skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
18K + loss of income while in class and job searching + inability to write off the expense as job search/education costs. Even now making twice my previous salary, come tax time I will have taken home half of my income from the previous year. I'm not knocking my school for a second; it was great...

But for someone with a decade of work experience in tech before switching and no degree, I found the opportunities available -- especially fulfilling ones that provide the mentorship to give foundation to a long career -- few and far between post-graduation. The opportunity that I did take will lead to another year of just scraping by and a lot of uncertainty while I continue to "prove myself" worthy of a decent fulltime offer.

And I'm on the better end of the scale technically and "work-culturally" compared to my peers. There is a huge glut of devs around this experience level out there.

I learned too late that there are better options available. I wish that I had taken them, because now I'm faced with poor options ahead: a) great opportunity but stay poor a while more, b) financial security but no mentorship, c) great opportunity with company with incredibly uncertain future.

Because of my background, most of the places that interviewed me wanted to stick me in a 100% DevOps role, regardless of the position applied for. Frankly I am not interested in that at the moment.

I know it sounds like I'm complaining - honestly I have great options available in front of me and some of that credit surely goes to my school, but the best option and the one that I am taking would have been much more financially acceptable had I not done the school in the first place.
Hire fast, Fire even faster
Actually, negatives are often easily provable.

For example, I could prove that I don't have a dragon in my pocket without breaking a sweat.
https://github.com/emhill/117-S15/commits/master/src/morea/m...

Might be out of date. Looks like the book was built with Sphinx (documentation tool), so maybe you could find the source and build a fresh copy.
You would be surprised to learn just how few people run your favorite web service.
I guess at some point, I agree, but this is so far from the problems of forced ranking and application of curves to small numbers of staff that I think it's incommensurate.
Microsoft Provides First Look at Windows Bridge for iOS
I really hope it plays out like it did in Peace on Earth [1]

1) http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-15-171554-1
It's in the queue. :) The Crowd Favorite site is in the process of being redesigned, and there'll be changes to the Forty site coming shortly after that.

(These changes aren't just because of the hamburger menu, obviously. Digital stuff moves pretty fast in general, and companies keep evolving.)
The internet's largest collection of software discounts for entrepreneurs
>The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.

Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model.

The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
Or in a less jaded view, they decided to try a very low cost fix before pulling the trigger on a very expensive site navigation redesign. Or, even better, this showed a partial improvement while they worked on the navigation redesign since "turn it yellow" takes 2 seconds and redesign the navigation takes much longer.
VOIQ (YC S15) lets companies create on-demand call centers
Autodesk Releases New Stingray 3D Game Engine
Please see the FAQ regarding job posts. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
I just hope we can keep people like you
we

Used intentionally to double down on your point, or irony?
That's what they'll use for autonomous killer robots, too. Not hard evidence that someone is a real threat, but "predictive assessment".

It's basically what they do with drones strikes, too. The only difference is that someone has to sign-off on it (still rather important check, but it has likely become another rubber-stamp action by now, too) and then someone else has to push the button (but has not play in deciding whether the target is innocent).

Once again, data mining for stopping terrorist attacks doesn't work (and it creates orders of magnitude more false positives):

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/03/why_data_mi...
What do they cover in the basic general engineering course?
This seems like more of a gripe about life in general, capitalism and 80/20 rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
503s galore. Is anyone seeing issues in other S3 regions?
Look it up. There have been plenty of studies. You should recommend exercise because it's healthy. You should be careful when recommending exercise as a weightloss measure because we know it doesn't help people lose weight.

Your comment about laws of physics is true, but misses the point that exercise makes it harder for people to maintain food changes, and it's food changes that are most important for weightloss.
I'm only online abroad when I have a WiFi connection which is only a couple of times a day.
iPhone+6+Bendgate+Issue+Fixed+in+iPhone+6S+[video]+|+Geek+Inspector
Ice cooled MacBook Pro to avoid overheating problems
A space race to Mars is a fun, if monstrously wasteful economically, way for the nations to one-up each other.

A space race to build weapons to destroy each other's satellites is not fun, and not good news. I don't see the higher probability of armed conflict with Russia or China as a good trade-off for development of space technologies. And going to war because "we damn well deserve it" is a terrible reason.
I get home between 7 and 8pm. Usually my evening goes:

1. Yoga at my neighborhood studio

2. Dinner (eggs and toast with kimchi, maybe sauteed kale if I'm feeling ambitious)

3. Reading time or, if feeling lazy, I listen to a podcast and crochet for a little bit.

4. A small amount of writing (at the very least a journal entry)

As you can see... the last thing I want to do when I get home is touch code. But maybe this is why I'm a mediocre developer...

