jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Did you talk to your boss about this? If not, then you somehow avoided the precise thing that you needed to proactively do.
Yes, and the high performer can be helpful in these situations and help the person/team who's having trouble pulling through, taking that off the plate of the manager and enabling them to do other things.
> I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose.

I think that's exactly why it's possible UBI might actually work. We can redistribute away the problem of not having enough money to eat or live, but we can't (and shouldn't) redistribute away the problem of creating a satisfying life for oneself. There must still be an incentive and challenge to improve the world we live in.
You're welcome to it, of course. Doesn't change the way it's received by most of us!
I have no sympathy for those who decided to spend high school smoking weed and screwing around and for those college students deciding to get a useless degree only to end up at Starbucks as a barista.

I know people who were _actually_ poor and had to drop out of high school to support their family. Those same people worked their ass off to go to community college and transfer to a better school and ended up successful. The idea that we should tax successful people like that to prop up leeches is just fundamentally wrong to me.
Yeah, that is a great idea! I tried building something like that, but didn't quite get it right. Maybe I should give it a second go.

I have also thought about adding a feature whereby you can ask the equivalent of "I would like to be able to pay myself X per month" and then be told how much you would need to bill per month. In a way it's the inverse of what the tool does today.
I suggest seeing both a professional psychiatrist (medical doctor) and psychologist (therapist). These feelings and emotional states can quickly get out of control, and it's best to get a handle on them ASAP from professionals.

> I tried studying math, buying drones, microscopes, and lots of other side hobbies

I am not sure what else you've tried, but these are all technocratic activities. Try something that quite literally grounds you. I would suggest things along the lines of gardening (your own garden or as a volunteer) or volunteering at Habitat for Humanity or other volunteer opportunities or martial arts. Humans are not evolved to be surrounded by and inundated with modern technology. We are evolved to move, touch dirt, and use our mind, body, and senses as one. Find something that connects you with other people, where they may even depend on you, and also connects you with the ground and nature. Many places need volunteers for a variety of work, which can often be fulfilling and create situations where people depend on you, which will help create drive.

As someone who deeply struggles with the philosophical questions that arise out of living in this world, I find it is best not to dwell on things like purpose. Out of all the questions we have about the universe, how would "answers" even help? If someone were able to tell you your purpose, if such a thing could exist, how would it affect you or change things? A good thing to learn is being content. You are this being in this world, nothing more and nothing less, and so the best way to live your life is to live it and stop thinking about living it.
Sounds like having an actual non-ephemeral computer with extra steps...
Jira. I host it at home and have my own workflows and projects set up.

Everything I do goes into JIRA.
Does "PRC" refer to People's Republic of China? Not clear.
It isn't so helpful to concentrate on the specifics of the lawsuit considered here, even if one thinks (as Greenspun seems to do) that it was without merit. In USA we sue too much over everything. Perhaps it's appealing to some to work up a high dudgeon about lawsuits brought by specific demographic groups; our biases always blind us. It's hard to credit, however, that unmerited lawsuits are never filed by white men with conventional morals. I'm not sure that our problem can be solved, but it won't happen while the lawyers can keep us focused on the trees and not the forest.

Greenspun's recent work studying divorce law is more likely to bear fruit, but he risks some nasty inferences when it's juxtaposed with posts like TFA.
Interesting story. The press generally wanted to see a "blatant case of sexual discrimination" , well sorry but things aren't that clear cut. Ellen Pao and her husband are controversial figures, and well known in the silicon valley.

The media,especially liberal media, wanted to build a narrative ,that didnt reflect the reality, so badly. I'm glad they failed. Which proves that they can be as biased and unbalanced as the other side they like to pick on and make fun of. It's now all about ideology no matter the cost or the facts.
I'm not saying this is a reason to do it, but the part of the model that isn't broken is that people love it. The consumers are benefiting.
Note that a websocket round trip is vastly shorter than an http round trip, though. If your payloads are small, 500 consecutive websocket back and forths take orders of magnitude less time than the "traditional" high level url post/fetch becauses there's none of the overhead of an http round trip.
I don't know you circumstances but it is possible to still do something out of desperation - possibly to feed your family - and hate it.
So 50% of your points are that Musk was wrong about self-driving. Fair enough, but why stop copy-pasting there?

As far as I remember, Tesla built a public battery swap station in a former car wash at Harris Ranch and real customers did use it. I also recall that the swapping hardware was demonstrated on video to do two pack swaps in the same time it took to re-fill a gas Audi. So I'm not sure what your point is with that.

The mini-sub was actually built, but not used. Not sure if I'd count that as "never came true".

