skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your comment intrigued me and I thought it might be fairly easy to estimate this number, but it seems that justifiable homicide numbers are under reported in the US: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/why-the-data-on-justifiable-hom...

It is interesting to look at the graph at the top of the article, though. Why do justifiable homicides for police and private citizens track each other almost identically? I can't think of any explanation.

According to: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/us-police-kil... the number of police homicides have also been under reported, historically. It appears (if the Guardian's reporting is correct) that some states don't even report at all some years.

But let's assume that there are 15,000 homicides per year by non-police and that 1000 of them are deemed justifiable homicides (double the reported ones to account for under reporting). That's about 7% of homicides that are justifiable.

In the second link, it says that 19 out of 547 were killed by police after they were taken into custody. 31 were killed by tasers. 119 were killed while unarmed. What percentage of these killings were justifiable?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-rarely-criminally-charged... claims 41 police officers were charged for shootings in a 7 year period. That is about 5.86 per year. The original link claimed about 87% of killings were shootings, so let's assume that police are charged with killing linearly and we get about 7 officers charged per year. I think it is telling that I can't find the success rate of prosecution anywhere :-P

So if we assume all 7 officers were found guilty, that means we get 540 out of 547 killings to be justified, or 98.7%.

So the average citizen has an upper bound of somewhere around 7% of having a homicide found to be justified, while the police have a lower bound of around 98% of having a homicide to be found justified. This despite the fact that 3.5% of police homicides happen after the suspect is in custody, 5.7% happen as a result of the suspect being hit with a taser, and 21.8% of the suspects are unarmed.

While I wouldn't say this is a case for "blanket immunity", I have to say that the numbers do not seem reasonable to me. Especially if 20 people are killed by police while in custody and there is not an expectation that a charge will be laid in any of the 20 cases, that does not seem reasonable at all given that at least 93% of civilian homicides are deemed not-justifiable.

But even more worrying is the sorry state of affairs for the reporting of this data (if the newspapers I browsed while doing my back-of-the-envelope calculations are correct). If they don't have better reporting, I don't know how anyone is supposed to scrutinize it.

Anyway, I hope someone found this interesting. Apologies if I made any math mistakes along the way.
I guess if it wasn't for Google forcing Gradle upon us, Groovy would no longer be relevant.
How to automate your Node tests with Jenkins and GitHub
Except no one dies if you don't get to make your new killer javascript framework.
You can say, if needed, "My current contract forbids me to reveal my salary [almost certainly true], and I take my responsibilities very seriously."
The+Speaker+–+Parliament+of+Australia
Or, even better: "I led engineering, and my valiant efforts grew Company X from $1b to $10b in two years."

I hear this sort of stuff all the time (used to be mainly from business types, but engineers are catching on).
I just think the service hasn't evolved much since they started streaming nor have they really branched out.

Their success is due to their ability to secure rights to TV shows and movies - so thanks legal team
The linked reference mentions that the Oklahoma appeals court wrote that finding the same amount of money in the possession of both men was part of their decision to not reverse. Why would anyone say there was no evidence other than the other guy's testimony? And that is just a cursory reading of the details of the case.
Theoretically, I'd like to like this, but paying to have 2 college students (i.e. people who have likely not even had a professional job before) review my résumé doesn't sound like a wise investment. I know you stated elsewhere in the comments that you have "other people," but I'd want to make sure that if I'm paying for this service, at the very least the reviewer was someone who'd hired for a job similar to what I was after.

I guess what I'm saying is this: why should I pay for this when I can just have lunch with a tech recruiter I know and get free advice?
The bigger issue is that these things are hard to test and noone is willing to run the tests. In theory the US has a good setup for a state to decide to do some testing but politics make it impossible (and there's a decent ethical argument for either side that is far from simple). I mean think about the reactions if some politician would say "we need to see if our courts are as good as they can be, I propose we get rid of the jury system and replace it with X to see if X is superior"

1) That's UNAMERICAN. Courts and jury is the way god intended it to be.

2) Lol crackpot.

3) What if X turns out to be worse, sucks for the people who got trials like this during that time.

4) Lol crackpot.

Experimentation for political systems, judiciary infrastructure and the like is a really hard problem and I think de facto impossible. I applaud everyone who tries no matter how crazy it seems (seasteading) but at the end of the day I think there is no such thing as radical political entrepreneurship.
I think it's unfortunate but I also can't envision how (rapid) experimentation cycles could be transfered to such systems.
What data do you have to support these conclusions?
Of course, there are entire subfields of psychology that directly and routinely engage with neuroscience. But behavioral psychology generally does not; in any case, the narrative given in the linked article speaks entirely and solely from the point of view of psychology, with no mention of neuroscience. That there are fields of psychology that fruitfully engage with neuroscience does not chance that this article does not mention neuroscientific considerations at all.