Does anyone have any advice as to how I can actually want to code when I get home???
I wouldn't say it gets coopted. I'd say it has historically gotten appropriated, and then the public has been too ignorant to tell the difference.

(Either through the unwillingness or incompetence of any of the original disciples to popularize the true meaning, or simple giving way beneath ever better funded commercial interests)
Just like YouTube helped create a new generation of movie maker, blender will make creating high end 3d graphics child's play.

Open source really has gone a long way. And can't wait to see part 2.
Looks like it got better around 12:20 PM, about 10 minutes after the incident started. We haven't seen any problems in the last few minutes.
How's that worked out so far?
Not to me it doesn't. I see this near the bottom of the page:

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Subscribe to Purchase article
Nature Physics full text and PDF:
for full access: $32
$175 [Buy Now]
[Subscribe]

Edit: Thanks Mr. M.
Dynamic Self-Assembly of Hierarchical Software (2003) [pdf]
Oh, come on, that's an obvious one. Obviously, "removing the while(False) loop" in this case means replacing it with an empty return:

def stub():
return

print("hello, world")
stub()

There, it works.

That said, boo Python for not admitting empty bodies. It needlessly adds a special case to its syntax. I suspect this comes from the implementation of its lexer.
In the article, it shows NBC News, which is "a sprawling news site covering dozens of topics".
...says someone who just used "we" in a too-general sense themselves!
I find a lot of web design to be choosing the least bad among a bunch of bad options. I find 'flat' designs to be the least bad in most situations.
The principle of charity asks you to grapple with the best possible version of an argument. If the one making the argument makes an obvious mistake, correct it and take on the corrected argument rather than the flawed one. Nowhere is logical thought suspended. The goal should be truth, so why fixate on small mistakes instead of fixing them and engaging with a sounder argument?
I worked at Nokia in Finland from 2006 to 2014. I have nothing but good things to say about the company.

I have since moved back to the United States, but my management philosophy has definitely been shaped by the culture there and the way they treated their employees.
But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business.

Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...
Lol, that's a half an hour drive from here.. Would be funny if you still were there :p ( considering i don't see much belgians here and especially people located in West-Flanders )
I don't really see how finance is a zero-sum game.

I mean, trading in paper without any insight into the capital allocation the paper is abstracting, and observed over a very short time horizon, it's more or less zero-sum. Many synthetic products just distribute risk differently. Etc.

But finance more generally is helpful for efficiently allocating capital towards wealth generating industry - and by industry I mean it literally, people physically doing things, creating things, generating wealth by the sweat of their brow. When you own a share of a wealth-generating enterprise that grows in value, you're acquiring some fraction of the discounted future returns on that effort today. This isn't zero-sum; it's a slice of tomorrow's wealth, today. And it's backed by real action, actual things, products and services that you can use or exchange with other people for things you prefer more. These are things that didn't exist before the capital allocation, and may never have come about without it.
As with anything about blowing up satellites, the potential for a runaway chain reaction of debris collisions should be mentioned. It's not pretty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Maybe I misunderstand the OP's point but I specifically took issue to this very topic, at the expense of my karma apparently, because religion is differente.

Religion is 'solved' in the sense that they are man made belief systems, all which proclaim to be true, and most holding mutually exclusive claims between each other.

It is not debatable in a way left-right politics and their backers' stances and reasonings are. I'm not hating on them because it is not their fault. I feel for those trapped, I really do.

Given time societies turn (and have already turned in large parts) away from it through education and the undrstanding of the universe and the human condition via scientific method. There is no middle ground in this specific instance.

You would not entertain an alchemist or an astrologist either. Religion will soon join them in that regard in the collective consciousness.
In my apps I generally use the Hamburger menu to hide stuff that's required but not used very often. (Settings, legal agreements etc..) Since engagement is lower for these things anyway it allows you to have them there if needed without cluttering the main content that should be the focus.
what? Github has a separate search for filenames. It's called the 'file finder' and is activated by pressing 't' when viewing a repo.
I agree, but I think this is what makes SV wonderful. You have to be somewhat naive to think your approach is going to be better than the status quo, particularly when your competition is well established, and probably well capitalized.

The reason why big companies can't turn on a dime is that they have a lot of people who work for them, and an existing customer base. It's difficult to align all of those people on a new, and potentially better way of solving a problem. It's not that they are collectively "idiots", it's that they have an established business with an established track record. This is quintessentially the Innovators Dilemma. Technology markets almost always move downmarket to the cheaper solution which at first looks like a "toy".
> I found the opportunities available -- especially fulfilling ones that provide the mentorship to give foundation to a long career -- few and far between post-graduation. The opportunity that I did take will lead to another year of just scraping by and a lot of uncertainty while I continue to "prove myself" worthy of a decent fulltime offer.

