skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not necessarily about misrepresenting your business to potential acquirers. In many cases, an acquirer may be interesting in a company's IP portfolio or product. Such an acquisition might resemble a liquidation but it's better than nothing.
I think the problem is that what you want to learn is not always fun all the time. At some point you'll hit the wall and you have to overcome it (I admit, however, it never happened to me in programming, but for example I hate driving while I have to get better at it). It's tempting to make an excuse like you're simply "not built for it" - so that you can give up without feeling bad. That is a harm of the fixed mindset as far as I understand. I'm not saying that people should feel bad all the time, but the "nature" excuse is sometimes a slippery slope.
> the producer may have an opportunity to stockpile enough force to mount a realistic defense.

I think you are heavily underestimating capacity of armies. Hardware that modern armies operate is absolutely horrific and knowing how to use it most effectively is the only thing they do.

Capitalists know how to make money not use military hardware and I don't think anyone could stockpile enough weaponry without any government organization noticing to carve out any sort of tax independence.

Closest to what you are imagining is mafia carving out tax independence from government in Mexico or wherever. But then you have another problem if government is too weak to prevent you from stockpiling weapons, it's also too weak to prevent your competition from stockpiling weapons and that's way worse for the business than being taxed (even heavily).

> ... to mount a sustained defence against cooperating producers.

Why do you things producers would cooperate? They can cooperate to some degree but they want to get ahead of each other. Having armed competition would be horrible.

You might potentially imagine scenario, where produces stockpile weapons, unite to abolish government (and army) that due to weakness haven't noticed the stockpiling and haven't defused situation and haven't stockpiled accordingly. Then they either fight among themselves or not and become new government and army (because it's easier to tax than to manufacture and sell, when you have an army). So even in catastrophic scenario everything is back to status quo.

If you like SF I recommend "Beggars in Spain". Nice vision about what might happen if 1% gets immensely more productive then the rest of humanity.

> leaving the private sector as the only viable and legitimate provider. This could also undermine the legitimacy of public institutions perhaps?

I know it's popular fantasy to think that governments are legitimized by services they provide to (poor) people. While in truth they are legitimized by armies that hide behind, them that give illusion by being civilly controlled in exchange for inordinate amount of resources.
The problem is developers expecting experimental features to be around forever. You don't need an API key to set expectations. Using console.warn is enough.
Bookmark Plugin for Xcode
120 or even 240V sounds low for a large server installation; I've seen 480V, 3-phase used before, as it has lower transmission losses.

http://www-03.ibm.com/procurement/proweb.nsf/objectdocswebvi...
The problem with the current system is that you get almost no testing while the flag defaults to off, and then when it defaults to on evetybody starts depending on it.

With a time-delimited system rather than a flag-delimited system, people con try things out without having to learn about flags. More importantly, they can set things up on a staging server or in a beta environment, then distribute the link to potentially non-technical stakeholders and testers without having to include detailed instructions on setting flags.

The hope is that this will lead to better feedback about medium and large scale deployment of new features, instead of only lone-web-developer feedback.
Programming is a purely intellectual activity, so I would argue that there is no gender or racial advantage one way or the other.

Contrast this with, for example, physical professions like professional basketball, where the faster ability to grow in fitness and strength, along with certain racial advantages with height or speed means the population tends to skew in one direction - enough so that creating separate leagues allows for fairer representation.

Software development is not like that. The very fact that the majority of programmers used to be women back when it started should be enough to show that current bias' are societal or fashion-based.
Don't claim that is has hockey stick growth still. Done. All of a sudden you're not committing fraud anymore. Expecting infinite exponential growth is absurd on many layers.

Most businesses live in the margins. This doesn't mean the business should be disbanded.
Premise 1: There are some innate differences that obtain between people of different sexes.

Conclusion: The gender disparity in computer science is the result of innate differences between the sexes.

Seems legit...
Pithy, Mean and Powerful: How Donald Trump Mastered Twitter for 2016
> You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

And anyone who benefits from the zoning laws in their district benefits from influential parties using the power of the state to -in many cases- artificially restrict the supply of one type of building or another. [0] Frankly, we can play the "No, you're using the power of the state to..." game all night long. :/

> "justly earned economic value"

My previous landlords did nothing to improve the value of their property. Indeed, my most recent landlord not-infrequently neglects even the bare minimum legally required maintenance and upkeep. They earned nothing. Force of law created a situation where progressively increasing housing pressure inflated the "market value" of their "asset".