As for the Roadster and Semi delays... the Semi is on the road (there are at least two of them), and it's not like Tesla is the only car manufacturer to miss shipping targets. Are the CEOs of those companies "liars" too?
On the topic of creating your own index, we’ve all heard of the SP 500, or the Russell 2000 indices, but isn’t it possible to mine the historical data to create an index that has a better rate of return based on one or more criteria such as market cap or P/E? E.g., stocks that fall within this range of P/E tend to outperform the market in a ten year time range. This would be an elaboration of the concept that small cap stock indices tend to do better over time because they have more room to grow, in contrast to the SP500 dominated by FAANG companies that have most of their growth behind them. I doubt this is a novel idea, but I just have not heard of it before.
Chairman Nadler Statement for Subcommittee Hearing on "Reviving Competition, Part 1: Proposals to Address Gatekeeper Power and Lower Barriers to Entry Online" (Feb 25)

https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID...
Why these companies do business in the EU at all is beyond me.
I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with "thriving internet status economies" or "reputation and attention." The problem is the "exclusivity" where people have to pay e.g. $45 to read an article often partially or completely funded by taxpayers and with absolutely no value-add other than "reputation and attention," in order to discover it is irrelevant to what they're researching.

In my view, it would be ideal if in an open-access world some editors and/or organizations endorsed and vouched for particular papers, and academics competed intensely for those endorsements, if those endorsements were career-making or career-killing, and those editors/organizations made a living from charging scientists for their consideration and review.

That's not the bad part. If the output is available to everyone to read, I don't see the tragedy.
I did this for years and then Trump rolled around and every developer and interesting person thought it was their duty to use their feeds as some form of resistance.

I remember one case in particular where the guy was a genius at posting niche Middle Ages history and then every other tweet became political and I was so sad, because I absolutely loved his content.

As an a-political person who tried hard (but failed occasionally) at keeping my stuff a-political or othwise I’d start a new account to be political because my main one was tech stuff.

Twitters biggest failure was the lack of tagging and filtering options it provided. The History Genius could have tagged his polical tweets as #political and Twitter could have an option to follow someone except their #political ones. Just like following without retweets.

The solution is obvious to me. But clearly Twitter founders love the political stuff or something. So I just chose to avoid Twitter at all costs unless linked to it or researching a topic, with the odd time I got dragged into it.
Do you agree with Crichton that it was wrong for newspapers to report on expert predictions the 2002 steel tariffs would affect US GDP or employment?

Do you think in retrospect this was a reasonable things for experts to predict?

That was the central tenet of the 2002 speech laying out the Gell-Mann amnesia effect (some prior discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18005236 )
If you've been suffused in the diversity problem for years, then it's perfectly understandable and you can boil down to very succinct arguments, that won't be convincing to anyone vested in maintaining the status quo.

I'm not entirely sure how much effort I want to put into trying to convince people who obviously don't want to be convinced, but here goes, since my above comment has been received well enough.

The industry is sexist. That's the answer. No more, and no less than other industries. This is very very very very very basic intersectionism. I can get a little deeper on this but someone well-versed in this can get a lot deeper.

Industry leaders do not want to listen to these experts. Because it threatens them. I'm lucky enough to work for a company big enough to realize they need to take it seriously. There's employee resource groups and the leadership talks about it, not in every town hall, but in enough of them. But Silicon Valley is run by a tribe of mavericks. They call it a pipeline problem when it's really a willingness problem. If they took it seriously they'd already have a solution. They don't, because sexism.
Productivity in this context is also defined by what makes the most wealthy and powerful more wealthy and powerful.

The old argument is that capitalism as is aligns with the people so when it benefits you benefit. As businesses optimize out those pesky alignment costs with society, this becomes less true.
I like the idea of a basic income instead of a minimum wage. Though your structure is fine for me from a technical standpoint, I do like a UBI (everyone gets the income) as a signal that society (and the Govt) will treat us all the same.

rule 3 seems a bit fuzzy, your other rules are at least understandable, even if I disagree
In a lot of cases the request is only polite initially, and you'll get mobbed by Twitter if you politely decline.
> China build hospitals and some roads for this, which is good, but all these projects doesn't have any ecological expertise in it. And China DOESN'T CARE of course.

But isn't the honesty refreshing? They don't come with guns or bibles or any notion of superiority. Just preying on the weak willed. I call that good business.
>Every revolution and coup has been driven by a small group of people utilizing social networks and shared ideology to win an asymmetrical fight.

That's not true at all - where do you get that?