I appreciate the honesty. I think you hit upon a common problem. There's really not a great job track for people coming out of bootcamps. Also, you're right, it deserves mentioning that those months afterward while you hunt for a job are lean months indeed.

I think a company that goes all in on bootcamp grads and makes what is essentially a second program for them might really find themselves with a lot of talent on their hands. But sadly most jobs you'll get afterward lack mentorship.

Which, not to beat a dead horse, but this industry needs to get a better grasp on tech mentorship.

I'm curious to know what better options you're talking about?
> I personally don't find anything wrong with a hamburger menu per se.

The trouble, which the article describes with some case studies on engagement before and after hamburger menu implementations, is that people who are not you are confused by it and don't understand it to be a menu.

fwiw, I've encountered this quite a bit when helping users switch from Internet Explorer to Firefox or Chrome -- both of which use the stupid hamburger menu -- an users hate it and "being able to find things" is probably the number one reported reason that they go back to Internet Explorer.

ed: for a more specific example, look at Firefox or Chrome, try really hard to imagine that you are a first time user of that web browser, but you've used IE before, and then figure out how to do one of the most common things that people want to do with a web browser: bookmark a page.
In retrospect, I should have clarified what I meant by recommending the 3- to 5-item menu in the article; I was assuming the need to consolidate the menu to that many items on mobile, even if it wasn't so consolidated on larger views. There many need to be a "junk drawer" as others here have mentioned, or maybe those secondary items rely on navigation in the content itself.

I think the best practice might be to pare down the navigation to the most important items, so at least those have visibility in a mobile context. However, these are still new design patterns being established, so nobody really has solid answers yet.
Garbage article.
I agree, that's what I hope, but we never know...
It's not questionable, just good practice. And my experience tells me it's a Best Practice. `Bartweiss gives a good overview of it, but I'll share some advice I got from an engineering greybeard (which I most definitely am not).

He had a great story to go with this, but the TLDR is that the PoC is the safe choice when applied to engineering: give a true, best-faith effort to prove the opposing view correct. (And best-faith is important: you can not approach it with bias, lest you waste everyone's time.) If you're right, then you'll find an irrefutable flaw in the engineering, and if you're wrong you've learned something new.

If it sounds like a lot of effort, it is.

But this is also utterly win-win. It's a way of assuring that you've been careful. Avoiding the humiliation of hubris is great if a detail of the implementation was missed at first glance. But you also will inevitably more fully understand the problem when you've failed to implement the opposing view; it also puts you in the excellent position to graciously be on the same side as your opponent and now you can sway your now-ally-in-war in their reasoning. In either way, your goal must be to solve the problem, and not merely "win" political points.

Of course, there's crackpot theories and stupid ideas and foolish plans which should be dismissed with prejudice. But hopefully you're working in a professional environment where your coworkers really are trying their best to succeed. And even then, a serious engineer will still give the stupid ideas at least some (small) time of day, as you must have a reason for all decisions, even dismissals; as you become experienced, you'll be able to properly dismiss these faster and more precisely, but you'll still need to go through the process. That process is what separates the people who loudly proclaim they are smart and right from those who would testify in court they are right.

(Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I get immensely frustrated with "idea people", as it takes much more work to flesh out their half-assed ideas into full-assed ideas. Non-engineers don't get that there's a huge amount of effort to constantly take everything and everyone seriously.)
The idea that every author on a paper should "be accountable for all aspects of the work” is not reasonable and in practice hardly ever true. That the senior/last author should be accountable is a good idea.

Labor issues underlie a lot of this. The market is saturated for scientists and the golden age POV (which admittedly I never heard anyone actually espouse) that one would labor 5-7 years for ~1 first author paper leaves recent phd's at a large disadvantage in the job market.
Who Designed the Hamburger Icon?
> But the hacker culture is alive and well. Take for example the TOR project, GNU, the EFF. They don't seem to be out for a buck, at least in my view.

Depends on how you define "buck". The Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation both have explicit agendas and goals that they wish to be promoted.

In terms of DnD-style character alignments, folks like the EFF and FSF can be characterized as "chaotic/neutral good", whereas the hacker ethos is closer to "chaotic neutral". The article's Wikileaks and Anonymous both lean chaotic good/evil (depending on perspective). TOR is closer to that "chaotic neutral".