The reason that I made my comment is that the article tries to say that a deficiency in facial recognition of persons of another race is a psychological - that is, higher cognitive - effect. If it is taken as an effect of higher cognition, without a neurophysiological basis, opens up the possibility of the argument "his bias against black people made him not care enough to distinguish black people." That argument would bring open the door to arguments sociologically based biases such as being racist, when in fact there is an observed, known, studied, published, fact that the neurophysiology of the part of the brain that distinguishes faces literally cannot distinguish variations in facial features of members of a race a person hasn't been often exposed to, as a literally biological limitation that one cannot blame on sociological reasons. It has the potential to shift the conversation to a fruitless arena.
Thank you for posting this. All of it was super interesting. Also thank you for your assuredly thankless service as both a rational and faithful person.
What’s new enhancements in Apple's iOS 9?
It would have been nice to read at least a little bit about the development process of Sovaldi, how much money was spent developing it over how many years, what were the risks it would fall through and be worthless, are more or less people surviving HepC because of Sovaldi, etc.

From what I understand, Sovaldi saves money over the long term, it actually costs less then competing treatments. It's just gives people a mental block because it's packaged into a magic little pill.

Funny, you would think easy to take, less side effects, and lower cost would make for good headlines and a higher price. Maybe if they packaged it into 15 pills a day people wouldn't be as upset. Like Beats putting weights into their headphones to make them feel more expensive.

Sovaldi sounds to me like exactly the kind of grand slam we want our pharma industry hitting more often. High risk science developing straight up cures that work for the vast majority of patients who take them, offered at a lower cost than the current treatment regimen, with fewer side effects. The age old joke is that pharma develops treatments, never cures. Well, here's a honest cure and it sounds like it's priced relatively appropriately for what they've accomplished.

If you want a lot more drugs that are this effective against nasty and prolific diseases like HepC, then I think you want public and private insurance paying a lot for Sovaldi.

One obvious way to make it cheaper is if there was a way to get countries other than the USA to pay their fair share for the breakthrough.
I miss the Lucida Grande + Myriad Pro days!
It's not just 14nm vs. 16nm though - two 16nm processes can still have significant differences due to materials

And even "16nm" something of a marketing term - something tiny feature in there is at 16nm resolution, but lots of other things are larger. And which things are how large, of course, also matters...
Do referrals of clients with ad blocking enabled not generate fees for Mozilla? Also, Mozilla is a non-profit foundation, so providing users some small relief from advertising seems entirely consistent with serving the public interest. The promise, at least, of commercial free television and radio was a primary pitch of public broadcasting for decades.
Here is $100 off if you use this link to order: http://glowforge.com/referred/?kid=QNUjZz
Netlimiter Crack 64 Bit Plus Serial Number Full Version
Looks like the go code is using an int, but the C code declares a long.
6 Hit and Miss of USPTO's Patent Analytics Platform PatentsView
> Average prices of WTI rose roughly 52-fold between 1970 and 2014, in current dollars

Surely that can't be right? Wouldn't that mean that 2014 price = 1970 * 2^(52) ?
Have you noticed yet that programming ideologies go around in a circle. Programmers may currently be defending data-first (/data-oriented/...) programming, but it isn't the first time they did so ?

The way I experienced it:

micro-services/small tools "that do one thing well"/... (pro: reasonably generic, con: loads of tools, requires expert users, if one tool out of 30 is not working well things break)

data-first/data-oriented programming (really easy to manipulate data, very, VERY hard to maintain consistency)

database-oriented programming (enforce consistency. Otherwise data-oriented. Works well, then when in data-oriented programming your data would have gone inconsistent, in this paradigm you get errors. Needless to say "every operation errors out" is better than "our data suddenly became crap", but still blocks entire departments/systems unpredictably)

event-driven programming (really easy to make button X do Y) (to some extent built into data-base oriented programming, also available separately. Works well, but gets extremely confusing when programs get larger)

object-oriented programming (massively simplifies the "I have 200 different message types and forgot how they interact" problems of event-driven programming, also provides the consistency of database-oriented programming)

<web browsers start here>

event-driven programming with UI designers (makes event-driven programming and later object oriented event-driven programming accessible for idiots)

declarative object-oriented programming / aspect-oriented programming / J2EE and cousins / "Generating forms from data" / Django

micro-services/"do one thing well" (same disadvantages as during the 80s)

data-first/data-oriented programming (same disadvantages as end-of-80s) * you are here *

How much do you want to bet that servers that enforce data consistency and store it are next ?
How to triumph with subscription-based apps
Suggestion: Provide a "before / after" comparison of actual submitted resumes.
I think parent was saying that that is what it implies to the uninformed reader.
Never. -fold is times, so it's 52x
I failed at several higher education schools in France PRECISELY because of group projects.

