jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> it just seems outlandish as an idea, but for no real good reason

I imagine safety and power issues, talking to friends who research drone tech.
You can have a lovely time using an API, and it could provide you results 56.786% worse than the competition. But you'd be happy, and not care.
As a little side project, I built a website at: http://skill.report which instantly does this for any job title. Go try it! I'd love to hear your feedback :)

It works by sampling job ads from Indeed, then applying some information extraction/retrieval/NLP algos to extract and weight the presence of identified skills and qualities. There's some occasional glitches in the algo (I need to fix some of the disambiguation data), but it usually gives reasonable results.

I was thinking of focusing the algorithm for giving really in-depth feedback on improving your resume specifically for a job. Now if only I could finish my PhD thesis I might actually have the time to do more with it...
I wish there was a system of web scrapers where the scraping logic is user-contributed and decentralized at the same time. Being decentralized, there would be no way for the owners of websites to stop anyone from scraping, and being user-maintained, the logic gets updated quickly whenever the original website's HTML template changes.
I find your comment about Rails facinating, as it teaches me a bit about how I'm a Blub programmer.

I've tried to learn Rails multiple times and the "generate" and "console" commands have always been a massive stumbling block for me. With ever other language and toolkit I've ever worked with, the tutorial starts with opening up a text editor, writing some code, and producing a lousy, "Hello World" website. With Rails, I went through three pages of the tutorial before I even saw a single line of Ruby. I grew to hate the "generate" command, as it produced ever expanding reams of unexplained code each time the tutorial had me call it.

I had always assumed that the elimination of the need for commands like "generate" would be the top priority of the Ruby community and that their existence was a recognized design wart, like Python's GIL or Haskell's unsafe prelude. That "generate" would actually appeal to someone is something that I'd never even considered. That makes me a Blub programmer and tells me that there's another whole philosophy of programming that I need to learn about.
Mechanical Turk for your house, soon to be replaced by real AI. Everyone wants to be the next plantation owner.
The conference, which was for computer security professionals, just happened to be hosted in Abi Dhabi, it could just as well have been Las Vegas, or Berlin. You make it sound as if he were going to brief to a foreign secret intelligence agency. http://www.blackhat.com/html/bh-ad-10/registration/bh-ad-10-...
I plan to stick to python, but learn its functional programming features.
This is the kind of over-engineering analysis that leads to overly complicated systems like XML schema.

Just because a field says "optional" doesn't mean it's logically optional. You don't have to make your schema formalism complex enough that it can describe every last rule of what it takes for a message to be valid. In fact you definitely don't want to do that, because it's a horrible amount of complexity in the schema for little gain.

Yes, it's true that some Googlers use "optional" instead of "required" everywhere in their .proto files. That doesn't mean that you can omit any field and expect your message to be processed by your peer without error. It just means that you won't get an error at the schema validation level. But the application could still throw an error. More complex rules about what fields must be specified or what values they must have can be described in comments, and enforced with custom validation if necessary.

Also, since protobufs support default values, you can define what value will be returned for scalar fields if no value is explicitly sent. This can often be used to define useful default behavior for the case where a field is omitted.
Direct link, http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out...
I remember seeing it talked about on local news when it was being implemented. It was normal to list “e911 support” on the outside of phone boxes when it was a new feature. Just checked my desk drawer and it is listed on the box of one of my HTC phones and one of my Samsung phones.

E911 can also use triangulation which is isn’t “in” your phone anyway. It’s possible with any type of radio transmission due to plain old physics.
The opening to the film “now you see me” did the forced-choice-of-card gag well.
doesn't that mean we have to trust the owners of the searx hosts though, if we don't spin up our own? I think i'd rather trust a faceless corp sometimes than someone with a potential axe to grind.
Yes. So why not just accept the competing offer anyways?
People brought phones to Jan 6th protest, thats how many of the 800 people have been found and imprisoned. Should be a lesson to future political protestors.
That's one of the big problems I see with enterprise agile development. Breaking up things into small independent parts never allows you to gain momentum on something. Pretty much everything I did that I am still proud of were done after focusing on the an issue for weeks or months until I/we had a very good grasp of the issue and built up the mental and code infrastructure to do cool things. You can't achieve this in 3 week sprints.
My experience is completely opposite to yours. I have a facebook account, phone number added and verified, profile privacy set to "friends only", but I can't find myself in the leaks.
In no case you need a second computer, except for convenience. I can have bootable usb w/ linux and even use my phone with an usb cable to transfer files, or even attach usb wifi with drivers I have already.

I can create bootable usb both on Windows and Linux. All of the statements are pretty much false.
What is your reason for believing that the proposal to write gcc in C++ is idiotic?
Black men living in the inner city stand to lose everything up to and including their life by "living up to that" and will garner almost no sympathy for doing so, even from close relatives.

Certainly some do live up to their stereotype out of spite and end up paying the ultimate price for doing so.

A rich person, is, almost by definition, shielded from the consequences of their actions so they can afford to act out of sheer spite toward the rest of society and get away with it.
why is hoarding an appropriate word to describe what extremely rich people are doing with their wealth? is jeff bezos hiding a huge company in his basement?
Micro-USB-A also has the movable part in the cable (the two little teeth on the flat side). You might be thinking of Mini-USB-A.
I was particularly amused by this line:

> Think about the official upgrade of 8GB of memory to 16GB, you need 1500 soft sister coins.
So how does that apply to the mobile phone market almost a century later? Again “words mean things”. Luckily, as I’ll informed as the government is they don’t define “monopoly” the way that random HN poster do. If that were the case they would say that Apple has a “monopoly” on smart assistants that can run on AirPods and they would break up that “monopoly” to.
The USA has 20x more motor vehicles per capita than India [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...
The physics engine of Vice City is definitely tied to the frame rate. If you switch off vsync, you can only drive in reverse veeery slowly.
I don't think that you're quite comprehending how bad the "nerdy privileged kid" experience is. I don't remember most of school. I remember all of the facts just fine, I remember some of folks' names and faces, but I mostly simply have a massive black hole in my memory where the first fifteen years of my life should be.

I didn't get "a rich education", I was repeatedly recommended to do special coursework which was different from my peers' work. My household wasn't "educated and affluent enough", but the school insisted that I be treated differently or else I would have to go to special needs. I was involuntarily medicated because they thought that it would improve my performance.

Bentham was right to imagine schools and prisons as having the same basic social structure. Maybe it was alright for you, but it was traumatizing for many of us.
Paying teachers more is beside the point. A well-paid teacher isn't suddenly a better teacher just because it earns more money.

The things we should invest in are more teachers, smaller and more separated classes and better teachers' education. Only the last one correlates (somewhat) with teachers' salaries.
Well, the question is really how bad the government run agency is at cost control. Some of them are dangerously bad. Many education administrations waste lots of money on administration, to the detriment of actual education. Many education administrations are run by someone doing a resume-padding exercise. Just because the short-term profit isn't in the company's results doesn't mean no one is taking advantage.

It's usually easy to bring in someone profit-oriented and cut those costs. The bad news is that this doesn't magically make the education provided any better.

The principal-agent problem goes deep.
Self-awareness mostly. No tricks, just paying attention to what I'm doing and making a conscious effort to change the subconscious behaviors.
No, I'm saying that generics syntax doesn't express the value of a language.
i do something similar but with tags and without the merging. vim's tag navigation is very powerful. split a window with the target tag and see side by side the class and its descendant for example.

i use `venv`s for every project inside the project folder so uctags also generates tags for all libraries installed and i can "drill all the way up" to classes and definitions.

it's also possible to have the system libraries show up in the tag database, it's just a matter of telling uctags which path's, files to include/exclude or alternatively use another tag file for that, vim can use multiple tag files.

the real pain point is keeping the tag file update. gutentags makes this a bit more easy for me.
No, it's surprising. I was under the impression that a placebo worked only if you didn't know it was a placebo. If you feed me a placebo while telling me it's a placebo then I would be under the impression that it would be non-effective, thus we wouldn't expect to get any placebo effect since I wasn't expecting it to work.

Having read this headline, though, I now have the opposite expectation: that placebos work even when you know they're placebos. This, for me, is excellent news, since I can now start taking placebos every time I feel sick and thus get better due to the placebo effect due to the fact that I now expect placebos to work and hence will now get a significant placebo effect from placebos!

The best part is that this works even if this study is bullshit.
Lobbying is just a fancy word for talking to Congresspeople. Thanks to human psychology, it doesn't even have to look like the mental image many people have of the lobbyist walking in with a suitcase of cash for some major cash transfer in the law. All you have to do is spend time with the Congressperson until their hindbrain decides you are "one of theirs", and then even if they don't consciously steer things your way they will subconsciously steer them your way.

How do you outlaw that? What are you going to do, cloister your Congressperson in their office and forbid them from seeing people? It's actually a big part of their job. Are you going to say that if a Congressperson is considering a certain regulation of a certain industry, under no circumstances should they ever talk to anyone with any connection to that industry? As stupid as law may sometimes be today, that would actually be even stupider.

