skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> At the other end of the spectrum, the chamber also criticized so-called coupon lawsuits that generated big paydays for lawyers and little money for consumers.

So what? If the customers feel they were wronged and the court agrees, the company should give restitution. It is sad that the victims will get hardly anything, but getting 0.05% of a wrongfully-charged fee back is better than 0%. And the class suit was the only way a large malicious corporation would ever be held accountable, but they're trying to distract from that by complaining that someone else gets their money that was found to be unlawfully obtained.

> In interviews, corporate executives and defense lawyers predicted that consumers would use arbitration once it became more familiar.

So the old way was bad because ambulance-chasing lawyers sucked up all the money. Now there's hardly any consumer recourse happening, but it's OK, eventually they'll start hiring some lawyers... who for some reason will be a good deal for the consumers this time. It's a good thing we have a coalition of banks' lawyers looking out for the consumers' interests. /s

> “Clients were telling me they were getting killed by frivolous lawsuits and asking me what on earth could be done about it,” Mr. Kaplinsky said.

If a lawsuit can "kill" you, was it really frivolous? I am considering both a plaintiff-won suit that extracts millions from the company, or a plaintiff-lost suit that cost the company tens of thousands to defend. It would seem to me that in the former case, the judge decided they were in the wrong, so it's not frivolous. In the latter case, the more it costs to defend, the more likely it is that the plaintiffs had a reasonable complaint. I know I'm biased, but am I being naive here? It also bothers me to hear a complaint about what a corporation finds "frivolous" when the individuals on the other end are facing fraudulent charges, sub-minimum wages, and unchecked monopolostic abuse -- "frivolous" is the least of the individuals' complaints, by why is only the huge corporation's concerns protected by the law here?
Sorry, I'm confused here. A p-value makes an implicit assumption that your null hypothesis is a known N(0,1). That may be throwing me off a bit. I get the point of you want to look at the likelihood function which is just one minus the CDF in the given interval. I'm just not clear on how you can get around f and g being arbitrarily parameterized functions of a given class. Are you assuming we know the class and something about f?
> "Claims are decided by a neutral arbitrator."

1. Why can't consumers take a class action to an arbitrator for resolution.

2. Why can't consumers shut down these arbitrators, by suing with a claim that the arbitrators are not neutral? It is impossible for a company to single-handedly choose a "neutral" arbitrator.
Async PHP: Espresso Is a POC Microframework That Integrates Silex with React/Http
That's one of the critics of open source (BSD) world versus free software world.

GNU/Linux projects have been designed for figthing on socio-ethico-political grounds against proprietary software. The first one being Unix. (GNU's Not Unix)

On the other hand, BSD prefers to see itself like a community of pragmatism, and creating values in business by sharing externalities (plus a bunch of fanatics that loves nice code like others ferarris).

The constant criticism of BSD vs linux is building tools for ideological reasons rarely favours the best solutions because you give yourself an obligation to beat the time to market of "proprietary companies" and to add support for stuff that do not worth being shared.(Word/WYSIWIG editors are a terrible idea in the first place, why spend resources to give them more traction by helping to broaden the user base?)

It favours kludges and hacks instead of a consistent simple design. It burns benevolent time, and attention.

And BSD have been denouncing GNU/linux projects (Gcc, gnome, systemd, binary blobs in linux kernels) like long term disasters by locking people in technical debts of poor designs.

Actually, I am a linux guy with BSD boxes and hadn't I problem with hardware support I would be fully on BSD.

I would say they have a point. And just for the record, GNU fundation is not Linus Torvald's best friends.

The first time I heard Moglen's talk he was litterally saying that linux was a bad example of a free software project.

Yes, freedom of choice is political. But it is not a question of organisation, but individuality.

Still some communities aims to gather more zealots than master in their domains. That is the distinction between Free Software and Open Source.
Based on rewqfdsa's comment history, this is probably sarcasm.
In addition to what Breck said, we also support real time streaming of sensor data from the Band.

Your data is always made available, go have fun with it! Everyone on the team loves seeing the different research projects created around Microsoft Band.
And this Economist article had its own previous HN discussion, too:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10446411
> Is their a division in the software between the embedded device, application and back-end?

Sort of! We have multiple dev teams of course, but maintaining performance means we all have to work together very closely. A lot of tightly packed binary packet formats are used to minimize bandwidth.
Isn't this not as meaningful as the mean, because the minimum doesnt really tell you about true capability? I can also easily construct an institution that satisfies your parameters, the minimums of two groups match, as in they have a token member at C for every group, but the characteristic performance of all members is different?