All my scores were fine or high, except for those stupid team project which counted for a huge score coefficient.

Failed so many job interviews because I don't have a degree or because I'm less social.

The worst is when some director argued with me that human are a social species.

Just like Susan Cain wrote about it, it really seems that there is a Salesman culture. It almost seems that we considers introverts to be handicapped.
give me an example of a 'talent network' that pivoted.

I mean, being a middleman, I understand... but most of the middleman networks start out as a thing, and largely stay that thing.

I'm not saying you're wrong... just trying to understand what you are saying.
* in USA. The average jail time in France is less than 2 years. French people are often surprised of the length of the penalties in countries which seem similarly western, such as Luxembourg.
Well said.

The exercise of comparmentalising and creating atomic islands of objects that dutifully encapsulate data becomes difficult during reassembly simply because we recreate the need for declarative style of accessing data in an imperative (OO) world. It's ye old object-relational impedance mismatch.

A (relational) data model is a single unit. It has to be seen this way. Creating imperative sub-structures (like encapsulating data into objects) breaks this paradigm with serious consequences when attempting to rejig the object-covered data into an on-demand style architecture. The whole model (database?) must be seen as a single design construct and all operations against the entire model must be sensitive to this notion - even if we access one table at a time. Yes, at specific times we may be interested in the contents of a single table or a few tables joined together declaratively for a particular use case, but the entire data model is a single atomic structure "at rest".

When paradigmatic lines like this are drawn, I side with the world-view that getting the data model "right" first is the way to go.

Fred Brooks and Linus Torvalds speak from experience in the trenches.
> They must train users to browse YouTube.com (as one does Facebook) and rely on it for consistent content delivery.

I thought that had already happened. That's how I use YouTube and I know the younger generation is doing it as well.
Amazing blog!
Many people are also unaware of the high cost and inefficiency of the death penalty in the U.S. With 3002 (as of April 2015) inmates on death row, there were 35 executions in 2014.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Depending on the state, a trial with a death penalty could cost anywhere from half a million dollars more, to millions more than a trial without a death penalty.

Even at the absurdly high price of $35k per year per prisoner, life without parole is likely a cheaper option for tax payers than the death penalty.

I don't mean to say this is the only reason why the death penalty is wrong. We know for certain that provably innocent people have been put to death.

It's just that in addition to being morally wrong, it's also expensive and a waste of resources. The only reason I can theoretically imagine for keeping it around is that supposedly criminals might be less likely to commit a crime for fear of the death penalty. I think every serious study has shown that harsher penalties don't deter crime.

One of the best ways to actually reduce crime is to provide better early education for poor people.
This isn't so much of a "customer desiring a room" as it is a "company desiring a room for its employees."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-fold&allowed_in_fr...

Even though one might think it's 2^x (fold something in half twice and it's 4 times as thick, three times and it's 8, etc.) it's actually a rather archaic usage for multiplying.
IMO, DevOps should not be afraid of reinventing their own wheels. The closer you are to the service layer you don't actually manage, the better. i.e. if you use public cloud you should really make use of the APIs and build your own wheels. But of course, use existing tools to do your job first, and slowly create your new wheels. Overtime, the new wheels will function better because they can fit your ever-changing requirements.

That's my two cents.

Sometimes as I am working with boto (Python SDK for AWS), I wish I have the time to write some of the boto modules myself, because they were inconsistent and harder to use than other modules. I can easily create many AWS services with Ansible modules, but I find it easier to hack and integrate more tightly with my environment by writing my own Python code using boto directly. What's inside the machine remains to be Ansible because it does a really good job.

Another classic example is logstash and AWS logs like cloudtrail, flow log and alarams. I can easily write a parser in Python or in C and get my job done, and overtime the code can be reusable. But with logstash I can't guarantee that existing filters and plugins will always work and they get really really messy no matter how good you are with logstash. And that's a layer I have to reinvent because of simplicity and total control.

I'd rather pipe to Elasticsearch myself than relying on logstash in cases like that.
I would hope for that, but I'm afraid that the rumored 4" device was just the 2015 iPod Touch.
Free markets, heh?
That's a terrible simplification. When a developer does not receive adequate salary s/he can look for work at another place, that might pay better. This makes companies try to have competitive salaries to retain their employees. The whole thing self regulates.