Yeah, sometimes it does devolve into the suitcase scenario but really that's quite unsubtle.
> Religion is definitely a choice in countries where such subtle nuances of civil rights are being debated as in the main link.

Since honor killings happen in countries such as the UK....

Even if you're going to argue "it's a choice because it's not civil-legal to kill apostates", it's certainly "civil-legal" to shun them.
I strongly disagree. There is information about you that you can't control: such as friends that share photos of you; NSA, CIA, etc, data about you; government records; etc.

The one I am concerned is not my friend sharing a photo, is the data corporations and governments capture about me (with or without me knowing about). It was said here also, if you can make an infringement of the law, never know about it, and be held guilty by data you didn't even know to exist (the example being the import of foreign cheese in the US, even for personal use).
For the most EXTREME algorithmic compression of information to number of lines in Python (with few to 0 intermediate values stored), I've found it hard to beat using nested function definitions with abstracted shared logic called by running the vars() builtin as the parameter list. Basically ship the current scope elsewhere to finish processing to ensure no logic is repeated.

I tend to not use separate URL mappers in controllers but have nested functions that define both logic and layout simultaneously. (Basically a tree structure of function definitions where the ending subpage elements are leaf nodes, and nodes render wrapper base templates on post traversal unless it was an ajax request). I can post some code if this doesn't make sense. Obviously not defining new variables nor using classes is extremely unpythonic and could pose difficulties for group work... minimum number of lines while fun isn't everything!
I think this is a question that isn't discussed enough.

So you've formed the question as: "how can they screw us through X more", and that's certainly part 1 of the question, there's also the second part of "how can this reduce innovation - and screw us in the long term".

I approach this from the incentive alignment that drives politics. I assume that both big biz and gov't are in

Part 1: Corporations influencing the law

Laws are written by/for lobbyists on each side. Making a new law will inherently draw out the lobbys of each side (certainly has here). If corporations are allowed to play with the laws regulating them - you can imagine that they'll try to gain as much power as possible. Think about the banking regs and how the banks just raised the fees on other things instead - same problem.

Part 2: Law Slowing Innovation

Even if NN didn't have the influence issues, it'd still be regulating the way the internet is today - not how it might be. Just as we've seen in banking, when you put restrictions on the bad guys, you also hurt the good guys. Look at what happened to Prosper.com, etc. when they tried something innovation in banking. Look at how there are no progressive banks - only progressive services using the banking system. I'd like to avoid this issue at well so the internet so can further refined.

By regulating the source of the issue, the natural monopoly of the fiber network itself, can we allow innovative firms to get in the market quickly and have incentives to innovate - or at the very least encourage the big guys to keep up.
So, just more food for thought: this ideology (that it's bad to look at your tech through a feminist lens, or any other random social lens) tends to be a conservative force, not a progressive one.

Tech has to be built for someone. You build for people you (probably) assume have eyes and ears and hands and written language and a financial system and a predictable reward mechanism and a notion of privacy and on and on and on. The only thing that makes a product "good" or "bad" is its interaction with a massive stack of assumptions you're making about the user.

But you only know like 0.000002% of the possible users of your product. So really you're extrapolating wildly from a tiny set of clues about your user, based on signals sent to you by your culture. (Where "culture" is just the set of stuff that filters through to you about the people around you who you don't know personally.) And that culture holds some people to be more "normal" than others. Consider (as just some examples) that test subjects start to see a crowd as half women when it's much less than half. A movie poster with women on it is intended only for women; a poster with men on it is for everyone. A movie poster with only black people is intended only for black people; a poster with white people is for everyone ...

So the product you build is based on a dirty signal -- it incorporates a massive stack of assumptions about the user, derived from a culture that you know is lying to you about what a normal person is. If you build for your internal idea of a "normal" user, letting tech be tech, then you reinforce whatever happened to be handed to you without realizing you're doing it. That's why this is a conservative ideology.

"Feminism" in this context is a progressive tool -- it's a way to look at your product with fresh eyes. How do anonymity tools look if we assume that all users are equally important, focusing on the experience of men vs. women? Huh, it seems that the user base includes a significant number of men who are hateful toward women, and that has a big impact on who participates in anonymous forums and how men and women experience them. Now we have a lot of different options for dealing with that (censorship being only one, and obviously not one the Tor project would choose). Before we* used this lens, our only option was to ignore it and preserve the status quo.

Other "-isms" are just other tools. Anything that your culture cares too much or too little about -- and therefore tends to lie to you about -- is a possible lens to learn about users you're ignoring, because your mental model of "normal" doesn't match reality.