This in my eyes amounts to a simplification that is neat mathematically, but removes most of the useful information. I admit though that if the minimums did not match very well, that is an obvious sign of bias.

Edit: I suppose what I'm essentially saying is, what if minimums do match, then we cannot rule out bias.
I feel like I could have written that. I can tell you what I've done, but I'd be overstating it to call it advice.

I've been a huge contributor to my current company, but as the first employee, even 3% of our stock feels stingy. I've easily contributed more than a high-equity founder (by everyone, including other cofounders', assessment). Also going through the "well, we can't pay you more because we can't afford it" rigmarole and not even getting the title consolation prize. Similarly feeling trapped by the whole mess.

I frankly think it was a poor decision for me to join the company, and I can't see myself taking another early employee position unless it's fully compensated (either much more equity than is traditional, or a market salary), which doesn't seem to be the norm, despite outsized risk.

I've found consulting to be a good outlet for ambition and way to make up for disappointing compensation. I also enjoy working on side projects with the intent of commercializing them.
Holler. Our EE curriculum did the same thing (with an 8088). All the groups spent an lot of time with the logic analyzer detecting one-wrong-wire issues.

That was an incredibly valuable learning experience. I don't know if it's still taught that way, but I hope so.
Well, if you only consider interactions of two people, you have already decided to ignore power dynamic in your model.

Just consider the simplest case of how it can happen that someone has power over someone else despite having same real strength. Person A comes to person B and says: "If you don't do what I say, I will have me and person C to beat you up." Since B doesn't know C, he would better comply. Then person A comes to person C and says: "If you don't do what I say, I will have me and person B to beat you up." C doesn't know B either, so he has to comply. Now A has (some small amount of) power over B and C. This power could be easily broken if B and C would meet and talked about A's bluff (this is actually the price A pays in higher risk of B and C finding out).

Now you may observe in the example that neither interaction was about just two parties; every interaction was about all three parties. So to be able to discuss power, you need to have interactions that involve at least three parties, and also some information hiding.

(In fact, as an aside, I believe that for any n there exist n-person games that cannot be accurately modeled via any series of (n-1)-person games, and the above is just example for n=3.)

> The stories about monopolies of market power from the morgue of the Hearst newspapers

Not sure what you refer to here, but I will say this:

I consider the idea of free market to be some set of rules of how people conduct business. These rules then can lead to (moral) failures, such as accumulation of wealth and power. This can be seen not only in the real world, but also by putting those rules into a computer and running a simulation.

Many people apparently don't agree with this approach. If I point to a market failure, such as monopoly, they will say "but this is not really a free market". Well, with such a definition of free market, you deliberately didn't allow for failure. But unfortunately, this approach doesn't give you rules that you can just apply and get whatever you call the free market.
This screams Pinterest!

Setup an account and start pinning. Secondly, purchase some of their sponsored pins.

The other path I would take is to send out some clothes to people who can recommend, review and talk about them.
this video disagrees with your claim about rugby:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ1Mt0LdCfY
I've always enjoyed going for a walk to ponder problems, and then coming back to my desk to "pour out" a solution I have in my head. Sometimes it works right the first time, and other times the process of making everything more explicit and typing it out reveals blind spots in my original thinking.

I started learning K nearly a year ago, and I've found it's much more amenable to coding in my head. Programs work on the first try more frequently. Very satisfying, once you get used to its primitives.
Skimming over the headlines the name Marco Rubio jumped out at me. Cuba, Ruby, Micro...

Eh, Too much politics in the news lately....
This is just some nicely worded problem solving methodology.

There's no mind of an artist (by this I think author meant creative, but not logical).

You have a problem. You'll solve it using programming. Yes, there exists a problem solving methodology, and yes, it means you might put your pencil aside and think.

But it's much better to use very well written methodologies of problem solving instead of trying to come up with your mumbojumbobehappyifitworks.

Methodology is logical, it's an algorithm for problem solving that works really well on simple problems. On more complicated ones it helps you get closer to the solution but when all of the methods were tried then there's that creative jump you have to make, by either solving it after thinking (employing creativity) or inventing new methods that will bring you even closer to the solution (employing creativity, again).

It's quite easy for programmers to incorporate problem solving methodologies in their workflow because most of the time their problem can be defined in some way.

On the other hand, a painter, a musician, a writer, their problems are hardly defined if not non-existent. That's why it's hard to self-evaluate, it's hard to see if you are making any progress, and then when something successfully mainstream happens we cherish their remarkable creativity.
The implication of this analysis of http://10years.firstround.com/ is that First Round is biased against founding teams with experience at Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft or Twitter.