The differences among hackerdom, Valleydom, and crackerdom lie in these alignment deviations, too. Valleydom swings hard-lawful, while crackerdom tends to swing too far in either direction on the good/evil spectrum for it to really fall into the realm of hackerdom (which tends toward neutrality). The cases where crackerdom and hackerdom overlap (including the cases that the article describes, like "Cap'n Crunch") tend to share that "chaotic neutral" alignment; the differences between a grey-hat cracker and a hacker are often nonexistent in this particular sense (though differences may arise based on ingenuity; for example, a grey-hat cracker might not be a hacker if one relies heavily on existing information (i.e. a "script kiddie") instead of seeking to discover new things for oneself).
Yeah, I can see the role-reversal you're talking about. I suppose my point is that everyone deserves empathy, not just the underdogs.

You're probably right that "some people suck, objectively", but I don't think I've ever met such a person, so I'm never going to assume that someone I meet who seems to suck is actually an objectively sucky person, but rather just a normal person who, like me, is trying to do the best they know how, and just failing at it in that moment, for whatever reason.
The issue is that, even allowing for good intentions, the fact tends to remain that the code is messy, undertested, and underspecified.

I've worked on a legacy codebase where the developer both admitted that the code was a hack job, got guilty-defensive about it, and then refused to schedule any time to help make progress.

You just want to shake them by the shoulders and be like "Look, it's fine that you did the best you could, but you need to either help clean up the mess or get out of the way."

Chesterton's Fence is wise in moderation--otherwise, it ends up as technological hoarding.
Renting the Domain Name: 0penSource.com (with a 0)
>What evidence do you have that there is any kind of "ethics" outside of what was called "moral and ethical sensibilities"?

I myself tend towards error theory, but am fluent enough in typical moral thoughts and arguments to partake in them. So I'm not going to claim that I have evidence for objective morals. What I will claim, is that the sense that people have for morals is not satisfied by law.

>For the person who believes, it does.

That's a tautology and not particularly useful.

>No one said that laws are why people should have rights.

Actually, someone asked "Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?"

You answered "Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have."

Note the word "should" in there; that statement directly implies that law leads to (whatever you mean by should).

>What was said was "society decides", as the group of moral agents that it is. Laws are the result of that decision.

Laws are made by a tiny subset of society and rarely consider other cases implied by but not directly mentioned in the law. Case in point, this law in France was made before Google existed.
I was required to read Merchants of Doubt for my biology class in college. Pretty good read on this topic.
Practically anywhere else. If I really wanted to find it, I'd probably eventually click that hamburger menu, but the only place that I'd be even less likely to look for it is the footer of the page.

In a mobile app it makes a lot more sense, because screen space is so limited and the hamburger button will occupy one of the prime navigation points in the app UI (typically the upper-left or upper-right navigation button slots), so there's obviously not very many possibilities to find something, but even there, if you can possibly avoid using it, you should. As the original article demonstrates, hiding your navigational elements, even on mobile apps, significantly reduces user engagement.

In a desktop website, I can't think of any reason why I would ever use a hamburger menu. Other, more specific menus, sure (e.g. "Sections" in a news site). But if I see the hamburger menu, besides thinking that it's really out of place when not in a mobile app, I also will instantly assume that it's the place to find things that I probably will never need. Basically, if it's something that you might put in the footer of your site, then hiding it in a hamburger is fine. If you think it's something that enough users will want such that the footer would be inappropriate, then don't put it behind a hamburger either.
> What's worse is these people think that software engineers must work for them because engineers are desperate, stupid, and inferior while they themselves are smart and superior for their proclivity to exploit people and organize.

What part of that doesn't sound like labor exploitation to you? (Yeah, it's not as bad as it gets in some other situations. It's still very much exploitation of those who do the actual work.)
The Great GOP Bot Debate
I've seen this very often here when the topic of regulation comes up. Some think that any regulation of any kind is literally evil and exists for no reason other than to get in the way of "innovation". They demand to repeal them (or just ignore them, breaking the law) without understanding what they are for, just because they don't fit a particular business model.
One fun (and very interesting) string is EICAR[0]. I worked for an antivirus company once and we had the EICAR string for testing but couldn't check it into source control because it triggered the AV software which we dogfooded...

Is it naughty to include it here?

X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EICAR_test_file
You bet. I used to work at Fry's in 2001. Frys used to have so many cashiers those days; salesmen used to make $6.75 (then CA min wage) + commission. Commission was also good then: like $100 for a $2500 toshiba laptop; 15% commission on perf warranties. Weekends used to so busy with shoppers.

Now you have merchandisers doing the cashier task. And you hardly see a row of cashiers. Even vendors are not happy with Fry's due to late payments.