jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
It says that founders are less technical, and more likely to be based in NYC not SV.

But YC, the poster-child of the new wave, is totally "technical founder", and I also read that the share of VC investments in California vs Rest Of The World has risen from 47% in ~2000 to over 50% now.

Discrepancy?
Isn't this just a variation on an old scheme, ads for which used to appear in magazine and newspapers (in both full-page and classified listing formats)?

The product toted was usually a small pamphlet instructing you how to make surprising sums of money by writing a pamphlet instructing others how to make surprising sums of money by writing pamphlets.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose…
I wanted a display like this for years. In fact, I even did a lot of research to build my own. The biggest hurdle was getting a manufacturer to sell me a big-enough panel at reasonable cost. Absolutely nobody wanted to do anything less than 1k units (understandable, I guess), and I wanted only a few units.

I hope they will make larger versions too. The refresh rate on this display is pretty impressive, but I would be happy even with much slower refresh rate. My needs are humble, I use Unix and Plan 9, and most of the time I write programs in acme. I don't need scrolling, and I certainly don't need color.

I love how easy it is to read (for me) text on an e-ink display and how little fatigue I get. Retina displays significantly improved the experience on regular displays, but it's still significantly behind in the eye-strain department.
Thank you. This is the kind of explanation that should be on the landing page.
But it being an external CDN means that there is no indication that the actual servers they have control of were tampered with. The possibility that HSTS could have saved the day is just as valid. There is no indication that the CDN got these incorrect files with any kind of encryption or signing.
>> Unless the individuals in the species driving the settlement have very long lifetimes (> 100 y) it is di cult to see how a galactic scale culture can arise
(i.e. commerce etc. Krugman (2010)).

Why is a mere "more than 100 years" considered a "very long lifetime"? Is there any reason to assume that the majority of intelligent species, capable of technological civilisation, that may inhabit the galaxy, will not have a lifetime measured in thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years?

The lifetime of the averarge star is a few billion years. We can assume that mos species will not have naturally evolved lifetimes lasting bilions of years, but a) species may evolve lifetimes lasting millions of years, or, b) a technologically advanced species may extend its lifetime indefinitely.

A species whose individuals lived for a few hundred thousand years would have plenty of time to visit the Earth by travelling in sub-relativistic speeds, from a significant portion of the galaxy. A species whose individuals lived for a few million years would have plenty of time to visit the Earth and wait for our own civilisation to die out. A species whose individuals lived for billions of years could pay us an intergalactic visit and still have time for tea.

Extremey long lifetimes are not impossible and they are not even particularly improbably. Here we are wondering whether there are other technological civilisations among the stars. Why should we assume that they are anything like we are?
Programming languages evolve slowly because they're more like mathematical notation than technology, so said someone smart whose identity I can't recall. Lots of smart people have been thinking for more than a half century about the following problem: How to elegantly tell a computer what to do? With all that brainpower invested in this problem, the low-hanging fruit is gone. It's understandable that progress is slow now. I doubt there are great programming paradigms waiting in the wings, waiting on technological advances like faster CPUs, more memory, or better graphics.

After staggering expenditures of effort by some of the world's sharpest minds over more than half a century, I doubt there are any more major breakthroughs awaiting us in the field of programming languages. (Unless AI starts to play a major role, in which case I couldn't predict how programming would change.)
Do you have any statistics on just how many of these high wage jobs exist? Because I know a lot of people who lack college degrees who would kill for a job that pays over $10/hour.

catching your seafood

Fisheries around the US are collapsing. It seems like the seafood catching industry is shedding jobs.

transporting your food and goods in trucks or moving it off the dock

I believe that trucking has been reduced because of the recession which suggests that trucking jobs should decline slightly.

resurfacing the asphalt on your street

Many municipalities don't have the cash to spend on street repair.

putting up sheetrock in the new housing development down the road

There's a massive glut of housing stock right now. A few years ago, everyone and their brother was working in construction, building crappy third rate homes with substandard quality and chinese drywall. But then the housing bubble burst and guess what? Most of those sheetrock hackers were tossed out of work.

assembling your cars

There are actually very few jobs in automotive manufacturing in the US. This sector has been heavily mechanized. Have you seen the financial shape the automotive industry is in? It is heading for a major consolidation. And people aren't buying cars at the rate they once did since they don't have disposable income. This sector is likely to be shedding high wage jobs, not gaining them.
1. You borrow 100 shares from a broker.