Can this be true?
Is the fact that the site won't load part of the joke?
> Does the startup have technical founders?

Yes, one.

> How many rounds of investment have you guys taken on?

Seed and Series A. A new round might be coming soon.

> How many employees have an equal or higher title than you?

On the technical side, nobody (except the founder), but that will change soon as the engineering team is expanding.

> Is your role in technical and possibly business development integral enough where it would be really difficult to replace?

I like to think that it would be difficult enough, because of the know how acquired from having worked from day 1 and for the potential contribution that I can still give to the technical execution.

> Does the company have enough of a runway to figure things out if you left?

The company is well structured, so it will definitely survive, but that being said I'm without doubts the employee who would cause the biggest, albeit reparable, damage if he left.

Thanks
The part of this article that surprised me was the subtitle:

"Star player Adolfo Cambiaso will be taking at least four
clones onto the field of the Palermo Open and possibly more."

I hadn't realized that the technology for cloning horses was sufficiently mature that this wasn't a theoretical issue, but one that is already in play.
> Anyone know if this might become available or if there's an unofficial way to access the mic.

Mic access is restricted for privacy purposes. There is no remote way to turn on the microphone.

Thank you for the suggestion though! I'll talk to the SDK team about it, our first priority is user control, but of course we want to make the device as powerful as possible!
Thanks for the suggestion. Pinterest is a recurring subject, you are not first one suggesting it but none of us ever used it. I do definitely need to spend some time with it.
Just one example: http://www.itg.com/liquidity/posit/#POSIT

Or even the NYSE: https://www.nyse.com/markets/amex-options/order-processing
It was directly said that conservatives threaten civilization. I'll admit the "only" was my insertion. The implications of the rest of the comment are clear and I'll stand by my interpretation.
Assuming no pay increase, titles are free. If you're already managing the tech teams, then you should be able to get the VP Eng title with little problem. It's a win-win situation for them, too: you're happier with the nicer title, it costs them nothing, and it looks better on your resume when you choose to leave.

If you want VP of Engineering and a pay raise, that's another story altogether... Sounds like you fought the pay battle already. I'd push for a better title.

The few comments posted before this one are valid and good advice. Stick it out, and keep pushing for the things you want. Good luck!
Git freebase
Maybe because Vimeo has download links on some of their videos?
Yes, but that's not the common usage of the word. Or how most people understand it. With that usage you could say ivy league schools are NOT biased against Asians since Asian graduates aren't more successful than non-Asian ones, except nobody does.
A null hypothesis is just a specific thing you are trying to disprove. In this case, it's simply that the min of both distributions is identical.

I am assuming we know exactly one thing about the class the measures f and g come from: for every function in that class, \int_C^{C+d} f(x) dx >= h(d) for some monotonic function h(d).

The p-value is then computed in terms of h(d), since p >= h(d)^N.
Indeed. Personally, I've experienced it quite a few times while working on our product.

It's important to listen carefully to your users but you also have to know that they are not always clear on what they want.

I think that studying their behavior is much more revealing in most cases. After all, actions speak louder than words.
Show HN: See how much time you spend installing node modules
That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.

Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.
What I don't get is, if systemd is so troublesome, why are so many distros picking it up? I know popularity isn't a perfect signal, but in this case of highly technical users that are distributing OSes it seems valid.
Perhaps the collapse has already begun.

1) My middle school kid is in cross country... all "school athletes" must attend district wide concussion class (they probably blew it off, after all it is CC not tackle football) and parents have to sign off that they've been given access to various concussion resources. Nobody found this overly unusual or interesting, its just part of athletics now. Soon it'll just be part of school athletics that football means touch not tackle or it means what we used to call soccer.

(For foreign readers cross country is hiking in the woods except you don't wear a pack and you run. So mile times are quite a bit lower than track and you're about a thousand times more likely to get heat exhaustion or twist your ankle than to get a concussion in that particular sport)

2) Look at average age of baseball fans, late 50s and that average has been going up more than one year per calendar year. There are generational trends and football may very well be a WW2/Boomer generation sport. Once "their" generations are gone, that's it.

Looking at demographics of the local pro basketball team I think we're more likely to see pro basketball go away before football ... volleyball is very popular and telegenic.
Consulting might as well be an option, if I just had more free time. The problem is that we are still early enough that I have to work a lot, and it completely drains my professional energy (nowhere close to a burnout, a "healty" draining)
Rails vs. Node.js: All Good Things Must Come to an End
After Arch Linux, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and CentOS switched over to systemd, it must be a very tiny part of the Linux world.
In New York (and, for all I know, everywhere else -- IANAL), city laws prevent you from signing away certain rights in a lease because shady landlords kept sneaking waivers in. For example, you can legally withhold rent if your landlord does not keep your property in a livable state. Many leases have provisions specifically waiving your right to withhold rent, but such provisions are legally enforceable.