When you have a disease that might cripple or kill you you bet you are willing to bankrupt yourself to cure it. The regulations are absolutely necessary. Currently companies are utilizing this and charge significant amount of money for a cure. On top of that they prefer medication that doesn't treat the sickness and instead just keeps it under control, because that way they make more money.

It is easy to sympathize with pharmaceutical companies unless you have to get one of those diseases.
It also is buggy; it declares a signed long, but prints an unsigned one.

My money on where the time is spent is in the printing of the result, by the way, not in the loop. The C program parses a format string and does more output (the characters 'sum: '). Buffering/not buffering also may play a role.
That is the most elegant, beautiful and usable government website I have ever seen.
How Time Tracking Service Changes the Meaning of Timesheets
So I just read whatever I could find on Richard Glossip and the case against him. On it's face it seems very likely that he is guilty.

It appears that someone had been stealing money and cooking the books at the hotels Glossip managed, and about the time his boss became aware of the theft, the boss was murdered. He admits to knowing that the boss was murdered and Glossip admits attempting to cover up the murder, his plan being to dissolve the body in acid. Glossip, as manager of the hotel the body was hidden in, reassigned cleaning staff specifically to prevent them from discovering the body. The person who is known to have performed the killing, an employee of Glossip's, says he was paid to do the killing by Glossip. Glossip also split money from the wallet carried by the man that was killed with the killer.

Glossip has had a trial and a retrial, and was convicted in both of them.

So maybe the death penalty is good, maybe it is bad. Clearly there is a serious debate there, and I am not attempting to defend the death penalty here. There is almost no chance that Glossip is innocent, and it seems clear, to me at least, that the state demonstrated he is guilty to the required standard.
Things to Consider When Building a Website in China
It's not a language-level feature. It's a pattern that makes use of several features - type members, structural types, member selection. (You can often write these things more readably by splitting them onto two lines, putting the type alias in one place and the use of it in another, avoiding the need for the structural type and member selection). It's like the visitor pattern in a language that doesn't have pattern matching, or an explicit Y combinator in a language that doesn't have recursion.

Some newer languages have this kind of functionality (in Haskell it's a GHC extension, I think).
Adobe explains how space images are Photoshopped
I find the business model fascinating and it is amazing to watch them scale. My family business used to spend over $20k per year on YellowPages ads which drove about 8-12 calls per day at a very high close rate. As YellowPages has died off the money has been invested in an online presence but the skill required to design the site, keep it updated, and to manage all the online advertising spend is well beyond a normal person.

The fragmentation impact of having your customers looking for your services in dozens of different ways vs opening the phone book is costly and complex to overcome.

Once you pay a designer, hosting provider, and then pour the rest into Adwords it is very hard to get the same 8-12 calls per day with $20k of annual spend.

Thumbtack are helping solve that problem and syphoning all the money these businesses used to spend on YellowPages or are wasting on poor Adwords bidding strategies. Paying per lead is not that much different from paying $20k to YellowPages who give you no guarantee you will ever get a phone call.
Yeah. In retrospect, I said much worse things in my interviews after college. Part of it is lack of experience like you say, but I think a lot of it is also the amount of stress you're going through at that time of your life. I find all my negative traits come out front and center when I'm under lots of stress, which ironically means the worse things are going at my current job, the harder it is to get a better one.
As a person that has interviewed for and gotten jobs at multiple Fortune 500s (whose tech departments varied from abysmal to impressive effective) and as a person that has been a part of the interviewing/hiring process several times, I appreciate the attempted formalization of interview metrics and see more than a little value in the metrics described in the article.

To me, though, there is one "metric" that trumps all the rest, and that is personality fit with existing employees. If you have two brilliant software engineers that just absolutely cannot stand each other, nothing will get done. The best interview experience I've had, personally, has been to be placed into a technical interview - "start programming application X that does Y" - with two existing employees looking over my shoulders asking me why I'm doing what I'm doing and why not something else.

The technical justification for my chosen solution to the technical interview question didn't matter much once it was clear I covered a base level of technical ability, but it was incredibly valuable that I and the employees looking over my shoulder didn't want to get into a fistfight after an hour - it meant that we could amicably disagree, support our reasonings for our arguments, and then not have sticks up our asses when the other person's proposed solution ended up being the right one, and then gracefully defer and say "thank you for the conversation and debate." That meld is immensely important.

That said, I do recognize that it becomes increasingly difficult to gauge this sort of interaction with increasingly large teams. My experience interviewing and being interviewed is limited to cases where it's been a team of 3 - 8 people. For larger teams, perhaps such a formalized approach makes sense. I do not have any experience that informs me as to whether it is or isn't.

But then I have to ask whether there should be a team of more than about 8 people without a dedicated manager. I don't have anything more than a gut answer to that question, but my gut says no.