[0] Note: I am not railing against zoning laws in general. Segregating heavy industry from residential zones is an obvious good.
You are right. Partially it's emotional language for me, and the other part is that I do feel that the money is being laundered through the students. But you are right.
Doesn't change the fact that there are more mass shootings than ever before. As a gun owner myself I am almost at the point of giving up defending gun rights. This is getting ridiculous.
Not sure where my political orientation comes into it. Also note I am not from the US, so it is unlikely I fit into whatever weird party conceptions you have over there anyway :)

The point I was making that increasing numbers and diversity in something means more stuff is produced and there is greater innovation. It means the pool of candidates for a given role is larger, allowing better selection. This is all self-evident - as Bill Gates has said, doubling the size of your workforce cannot help but improve things.
Groundbreaking carbon capture project in Squamish, B.C
Absolutely, and tuition could also vary accordingly. It would happen naturally if the system was allowed to self correct.
But their demands may be unreasonable, unrealistic, and perhaps even self-destructively stupid.

A number of companies have been killed because the original founders were fired and replaced by a more compliant team - who unfortunately had absolutely no clue how to run that particular business.

I'm not a fan of constant growth demands. Companies can fake growth in any number of ways, especially after winning a round. Ultimately it's down to persistent paying customers - not transient customers, and not "users" - and sales/margins. Anything else is PR for potential investors.

My conservative view is that it's fine to run a stable, profitable business without spectacular growth. You may get killed by the competition, but you're just as likely to be killed by the politics and finance of over-extending a business without a real case for it.
and the raisin outlaw!
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/09/210490760/the-r...
I wasn't trying to be gender-specific with my example, just showing how something you can do as a manager to build culture can exclude and alienate people.

(Though: I do think beer drinking trends masculine.)
I assumed he was being sarcastic and trying to imply that banning advertising will suddenly make us all communists.

A more serious and relevant example would be São Paulo. They completely banned outdoor advertising and the world didn't fall apart. Seems like they new relaxed the ban enough to allow art.

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681353/advertising-comes-back-t...
Master what it takes to be a consultant. That's what you seem to want to do, and it's a better path than being an employee.

Attempting to get your first consulting gig will force you to master whatever you are missing specifically, instead of what you are looking for quasi-randomly.
I'll undoubtedly get voted down for this, but I think that is a misconception held by people who have been drinking too much YC startup kool-aid.

Most companies grow and shrink over time. Some days/weeks/months/quarters/years/decades are better than others.

The important thing isn't "growth", but revenue and profit.
School privatization has some wicked confounds for any claims of success because it's almost impossible to do a true randomized trial. In many cases, the reported success is due to cherry-picking the best students; in others, the lead disappears over time as regression to the mean takes effect as a school's population grows large enough to average out a few stellar performers. The really positive news coverage almost universally neglects to make any attempt to do a demographically-matched comparison and in most cases the effect disappears once you control for poverty, family stability, etc.

This isn't to say that charter schools are cheating, only that something this complicated is easy to misunderstand. It's also important to look at other trade offs: perhaps a school's performance is actually due entirely to attracting students who would be successful almost anywhere – a city is almost certainly better off if they stay there rather than moving to a nearby suburb, even if that doesn't directly help with the question of how to help disadvantaged kids.
Article for those who didn't see it in 2009: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-uncloaks-once-secret-server-...
Excellent question, and one I haven't thoroughly thought out. Here's a list of what to do in case of an over-advertising societal emergency ( hehe ):

1. No visible ads should ever be seen by someone not consuming media paid for by those ads. Billboards are the prime example. I wasn't watching TV, I was just driving, but suddenly billboards.
2. Next step is to eliminate ads bundled with media (at least in the traditional sense -- I am actually pro-product placement). In other words, you are not legally allowed to interrupt a media broadcast, or print article, with an ad that interrupts the consumer's experience.

This includes online banner ads, gmail text ads, commercials inside of TV shows and radio broadcasts, etc.

"But how will those artists/outlets make their living?" Hell if I know. That shouldn't be my problem.

I know, I know, ads are solving that problem, and you're right. A lot of creative media production/consumption might stop. And God knows I barely get my weekly fix of ingesting TV and radio -- I don't know what I'd do if that stream were suddenly lighter..
You can miss your deadlines due to dealing with it. When you're on call and you get pulled in to clean up someone else's problem. Bad design patterns cause lots of unnecessary duplication of work.

Yes, you can find other jobs where a mistake brings down the whole team, but it's rarely the kind of mistake that can persist in the codebase for years on end simply because there's no budget to refactor.

Now, you might point out that managers can, in fact, cause even more problems than that, but I don't think you'll find many people who want to work for a bad boss, either and I bet you or someone you know knows people who have left otherwise good jobs because of their boss.
Ok. This makes the most sense. Actually pretty relieved. I don't think I have gone that far yet, but that seems pretty in line with what happened. I guess it is good that he showed up and said he was fine and returned to normal. I don't "feel" like I am a total nutter but after ~5 hours of sleep in 48 hours, I slept for ~11 hours and felt a bit better. Going to have to def scale my dosage down and sleep more. This post was the most helpful. Sure, what I said sounds crazy, but to be fair I did receive some troll emails and my shit was all fucked up. I think the schizo. diagnosis was a bit strong, but this one makes way more sense. Thanks, nice to see this person recovered well and that overdoing it can lead to some really fucked up shit.
Low rates compared to what? Wall Street banks?

Lenient default terms compared to what?

Government assistance for the borrowers in what form?

And stacked against the borrowers due to the rapacious secondary market servicers. More money can be made off late fee and penalties than off simply servicing the loans, so they do everything in their power to make that the case, including misdirecting funds, misstating loan amounts, requiring burdensome documentation, while at the same time setting penalties on accounts.
thanks! I assumed since you generally make clear sense something must have gone wrong.
Far more moral, perhaps. Perfectly moral? I doubt it. I don't trust ourselves to be able to perfectly resolve the difficulties between being and having choice, and not making any immoral choices.

Also, I'm not a consequentialist; I don't think morality is entirely determined by what impacts the choices have on others.

I'm not saying that it would be bad to extend life in this way, only that it would not be the same as what I believe is after life here.

And it would not be an end to death.

> There's a huge amount of theory on how fun and novelty work with enhanced cognitive ability, with many potential solutions to that problem.

I am not speaking of becoming merely bored. Mere entertainment is nothing much.

I am speaking of one's experiences ceasing to have an after which one can distinguish from one's before.

I am speaking of death, of ceasing to be * .

A finite state machine must either reach the same exact state more than once (in which case it cannot distinguish whether it is the first time it has entered that state or not, as that would be part of the state), or it must halt. And if it does reach the same exact state more than once, there is no difference for it whether it reaches a state a third time or not. If its experiences map 1 to 1 with its state, then its experiences have a finite length corresponding to something not more than its total number of states.

(If you don't find this convincing, I expect I could provide a more convincing argument based on secret sharing schemes.)

Current understanding of physics includes the Bekenstein bound. I see no justification for your apparent belief that a problem with the Bekenstein bound will be found. If the understanding of the Bekenstein bound is correct (and I see no reason to assume that it is not), then to have an unlimited lifespan in the universe, one's volume must increase without bound. This is of course, a very slow rate of expansion, with the lower bound being something like, your radius has to be at least sqrt(log(age × K_1) + K_2), where K_1 and K_2 are some constants.

I see no reason to expect that the Bekenstein bound will be broken, and not replaced with something at least similar.

* rather, ceasing to be/live in the universe as it is, which I think you would consider to be what death is.
I agree. Curation isn't going to be that interesting to a large portion of users, I think. At least, it's not interesting to me.

It might be more interesting if users are permitted to create and share their own curation "playlists" with others.

Thompson's comments towards the end about how they should fix conversations and embedding are spot-on, though. I don't know why they didn't fix these things many years ago.
If by forever you mean "until the next time you open the app".
> "I really don't want to follow through on what I agreed to"

See that's funny. That mentality _is_ part of the scam. When banks break the law and get a fines as a slap on the wrist, that seem like a joke, and those fines seem to just be a caclulated risk they expected to handle, vis-a-vis the profits that operation made then it's "just business".

If a person desides, fuck it, this doesn't make sense, the downside of defaulting on (house, student loan, other contract) seems to be better than keep paying, then it is "moral outrage", "serious character flaw issue", the label "criminal" is thrown around and so on.

_This_ is one of the fundamental elements of the scam -- to apply moral blame and personal character flaws to less empowered individuals but to selectively choose to not apply those to large business entities.

I remember during the housing crisis, there were a few cautionary articles in high brow economics journals, about how the real shit will hit the fan when high income people, who are not showing distress signs on being able to pay their mortage, will nevertheless, put the keys in an envelope, mail it to the bank and walk away from their million dollar mansions. Simply because they'll see they are under water, and numbers simply don't add up business-wise to keep paying that interest rate on that property. So there was this fear that some of these more "rational" actors will well ... start acting.