There could be a similar law preventing anyone from signing away rights we deem too important to jeopardize.
The problem here is language and what our actual objectives are.

When people complain about bias, they are not really talking about mathematical bias, but about something else: Their idea of fairness. They are talking about discrimination. And when we are discussing that, we can't really think about whether rules are applied fairly or not, but whether the rules produce the outcomes that we want.

Let's go for a ludicrous example: We'll accept all applicants whose IQ is higher than their weight in pounds. We'll be explicitly discriminating against heavy people, but at the same time, we have pretty clear implicit biases against men, and ethnic groups who tend to be taller. We might as well have said that we prefer children and Japanese women. There's no need for mathematical bias: The bias comes from the rule selection.

So, in your example, if our actual objective is to graduate an even amount of people from groups A and B, we have to, explicitly, make it easier for group B to get the scholarship. And many times organizations have objectives like that.

As a more real example, let's consider a police department. If the objective is to have a racial makeup that represents the community, and different races have different drop-out rates, the candidate selection will prefer one kind over the other, precisely to counter the drop-out differential.

So when regular people, and not mathematicians, discuss bias, the mathematical definition is unimportant. The one important thing is our stated objectives.
It's obviously better than paper encyclopedia, but it still has problems, notably on editorial censure, more sensible in some countries/languages of wikipedia than others. For example, some pages about persons or political parties can be written in English, but not in the language of the country of those persons or groups.

What I'd want to have eventually, is to remove the editorial process, by having an automated process (probably AI based) collecting information and facts about the world (possibly using any connected device and sensor) to build and publish pages about any public (ie. not private) information.

All information about everything.
Well, it has spread like wildfire among women, particularly younger women.

They see stuff that represents their style, pin those, and get followers who also appreciate both the things and the sense of taste about things.

Secondly, they use it as that, "I want" or "feel of shopping" type experience, and that's a big part of what the sponsored pins are about.

A lot of women I see using the site use it to spot trends and or help them figure out what their look is, or could be, and that's inclusive. Dress, home, etc...

It's not enough to have good looks. It's about who is talking about them and some exposure. Just running an AD might net you a click from a woman who is intrigued, or who has her own well defined style and tastes.

Getting some sharing and discussion may well see you a lot more clicks from women who follow trends and or other women.

The language on your page might use a tweak too. It's clean and clear, but not entirely suggestive. I would get help changing that, if it were me.
My interpretation is a tad more charitable.

The reason the Linux community is so dysfunctional is because, for most people born during a certain time period, it's the first ever OS they use that isn't Windows, and the first ever Unix. Naturally this creates a lot of sudden revelations, and a lot of blowhards who think they're hot because they can rice their Arch Linux box. In the process a lot of false sense of technical prowess is generated.

Moreover, the network effects become so strong that at some point (which has already been crossed) Linux becomes the alternative OS, and from then on people feel like they can just ignore everyone else with impunity. They start to perceive themselves as the leaders, and everyone else must be biting their dust. Notice how Linux users often tend to be ignorant (and not only that, but resentful) of what BSD, Solaris, MINIX, Hurd and other folks are doing. Not the case with users of those other OSes, who as underdogs have more of a reason to cooperate and usually also have to study what the other is doing, especially so that Linux the big dog doesn't poorly reinvent some interface that ends up mutating across FOSS and leaving their access to portable software in the dust.

If through some historical accident 386BSD ended up making it unfettered from the trademark lawsuit fallout, it likely would have followed the same course. So would have the Hurd.
Right. It is impractical to dig a ditch big enough to matter. That's why you damn up mountain canyons instead.
Color Survey Results (2010)
Eh, the "vague as hell" is a huge problem. If I'm reading a contract trying to figure out my recourse and it has a bunch of unconscionable terms, then I've got to confidently know enough general legal information and applicable case law to realize what's on the paper in front of me is utter bullshit. Most likely I am going to be dissuaded from escalating (lawyer or small claims) thinking I simply have no case. Perhaps if there were punitive damages for unconscionable terms (which seems appropriate as they're essentially maliciously wrong legal advice).
From my understanding, titles are not free at all: they present an opportunity cost, especially when the company is on the right trajectory. Promoting someone to VP means that there will not be room to bring a VP from the outside with a track record of successes, one that most of the times the investors themselves are pushing to bring into the company.