This is why actual photographer has the copyright. The fact that more light can destroy the image until it is developed has the same effect on copyright as the fact that cassette recording can be destroyed by magnetic field.

>Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication and this film is obviously not being developed by its author. The development process of film renders it suitable for copy.

are you trying to say that Kodak development shops own copyright for 99% of the photos made in the US in the second half of the 20th century?
Would you please go back and find out about the goldfish? I'm curious, but fear I'd never come back if I went to look for myself.
> To me it seemed like a bunch of Python and Ruby fans came out of the blue and started endlessly chanting "Perl sucks"

I think that was a side effect of experienced Perl developers publicly explaining why Perl was not that good and why they chose another language. Others respected their authority and started repeating and so on. So, the bigger problem was: experienced developers were fed up with Perl for various reasons and started to speak up. And they were not wrong.

Many years ago there was a perl compiler, but at the time when everyone was moving towards virtualization and ease of deployment was particularly important - it got abandoned. Performance and memory consumption were never considered as problematic either, but they always were. Even simple log processing was not viable for anything, but personal homepage sized logs. It was very disappointing for many people.

As for Moose, etc., Perl had a perfectly good object system. Everyone knew how to bless a reference and make it into an object. It was hard to abuse it, nobody encouraged OOP, things were good and manageable. And yet, community decided to go farther into OOP, promote Moose, promote new syntax features, promote new ways to build modules. Things got messy in the process. Perl still didn't address any real problems, but it was a pretty much new language and a burden on everyone. Suddenly people found themselves in a position, where they needed to decide of whether they want to learn all the new things in Perl or not and learn some other language instead.

> But so do Ruby and Python, and every time I try to pick either of them up, I notice a ton of things that are as bad or worse than Perl.

I don't see them as alternatives to Perl. I think they are in decline too.
As others already mentioned, you always trade currencies in pairs. By breaking the peg anyone on the wrong side of the pair lost. Since currencies move very little, most currency trades are highly leveraged. A 20% move in a day basically wiped out entire fortunes.

The other people who are exposed are those who took out swiss franc mortgages from other countries[1]. I'm amazed this was even allowed, but up until now the franc was stable and the rates low so it made some sense.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21639760-poles-were-slo...
MacsBug had the same problem for years too.
I've found this doesn't apply if you remove the deadline entirely. If given a task and a week to complete it, I will start the task on the night of the 6th day. However, if just given a task, I'll start the task immediately - or at the very least, as soon as I finish what I'm currently working on. Whether I complete it within the week depends on whether it's a week's worth of work, but I can be fairly sure that I'll end up putting in more work than if I had the original deadline, and I'll probably have something equivalent in quality to the deadline-work after about a day or two.
Since credit cards can have chargebacks for a long period of time and Bitcoin cannot represent negative balances, this is a pretty difficult service to provide
wrong. look at https://github.com/koding/global.hackathon/tree/master/Teams...

our two man team is random. Some guy joined me for the hackathon, because he hadn't got idea what to do and he was following me in Twitter and read my ask for help.
Welcome to business culture that is oriented on year-to-year performance bonuses, rather than longevity of product, customer satisfaction and building long term strategy.
>playing recordings or videos of people talking has essentially no benefit.

Really? I thought it had some, but possibly only if access to real conversation was limited. Any good reading on this?
I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about this sort of thing (see also: rackspace, twitter, gmail, etc). Do they expect 100.00% uptime? There are 8760 hours in a year, I'm not sure how many hours wordpress hosted sites have been down this year, but I'd guess the number is probably within reason. If it goes down for an entire day, or for an hour every week, then maybe it would be time to talk about it being a problem.
It's a complex system. A good gacker loves a complex system.
This is one reason why idioms and patterns are important. I don't think there are many reasonable C++ coders out there who would override operator-> in such a way as to introduce such ambiguity.
it's "microblogging"
As an aside, Apple didn't originally write WebKit, they took it from KHTML. I'm sure Apple has released some other original code as open source.