Anyway to make long story short, it seems to me your comment that is "dangerous" is coming from the same propaganda mentality.
Good points. I also wanted to flag it but left it alone. I decided to look at the background of the writer and now understand. He just likes stirring the pot after I visited his site- http://weev.livejournal.com/

He describes himself as this > Andrew Auernheimer
weev, notorious cultural diversity activist. Causes of action: #WhiteGenocide #FreeChuck #cuckservative. 'A menace on the Internet'--US Attorney Zach Intrater.
yep, just read that thread. Resolving to cut my consumption way down.
I'm a hardware engineer. Most hardware companies are too tight fisted to have offsites (making physical things is expensive). The few that I've been on have been very tame because the last thing management wants is an offended employee.

Having an offsite at a brewery is kinda shitty because not everyone likes to drink. Did anyone try to suggest another venue?
Tech/Development Sweatshirts?
I'm looking for some cool tech/start up/ software company sweatshirts and was wondering if anyone had a place to purchase some or recommendations .
> I think that those that are proposing more development would heartily welcome simultaneously expanding the infrastructure.

Hear, hear!

I would heartily welcome infrastructure improvement programs that brought the state of the SFBA's public transit within shooting distance of the quality of public transit in and around NYC.

I would happily have my personal not-really-that-much-higher-than-Alabama tax burden increased to help pay for such a program.
You misunderstand. I'm not making a statement on the cause of the gender disparity in computer science. I'm making a higher-order argument about why we're so apt to attribute this difference to discrimination. I hope you understand the distinction even if you disagree with my argument.

The idea is that if you believe that humans have no innate differences and you observe group differences, then you must attribute these group differences to external discrimination, and hence injustice.

If you accept that groups of humans might have innate differences, you are no longer required to attribute group differences to discrimination. Some group differences might arise from discrimination, but it's plausible that they might not.

A lot of people take it as an article of faith that there are no human group differences, so they're forced to look for discrimination in order to explain the world. For these people, no amount of evidence can prove the fairness of the CS world, since the idea that (gender disparity -> discrimination) is a necessary logical consequence of their worldview.
Here's an economic rationale for diversity in hiring:

Your project's total addressable market probably includes a diverse population of people. Meanwhile, the decisions in your project are made by the folks involved in it -- maybe some PMs, hopefully some UX and design engineers, and probably some programmers. I believe that our opinions are informed in part by our environment -- as someone living in California, I come up with California-oriented solutions to problems a bit more easily than ones suited to other locations. (I think this is why Dark Sky came from a team in New York, for example.)

So, I conclude that a diverse team will come up with ideas that are broader, and as a result, solutions that help more people, than would a less-diverse team.
Yes, or at least, the concern was raised (among the small minority of people who weren't excited about going to Three Floyds).

It's not, like, a management decision I'm super duper proud of.
This is written by weev? Now I understand why they call him a master troll.
Global Tax Deal Targets Multinationals
So, for clarity: your answer to my second question is "no, such a world is inherently unfair"?

> Programming is a purely intellectual activity, so I would argue that there is no gender or racial advantage one way or the other.

Thank you for so succinctly stating the blank-slate position. I don't see any reason to agree with it. You acknowledge that there are important group differences below the neck; why should there be none above it?

> majority of programmers used to be women

I read that article too. You don't mention that "programming" back then was largely data entry.
In the end of the day, people need what they feel a better way to think and discuss before doing. It's only related to what options they have at the moment.
Thorium reactors [0], Lightsail tech [1], and vertical helix-shaped wind turbines, throw in some Stirling Engine action [2].

Why aren't we past all this yet? Oh, right, politics.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
[1] http://www.lightsail.com/
[2] http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/remediation/slingshot-water-purifier2.htm
Billboard i'm mixed on but I like ads on the subways and was disappointed that some subways don't have them. I've found out about all kinds of events and other things going on from ads on Tokyo subways. And I mean inside the trains, not just in the stations.
>smacks a bit of thoughtcrime

I hadn't considered this. I suppose if there are clear laws about what advertising is and what is banned, and you freely choose to join that group, then we can avoid the thoughtcrime fears.

To specifically address your points, it's hard to say whether storefronts can advertise or not, because they own the building (but someone owns the billboards too). If you twist my arm I'll probably say that "Advertising is okay in a storefront if you're directly able to walk into the store and capitalize on the advert content". Billboards fail this test.

>Would no one running for office be allowed...

Well, in my view, paid placement for those running for office is a horrible symptom of a money-controlled government and media combo. (Un)fortunately that means that "in a world without ads", things like political knowledge and elections would need to have a structure to allow and encourage people to engage with it, which is an entire problem unto itself.

>Who said the purpose of advertising was to change your life?

Let me rephrase: From my perspective, I never benefit from seeing an ad. I know what I want and how to get it already, so I'm hard pressed to give an example of an ad that I derive value from.