There was literally a coup in the last couple of weeks that didn't follow your rule.
It would hurt Apple, but what about the antitrust allegations? They would shoot themselves in the foot.
You don't need to be so quick to assume it was Apple criticism.

I didn't downvote you because you criticized Apple or Google. I downvoted you because I don't think you made a very strong argument to support your claim about going without smartphones. There are reasonable options available with smartphones that don't spy on you. They're not flagship quality, not the fastest phones, but they work fine if your needs for a smartphone are to stay in contact with people for work/personal life, browse the internet, etc. PinePhone for example is gaining popularity & much cheaper: Their new version just sold out but they're taking pre-orders for the next shipment. For something a bit closer to flagship quality you can go for the Librem 5.
I have mixed feelings about fracking. It almost certainly pollutes areas, but lots of areas in not-United States get polluted currently from the oil industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Nig...

In other words, what makes us special? Why are we okay with polluting other places but by golly we get mad when it happens in our own country?
I've been meaning to try this for a while now but the release of your new Ubuntu repo (as opposed to PPA, details here for other Ubuntu users: http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/ubuntulinux/ ) has convinced me to finally install.

Congrats on the release. Love how fast the docker team is updating.
Small point, but SQL Server was developed by Sybase.
I can think of many factors, none purely logical. Humans are not purely logical.

We are desensitized to "normal" deaths. Think of how many people die each year in car accidents, while odd and bizarre deaths make the news. Conventional weapons are, as the tin says, 'conventional.' These are the normal weapons of conflict, nothing special to see here, move along.

Chemical, biological, and atomic/nuclear weapons are uncommon, and easy to define as being different in kind, rather than size or effect. This bright line is easier to understand.

Of those three non-conventional kinds, chemical weapons were once widely used during WWI. The horror of chemical weapons is not so much the deaths but the large number of people who survived, and lived with afflictions for the rest of their life. While conventional weapons leave people with missing limbs and scars and mental problems, chemical weapons tended to leave people who needed much more medical care, and suffered more. Chemical weapons weren't part of WWII in part because of the memories of the afflicted of WWI.

But only a part. Another is that chemical weapons aren't that effective against trained soldiers, and a change in breeze can as easily send the gas against one's own soldiers, or to the civilian population, which increases the likelihood of poor collateral damage.

Thus, chemical weapons are more easily interpreted as a means of killing a civilian population, rather than killing opposing soldiers. This is not acceptable in our agreed upon fantasy of rules for good warfare.

Had it been conventional bombs we could continue with the belief that they were after enemy combatants, who used civilians as shields.
Sometimes people need to be angry at their government. When the army is knowingly and deliberately irradiating a town in secret, people need to get angry. When the President is part of a conspiracy to break into the offices of his political opponents during an election, people need to get angry. When the director of national intelligence is lying to Congress about the intelligence community's violation of civil rights, people need to get angry.

If we silence conspiracy theorists, we ensure that conspiracies will never be unraveled because nobody will be allowed to bring them to light.
Yes. I looked up a few in my area, and... yeah. expensive. I'm not sure what to do at this point. I mean, I can pay that high amount of money and hope my product is a success, but that's a lot of money for a giant maybe. My odds may be better with some scratch offs
Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell.

I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.
Mine isn't - it started off underpowered, and before the thick-client javascript wave came and broke the internet. Browsing on it has become like torture.

I'd rather have my N900 than any other phone on the market, though.
The "How it Works" page looks very clip-art-y to me: http://sprayable.co/pages/how-it-works/

Reinforces the homeopathic points I suppose.
Well I would want contractor rates >$550 perdiem for this short term contract and via my company so I can reap the tax benefit.

Trouble is most employed people will have restrictions on outside work and if its related work the current employer will own that IP.
Lot's of very skilled people interview poorly. Nervousness, social stress, anxiety etc. So don't feel bad, people who interview applicants a lot know this. It's not a mark against you. If they are interested in you, they'll find a way to learn if you have the knowledge/skills they require for the job.

If I don't know the answer to a question or if it is ambiguious, I tell them. For example, I was once asked to describe how a TCP sessions ends. Well, that's implementation defined. What OS? Are we talking FIN ACKs or do TCP resets count as ending a session too? The RFC may say this, but in the real-world, software sometimes does it like that. Etc, etc.

And, many times the questions aren't made to be answered, but to draw things out of you (like the one above). And in these cases, you can turn the questions back on them. Put them on the answering end ;) and that's OK, those exchanges tell both sides a lot about the other.