2. You sell the 100 shares for, say, £1000 in total.

3. Prices for the share ideally go down. (You and others have been selling, after all)

4. You then buy 100 of the shares for, say, £900 in total

5. You then give the broker the 100 shares back

6. You've made £100

Normally the broker would charge a commission for the lending, hence his/her motivation. So if the commission were £10 you'd have £90 profit.

Naked short selling is when you miss out the broker. So you don't owe the broker anything, but you still need to give the buyer of your fictional shares something real, so you end up buying them, at a hopefully lower price, later.

Defenders of short-selling claim it helps quickly respon to fundamentals in the market place. For instance once we heard the US might fine BP people could start selling BPs shares without owning them (yet).
The article linked below describes Porsche's short squeeze and contains one of the best explanations of short selling I've come across to date.

http://radian.org/notebook/porsche
Going to get down voted here but is anyone else concerned that we have people building price prediction systems and hedge fund accountants that admit they don't have a complete understanding of what a short sale is?
Really? Given the statement above, which boils down to: "buy low and sell high", what's the difference? Generally, market microstructure tells us there are speculators and value investors, both serving a due purpose in the functioning of a market. Value investors are most adequately described as those who buy an asset below market value, rather than at or above market value. Both types of market participants are in it to make a profit.
While I think that while most mathematicians are aware of Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity theory, the first thing that comes to mind when they hear "random" is the theory of probability. In probability a random variable is, roughly speaking, an experiment that has a set of possible outcomes each occuring with a certain probability. The probabilities are not necessarily the same.

I think most mathematicians would agree that Probability is a much larger and important branch of mathematics than Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, and usually use "random" in its probabilistic meaning.
You do realize you're simply repeating commonly held bullshit wisdom, right?
Note to self: smuggle nuclear weapons underneath a pile of bananas.

Or at least draw a picture of it because of how hilarious the premise is.
The reality is that most job postings aren't tied to actual jobs that need to be filled right now. These postings just hang out there on websites and passively gather resumes. Occasionally someone actually looks at the applicant pool for 10 minutes and picks a few. The rest are never responded to or dealt with in any way. You'll probably never get a response, or you'll get one three months after you've started another job.

My personal favorite experience was being called (on my desk phone) by a recruiter in response to an application that I submitted, for a different job at the same company. I had applied 4-5 months previously, and had been working there for at least 3 months. One hand seriously has no idea what the other hand is up to.

I sympathize with you, this can feel pretty bad as an applicant (especially if you've done a lot of work on your resume / cover letter just for that job). Once I realized how things work on the back end, I stopped caring or even thinking about jobs until an actual human reached out to me.
It sounds like the goal is to get people programming. That means a combination of teaching them, and getting them excited. Being able to show the thing you created to your friends is a powerful motivator.
I've had good success teaching Lua with https://love2d.org/. Super easy to create click-and-run executables that work on OS X and Windows. Mobile's a different story (obviously), but as a teaching language + environment I find it, well, lovely. :)
Back when I was in college in a Christian organization we would pair up and go share the gospel with other students on campus.

One technique that worked surprisingly well for me was that one of the pair would pick the person that the other would have to go up to and try to converse with.

Somehow that created the feeling of a dare that I could get into, even though if I had been considering talking to the person on my own, I would have talked myself out of it.
I believe "Market Wizards - Jack D. Schwager" highlights this. When speaking with some of the best and most successful traders in the markets, he found that the one common thing between them was "Game Perspective". They understood human emotion and had this desire to be the best at the game. The money/wealth was not the focus but the reward. If I remember correctly (read the book a couple of decades ago), most did not even have much of a Financial background if any.

I recently read a blog post by Martin Shkreli who wrote that he was really bad at trading and doesn't participate. It takes very unique individual to be successful at trading and he is not one of them. He used the analogy where you can think of trading like a professional sport. Could you get into the Octagon with a UFC Fighter and expect to win because that is what you're doing when you try to trade.

My take away is if a person like Shkreli doesn't stand a chance, then how would I....
Huh? There’s version control for designers. The leader in the space is called Abstract.
>what is Google doing or planning to do with this information that is dangerous

That is not the right question because if a rogue US administration, that is, an administration willing to defy US courts and the US Constitution wanted Google's data, there is probably nothing Google could do to stop them from getting it.

(Such an administration could probably only get away with that during a time of national emergency, e.g., a war or a massive solar flare knocking out most of that nation's electricity for a month, but there are undemocratic elements in every country who are basically waiting for such national emergencies.)

At least I've never heard of a plan, from Google or anyone else, that would allow Google to successfully thwart, e.g., a surprise raid by thousands of US law-enforcement officers.

In other words, Google's data-collection practices are a menace (to US residents at least) even if we could be guaranteed that Google would never willingly use it in any bad way.
Exactly. It may not be direct responsibility - but it's still your fault that password policies weren't made obvious on the onboarding process for IT hires for example. It's your fault there isn't a culture of technical supervision, or regular auditing, etc etc.
I use global marks for things like my .vimrc (`V), .zshrc (`Z), and other config files that I edit semi-regularly. Definitely a useful tool for the box.
Eh, I mean, that's $120 and a break-in every two years, and it's been a long time since I gave up wearing those but I recall the break-in taking the same uncomfortable couple of months for them as it does for the boots I wear. Rather only do that once a decade if I can help it.
To echo and add to rwultsch's sibling comment:

* Facebook had extremely frequent schema changes, and powerful declarative schema management automation to support this

* The TAO (or more correctly "UDB") use-case supported using many separate tables, not one giant generic key/value table as people seem to assume

* The non-UDB MySQL use-cases at Facebook, in combination, are still larger than the vast, vast majority of all other companies' databases. These non-UDB databases use a wide range of MySQL's functionality. The frequent claims that "Facebook used MySQL just as a dumb K/V store" are absolutely incorrect and have never been correct.
I wish there was a solution for Cisco WebEx. To join in a browser and avoid their application.
On macos it automatically adds itself to the launchagents (or whatever that autolaunch on login is), it is not the easiest thing to get rid of (regular users might be stuck with it forever.
> Else what prevents things like usage of Google analytics/fonts etc from triggering a match and blocking?

The blocking was/is complementary. Usually, domain names themselves were blocked by DNS poisoning (or IP blocking if it escalated), domains themselves (or the names of the websites) did not appear in the keyword blocklist. A link to Google Analytics or Facebook button could stuck the webpage from loading properly until a timeout, but merely mentioning or linking a domain name would not trigger a keyword match of the page itself.

The intention of keyword matching was to allow partial access while still blocking unwanted content. Usually, only the most politically unwanted keyword entered the keyword list. For example, Wikipedia could be accessed normally, but as soon as "a word that should not be named" appeared in the webpage, the connection would be reset immediately. An interesting phenomenon was, sometimes the page could partially load and stopped exactly before the forbidden word. And since the censorship system worded on mirrored traffic, sometimes a slight processing delay allowed the full page to load before the RST was received, it would be a "I'm feeling lucky moment".

Anyway, there was how the system worked before 2010. The extensive use of HTTPS rendered it useless, and it appeared that some forms of keyword filtering has already been lifted, since it's already a pointless exercise.

For quite some time after keyword matching became ineffectively, DNS poisoning remained the only form of censorship for many unwanted but not significant websites, for example, Hacker News. But recently, SNI matching was implemented.
One of the problems with hacking the hashtag (#) in the URL is that this fragment identifier is supposed to be used to identify a portion of the document. As such unexpected things can happen when you try to exploit the hash tag for other purposes.

For example, with older of versions of Microsoft Office you cannot use a pound character in a hyperlink:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/202261/you-cannot-u...

Some email applications may unexpectedly strip the tag, attempting to be smart about handling it in the RFC 3986 sense (not anticipating this use-case at all). When the data appended to the # is a dependency to view the link, it can more easily render the link unusable.
Just to put that in context, MD big bosses were still laughing dismissively at us for worrying on Monday evening.

A week later, the hospital is at 2/3 from max capacity and they're pissing their pants. This doesn't stop them from engaging in academic research for their own interests and assuring the public that all will be fine, though.
It is called rhombus and there is an open discussion going on at https://github.com/racket/rhombus-brainstorming
Yeah, but that's gonna be sensored out of every US channel dee-beep-lue
I agree with you and I want to make it clear that I don't think meditation itself is fraud. I'm pretty sure meditation is an effective way to deal with stress.

It also sounds plausible that reducing stress would help with skin problems -- I think it's pretty much consensus that neurodermatitis can be triggered by stress.

Another example are IR heat lamps: they were often used to help with joint pain. I don't know how effective they are, but at least they feel good. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with buying a heat lamp and using it.

But someone I know was sold one of these lamps as a cure for her cancer, for about 100x the normal price of such lamps. There is no way a fancy lamp is going to help when the surgery failed. People will pay anything for a glimmer of hope, and peddlers of "alternative" treatments prey on this desperation. That's the problem with alternative medicine.
huh?

SSC wasn't the source here. He is the subject here.

If I was a politician/content creator/writer etc and the NY Times wanted to write an article about me....what do you mean I should get the option to remain anonymous. I am a public figure. Just because I say "I'm not public" doesn't mean I'm not a public figure. If I have 100k followers then I am a public figure.

It is perfectly acceptable to write about a subject without their consent. The majority of important journalism is writing about people without their consent. That is what separates news from PR statements. This is great. It is great for society that people are reported on whether they like it or not.

I think you can argue that this article was not very interesting - but I think the NYT was perfectly justified in assigning someone to cover a blogger with a considerable following.
I don't trust any mainstream news other than local because it all seems like either propaganda or theater. In my opinion, NYT and The Washington Post are the two most despicable out there.
Ridiculous dogmatism
Yes there are several possibilities. And no, I don't think anybody could figure something like that out.

What you can do is follow chains of mutations and infections and try to get somewhere.
An interjection here. Not directly related to the NYT article, just your comment.

I feel the entire US has "gone mad". I'm a Canuck, and US and Canadian politics don't 'mesh'. So whenever I've spoken to Americans over the decades, often their politics make little sense, don't align, seem cogent to me. This, of course, I consider normal for a non-local such as myself.

However over the last decade or so, I've noticed that the "two sides" in the US now each turn into gibbering mad lunatics when you discuss certain topics. Prior, I could at least discuss topics, without enraged foaming-at-the-mouth type of responses.

IMO both sides have gone entirely, and completely mad. Politics in the US now seems to have lost all capability to talk to "the other side", and instead transitioned into immutable lines drawn in the sand, adopted with the logic often employed with religion, taken as gospel and truth merely for tribal sake.

It's almost like the death of religion, has transition that same unyielding faith-only, non-empirically backed up logic into politics. On both sides. As if the US psyche requires some faith based belief system as the central core of its existence.

Alternatively, it just could be endless whispers from external, hostile nations... designed to create endless turmoil and the eventual downfall of the US empire. Which, to me, is quite sad.

edit:

To highlight what I mean here... "talking points". In the past, I could have real, meaningful discussions with Americans about political topics.

I'd "say things", and they'd say things back, and we'd have a conversation about a specific political stance. Now, this has devolved into almost everyone, whether left or right, having "talking points". Most often, these talking points have not even been examined by those I'm talking to.

They are simply repeated, without the speaker even having thought of what it means, or even able to debate that position with any clarity.

And again, this is "both sides".

It's like each is merely repeating words from a "holy book", and heresy is the result if one diverges. It's like each side has a Pope, which issues edicts, and even if it doesn't make sense, the duty is to repeat, obey, and try to find wisdom in the words one must follow.

No longer politics. Religion.

Hence my take -- madness.
I don't know if this explains all the duplicates, but at least that particular example is due to Bill Waterson's sabbaticals:
The last result from May 21, 1994 lies within the period of his second sabbatical – April 3 through December 31, 1994.

For those two periods, Gocomics is simply filling the gap by repeating earlier strips (and I think the same thing happened during the strip's original newspaper run, too). So if you didn’t knew about those sabbaticals (or forgot about them), it's easy to accidentally include those duplicate strips if you were to just blindly process everything between November 18, 1985 and December 31, 1995.
Though they have an employment rate that's on par or worse than us, Europe has more apprenticeship, training type programs. I wonder if there's less of a stigma in their societies against vocational programs.
> I wonder if we can hack the kinship part without the tuition part?

Y Combinator? Seriously, it's' the future graduate school that teaches you how to be an entrepreneur and pays you to do it! You know what the kinship to fellow alums is like in the Y Combinator network :-)
That (brilliantly) is not directly related to conversion rate.
That article is not about bridging the gap between economists and programmers.

It is about one person's vague ideas for how to hard-code their personal beliefs about how economic policy should behave into the technical design of the monetary system.
It's actually the origin of "perk" as in "job perks" (as opposed to "perk" as in "stand up straight" or "be lively").
Easter is the holiday, and it's on Sunday. I'm pretty sure the Pope doesn't care much what people do the day after Easter (or the day after that).
With the release of Amber you'll be able to sprinkle in only the view layer, or only the core if you see fit. So it'll be less of an investment.

However personally I think the other stuff that is in there is pretty slick as well. The data bindings are pretty handy.
Couldn't agree more Colin, let us (the community of people building apps with it) continue to do the evangelizing, your team has been doing a great job and we appreciate it a lot.
I go to Google.com and see no background image. Still plain white background. Thus, I don't understand the fuss. Do you have to enable it explicitly? Anyone else had the same experience?
Adding to the other comments ... such a service doesn't have a chance to not be free of charge. In this case the idea can be copied quickly, and not that hard to do.

Having Apple acknowledge and distribute their work is the best thing that could happen.
This is almost like housingmaps.com but X100.