(* Note I'm not at all affiliated with Tor, just using "we" generally here.)
I think that's a separate argument from the one the OP is making, based on his selected quotes. I've read the article before, but I just re-read it to refresh myself.

The issue I take with it is that the story pitched to the reader is:

1) Life gets expensive and Wall st. produces tons of millionaires.

2) Smart guys go to Wall St. with dreams of making enough money to become leisurely professors.

3) Extra derivatives are created by smart guys which then destroy the world.

This seems ridiculous on several levels. First, virtually no one goes into massive debt by getting a PhD in the sciences; scholarships, grants, and stipends are always there to support bright students. Second, people have been doing sophisticated derivatives for a very long time; most people have no idea what an option is, much less how to price one, and that dates back to the days of Ed Thorpe. Third, I really just cannot believe that having a system where idiots manage money with the help of other idiots is less prone to disaster than idiots managing money with the help of smart guys.

The one thing that the author does have right is that the financial incentives are out of whack. That comes back to the deregulation issue which I consider the cause.

As for myself, I am also doing a startup and a couple research projects in my spare time, as well as going back to get my PhD starting 2011, so I guess Warren can sleep a little better knowing I'm not going to be "wasting" my life forever. ;)
First Amendment law makes this murky. A legally actionable threat has to be "true": credible, specific, intended to convey actual fear to its target. Even if it's to a federal agent.
Not so long ago, I was pretty much in your situation, except that I didn't have a PhD. I was moving into a software engineering role from a DevOps role. I was initially flunking a number of interviews at pretty much the same companies you have mentioned. My advice as most, Practice and Patience while solving problems. Practice talking through a problem in particular. The interviewer is waiting with a hint in hand, which you can always use to get a direction in which to solve the problem. Getting this hint 100% of the time from the interviewer is 100% fine.

As for study, I highly recommend the index page of this book, Elements of Programming Interviews, as a reference. It contains a catalogue of questions, whose complexity exceeds that of CTCI or PIE. Here are the links.

For the entire book, http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Programming-Interviews-Inside...

For just the index page, http://elementsofprogramminginterviews.com/pdf/epi-toc.pdf.

Good luck!
They're not the carrier. From the bottom of the page:

Gotham Air is not a direct air carrier but rather provides technology and information services enabling consumers to obtain aircraft charter and shared aircraft charter services from FAA certified and DOT registered air carriers who exercise operational control over all flights .
The writer clearly doesn't know really all that much about what they're talking about. They mention perfectly placed pixels which doesn't make any sense when talking about vector graphics.
A helicopter company is going to have a hard time hiring iOS developers and managing a software development project, not to mention the most important part: the brand.
Title: Intrinsic Motivation Doesn't Exist, Researcher Says.

Researcher: "But there is no real evidence that intrinsic motivation even exists."

These are different.
The comparison to Apple or a software company only makes sense is if an incremental sale requires very little investment. That's not true for Tesla though. They have to scale up massive factories to meet demand, while Apple can quite easily scale up iPhone production through contract manufacturers. Apple can also scale up their subscription revenue on TV, Music, Arcade and what not with zero incremental investment. These two companies are not comparable at all. Apple has very little CapEx on its books.
You've given some good pragmatic/technical reasons why Reddit might not want to host that stuff, apart from ideology.
My take is that resigning now prevents having to answer the question of supporting action under the 25th amendment.
I highly recommend not getting your anthropology lessons from diet subs on reddit. The level of information you get is questionable at best and often informed by incorrect stereotypes with little basis in reality. A lot of the same is happening here, with people talking about specific cold-environment adaptations like high meat consumption as if they apply to all of human evolution.

The current consensus is that groups outside the circumpolar regions typically ate large amounts of plant matter. In many groups it was even a majority of dietary calories, alongside things like honey and probably insects. This is archaeologically well-substantiated, even taking into account formation processes and preservation biases.
25th amendment questions
Congress isn't really one office, though. It's hundreds of individually run ones, each intended to serve the public fairly frequently. You can (generally) pop in and see your congressperson and/or their staff if you want.
It's not "bigger than Java". Java's a pretty big deal.
It's (a) pursuing opportunities (obviously after having opportunities arise) not interests, (b) clawing for power and not being content as a team power, and (c) maximizing ROI and getting other people to do the less glamorous statusful work while getting outsize share of credit for it, and of course being the luckiest of the 100 other brilliant people who tried something similar.
r/Conservative next please
<shameless plug>
I made it look nicer on OSX a few years ago: https://github.com/saghul/qrfcview-osx

Which reminds me I should bring it up to date...
</plug>