I do like a few black and white questions. Like, "How many bits are in an IPv4 address" or "What data structure is a C++ set typically implemented in" and if candidates have no idea on an answer, then I do have concern over that. However, if they do not know the answer, but understand types and their sizes and data structures and their pros/cons, then that's good enough in some cases as well.
And, alternatively, you can use `git commit -a` if you want to bypass the staging area.
That is very amazing thing to hear.
Memories of BZFlag... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BZFlag
Can we just all agree that governments, all of 'em, are the damn enemy?
Well, bcrypt + random salt is great but it still can't protect you from bad passwords. It's vulnerable to a dictionary or bruteforce attack the same way everything else is.

You _can_ increase the difficulty of bcrypt, which essentially increases the iterations (as you mentioned). Most bcrypt libraries default this value, but the programmer can override it. The downside is that this requires you to update all of your hashes, which limits how often this is done.
That's rather closed minded of you. If you don't want to be bothered by differing perspectives, there are plenty of echo chamber outlets for you to choose from so we can further distance and alienate ourselves from each other.

Homophobia, racism, politics - everything gets better when we share openly.
That would make implementing search quite hard so I'd say - it's pretty likely they don't encrypt it.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. Setting up IRC on a .onion isn't even difficult. Setting it up with SSL is only a touch harder.
This is one of those Walls coming down moments for me.

I have banged on about how governments and states are losing their privacy as much as individuals - and whilst this is happening after a political crisis, it is increidble to see a few determined hackers and some simple off the shelf equipment is throwing open the doors to a hidden state. Truly eye-opening, and something we should look for in our nice safe democracies.

PS
Plus I know a few Ukrainians and hope that this can get resolved with no further bloodshed.
You can't, that's illegal.
A buddy who is an excellent reverse engineer assures me that this isn't a conspiracy. Crypto services had to be verified by a key; the NSA's crypto services were classified, so they couldn't let Microsoft sign them; therefore, they needed their own key. The key is only used to authenticate crypto services, which I think Douglas Adams would describe as Mostly Harmless.

I don't have the reverse engineering skills/IDA Pro license to verify this, but fwiw I trust and respect this person's skills.

But lets do a thought experiment.

1. How much would the NSA gain from pressuring Microsoft into backdooring (or as they say, "enabling") Windows, in terms of systems they could not access before that they can access now?

2. How much would it cost the NSA, in terms of effort, good will, and exposure to risk by the people at Microsoft who would know about the backdoor and may leak or abuse it? How bad would it be if the public got wind of it? How hard would it be to keep it secret over the years, especially as engineers moved around to other companies? Would they have to involve foreign nationals on the dev team? Could they be trusted not to warn their governments?

3. How many times could they abuse their backdoor before it was obvious Windows couldn't be trusted? When/if that happened, what would be the damage to the US economy, and to their ability to penetrate systems?

When I put myself in the shoes of DIRNSA and ask myself these questions, backdooring Windows (at least through official channels, like _NSAKEY supposedly is) seems like an insane proposition.
That depends. Do you believe what is shown on Shark Tank?
> "They'll deflect, ignore, and basically try anything to escape the reality - they broke the rules of society and now society wants to punish them."

I think most people, criminals or otherwise, understand this quite well. In fact, I'd guess that criminals understand it better than non-criminals.

What some people don't seem to understand (or even want to think about) is that the law is often a pitiful and nationally embarrasing reflection of ethics. Laws don't get passed because they are good, or helpful, or promote some positive thing. They get passed because enough politicians could be convinced (sometimes by bribery, sometimes by real or implied threats) to vote for them. Why anyone imagines that the resulting laws have a significant correlation with what's good for an individual's rights and freedom is totally beyond me.

Gandhi, MLK, and the U.S. Founding Fathers were all criminals of their times. Sometimes the world needs people to break the law to show how broken the law really is. If you or anyone else judges them solely because the label "criminal" applies to them, then I have no pity for you.
Hey Everyone,

I'm Jon (CTO) of WebPurify. I wanted to answer some of your questions.

1) There will be false positives and negatives with any profanity filter, we just try our best to minimize these. Our filter's algorithm is based on several years of feedback from our customers and you have the options of adding words to your custom allow/reject lists.

2) Most of the alternative image and video moderation services use crowdsourcing, which we have found to be generally inaccurate, not to mention there are security issues.

We have dedicated teams.

3) Simultaneous connections means the number of open connections you can have to our service at any one time. We chose this pricing model because it takes far more processing time to filter 100,000 characters than it does to filter 10 characters.

So basically, the longer the text you filter, the fewer requests you can make in a given period of time.

4) Our Video Moderation API will be publicly available in the next few months, until then contact sales@webpurify.com if you would like to discuss a custom project.

As always our Support Team (support@webpurify.com) is available to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks!