skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Compare it to the Danish facility company ISS [1] whos been around since 1901 has more than 500K employers and is in more than 75 countries and pay their employers a fair salary. No freelance contracts or anything like that.

The real challenge isn't growing a company like that, it's being profitable from day one. And so the real innovation is going to be a company that find a way to either completely automate many of those areas or somehow manage to provide benefits beyond the stability a company like ISS can offer which is no easy task.

Managed by Q seems to be doing things in a much more realistic fashion IMHO.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_A/S
By looking through the git history of your project, it doesn't seem you got it correct the first time either. I don't think gluing "UNIX tools" together biggest strength is "make it work fast & on the first try", but "have independent tools that does 'one thing' well".

In relation to your tool, I think curl provides very many more features that are easily accessible through command flags than the limited subset of HTTP capabilities you expose (for example, basic auth or different set of headers). The same argument goes for mailing, setting headers or such.

With that said, tools that does one thing and does it well are the ones that gets used, personally I'd just prefer it to be function in <your-shell> instead :)
Assuming that .navbar contains lots of elements, and those elements have lots of modifiers, then repeatedly writing .navbar__ is not very DRY. Want to change .navbar to .primary-navbar? You have to change it for every selector in that block.
I don't care how much or how little a company chooses to pay it's employees as long as they aren't using taxpayer money (or borrowed government money) to fund their business. And that goes for both business overpaying employees through some kind of subsidy, and paying such a low wage they can only attract workers who also receive welfare.
Head of Engineering

https://twitter.com/jgrahamc/status/658608552328626176
I wonder where roasted marshmallows rank?
> I would rather be richer in a less equal economy that be poorer but average.

there's no debate that anyone would choose to be the richer one in any situation. The question is whether you'd rather be the poorer one in a less equal economy, or the poorer one in a more equal economy.
The "nuclear waste" problem is hardly a problem at all in comparison to most economically viable alternatives, namely coal. Coal produces more radiation than nuclear waste, not to mention many other toxins.

Cite: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
Ex-NSA Chief’s Cybersecurity Startup Draws Funding
What right-wing backlash?
Did you take a look at those Intel binaries they wanted on the PATH? They are all diagnostics tools that so far as I know aren't very useful to the average developer, much less the average consumer. There really doesn't seem to be a reason for Intel to add them to the PATH, because how often do people make support calls directly to Intel?

I just remove the Intel folders from my PATH (every time one of their drivers resmashes them into the PATH).
Maybe ask sama? Homejoy was a YC company and Adora even game a lecture during the most recent Startup School. I'd personally like to see a "lessons learned from failed YC companies" lecture next time since it seems we're starting to see more high-profile failures in the market, often based on high-growth with negative margins.
I eventually settled on using edX exclusively[1], which I don't anticipate changing except for specific advanced courses on the other platforms.

My intuition is that the venture-backed model of the other platforms will make it extremely difficult to maintain a long-term vision of free, ubiquitous education. I did find one edX course which decayed, simply because it required student journaling and deeply personal discussion, which would have been inappropriate to open to the public.

1. Not as exclusively as I thought - I just saw a great course from Coursera and signed up. To date I've only completed edX courses though.
Right right - I'm working on a large framework (built-in ember) where everything is components, hence the appropriateness of rems.

That being said, I'm not sure I follow your example about the footnote - I don't see any difference from what you are gaining with ems vs. rems as rems are also going to scale. The scaling would be from the root vs. the parent element which to me seems much more manageable allowing you avoid having to calculate the result of compounding needed to achieve your desired font-size.
Seems like there might be a model that works better by focusing on managing relationships-- not necessarily a home cleaning service--
Exactly.

The very idea of investing in a unicorn business is that it will either corner the market or go bankrupt, is it not?

How anyone can imagine that they can corner the market in this industry is beyond me!
Thanks for posting your blog post link. Having only published static websites, I've been curious about the release process and your notes provide some insight, especially the parts about signatures.
I was talking more specifically from a debugging perspective as most of the frustration and anti-!important sentiment in the community stems from the effort and time taken in the process to fix a layout issue only to find after a half an hour of mental exercise and acrobatics an !important flag was raised somewhere and hence was this unexpected layout behavior.

I'd say that people who debug this way are at fault here not the language itself or this specific methodology followed because the order of cascading and inheritance in CSS is as follows: importance, origin, specificity and finally source order.

So, people who debug layout issue shouldn't jump first to diagnose specificity problems but importance and to lesser extent the origin albeit it's less common now to encounter a prob in this domain, and when everything is clear, you go and inspect specificity and source order.

That's why I am not sold on the complete avoidance of !important when writing CSS but I am of the opinion that you should only use them when necessary when you need to override a certain style in a very specific context and not more.
It depends what you do, and what type of workflow you're used to.

Can you tell us more about that, so we can do a better job of helping you?
This is a VaR vs Average risk discussion. Yes the potential harm is higher in an absolute worst case with a taxi but it is a really rare event. Cleaner stealing stuff is unfortunately quite common. When you know the person the risk is relatively low but when it is a complete stranger that has been selected by an online company which itself never met that person, I would say the probability is too high for my own taste.
Interesting timing, python-ideas has also been discussing this, leading to a new PEP 505 - None-aware operators:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0505/
Yeah. The 'git log' really shows all the changes I had to make to the README. Oh, and an error message.
Prison Architect, a gaming crowdfunding success story
We specifically recommend against providing panicing and non-panicking. This causes horrible combinatoric explosions. There's very few exceptions to this (array indexing being the major exception). We do of course recommend non-panicking, but there's a few cases where the burden of checking for errors is too high (indexing, refcell).

We're actually in the midst of arguing whether to violate this convention and do it for RefCell: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27733
I love Haskell, but the existence of a bottom type throws all run time guarantees out the window.

import Control.Monad
ex1 = Just 1 :: Maybe Int
ex2 = undefined :: Maybe Int
inc = liftM (+1)
main = do
putStrLn . show $ inc ex1
putStrLn . show $ inc ex2

Yes, you should never use `undefined`. Now replace `undefined` with `null` and it becomes apparent that Maybe and Optional have exactly the same amount of power.
No one should be sitting "among employees" - everyone should be in a private office with a door that closes.
I found the scheduling process to be flawed. The assumption that I'll be home at the same hour every week was not a good one. There wasn't a confirmation phone call, text or email to remind me. But yes, I could manually reschedule. The phone support wasn't glowingly friendly to boot, very forgivable though.

The initial cleaning needed to be deep and thorough. I honestly think that's what people want. Get you back to square 1 and then do maintenance cleanings from there on out. I wasn't blown away by the service enough to continue it. The guy spent 15 minutes polishing my tea kettle when I had much larger issues looming.

Also the experience of saying "I need an extra hour or time on my oven" was odd. Maybe I don't? Maybe I do? I'm not the professional cleaner, you guys are. What I want is to not have to think about this. If the onboarding process was actually harder as in - provide us keys, your first cleaning is going to be an overhaul a big one, etc. I think retention would have gone up even though conversions would have been low. But no one wants to play the long game nowadays...
No need to apologize. There's basically always a way to do it in the shell.
Bacon causes colorectal cancer, steak is 'probably carcinogenic' says WHO
I believe that in the future we won’t have to code as we think of it today.
Coding will be replaced by designing, structuring and working with available
technology to create new solutions."

I remember thinking something similar back in the 80's (remember RAD: rapid application development?), and this is probably still true for quick one-offs. When you have to live with the code you write, this sort of view takes on a much different perspective.
Yeah, I was thinking of things like array access. The stuff that's on the wrong end of the cost/benefit ratio.
Or Specto.
>1) we waste a lot of money administering welfare services. UBI is designed to be inexpensive to administer, which directs more money to the poor.

I find it hard to believe we waste more money administering welfare than we will transfer to those who really don't need it under the need-blind UBI.

Under UBI we'll be giving money to many, many people who need it less than the current welfare recipients, and even UBI will require administration.

A solution (UBI) that claims to help a group (the actual needy) that is not tailored to administer to that group is unlikely to benefit them, especially since it's now going to split the fixed amount of benefits to others not in the group.

>see, e.g. research on GiveDirectly's impact

What works in Kenya does not necessarily work at every location and economy. It's not like we have not studied this question in the US for nearly a century, and recent research on foreign third world cases does not overturn a century of research on first world economic aid.

And this is not an argument for UBI. At best it would be an argument to change current welfare programs to give cash aid to those already eligible for welfare.
How to make software crash less
Translation Marketing – a high ROI lever for exponential growth
You asserted:

> Paying people well doesn't bother me, and I doubt it actually bothers anybody.

To which I pointed out that it might well bother some groups of people.

You also asserted that:

> ... has little to nothing to do with the problem of "wealth inequality". Everybody already knows that if it were possible to just pull wealth out of thin air everybody could have more.

To which I pointed out that it does in my opinion have everything to do with wealth equality, sustainable or no, as this experiment is (IMO) primarily about where and how payroll gets distributed, not about how large payroll might be.

I read your post carefully, several times, before replying. Please do mine the same courtesy. Thanks.
TalkTalk hires BAE Systems to investigate cyber attack
This might work for non-trivial CRUD applications but good luck building something more complex.
This explanation doesn't seem to fit the drunk driving problem though - it seems that with the level of "drunk driving causes a lot of fatal accidents" knowledge in the world, there would be much less of it, if the above explanation was true.
My adage has always been "if you can't teach it to someone with a minimal background, you don't really understand it." If I really need to study a topic, I prepare as if I was going to give a lecture on it. That usually makes it painfully obvious where the holes in what I know are.
I'm surprised this is popular. It was just a quick thing I wrote to solve a specific problem that mattered a lot.
You'll see this behavior in government with far less drastic results. A lot of bureaucratic cruff that builds up is recognized by workers as being such. The government workers do realize just how silly and time consuming the policies are. And many have ideas on how to improve them and speed things up.

But no one wants to do anything because any wrong that happens will then be blamed on them. So if there are 10 issues a day caused by bad policy, and you can change it to only be 5 incidents a day, no one is going to push for changing it because then they would be viewed as responsible for the 5 incidents instead of being viewed as reducing the incident count by 5.

You pull the switch to kill one to save 5, you have now directly acted to kill a person. You are a killer, and while perhaps not legally a murderer, some will still view you as such. That you save 5 is irrelevant.

To see an even strong example of this behavior, consider some action that is even more offensive to the common sensibilities that killing someone, such as certain forms of child abuse. Now imagine a situation where by doing that to one child, you can stop it being done to N others. (Worry not about the details of how such a situations could occur, I'm sure some creative individual could find a back story.)

Now imagine how someone who chooses the utilitarian choice is going to be viewed. Perhaps we should be doing tests not about what the subject would choose, but about how the subject would view another's choices.
Well, there's no formal definition of "unicorn valuation." But $40 million is a fair bit of money to raise and, if you figure 10x return as a target ballpark, that brings you up to $400 million which is at least in the ballpark of $1 billion.
Off topic : Is it ok to re-post an ignored article [0] the very next day, just curious, not complaining :)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10443814
> a lot of corium ending up on the bottom of the vessel where it did exactly what was planned

Yes, that's what happened, but I wouldn't say it was planned. Popular wisdom at the time was that the corium should have melted the whole way through the containment vessel. It was only afterwards that they discovered that the water and corium itself helped keep the steel containment vessel cool enough to prevent melting (albeit just barely).[1]

Yes, almost no radiation was released. But we got very lucky. It was close to melting through the containment vessel. "By some estimates, the core was 30 minutes away from melting through the eight-inch-thick steel reactor vessel when cooling water was finally restored."[2]

1. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-30/news/mn-17003_1_nucle...

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/...
TLDR. Summary: Burn was too high.
It's been a long time since I did anything in Maya, but if you mean keyframing, interpolation curves (possibly my most favourite thing in the world), drivers (second favourite), armature rigging, shape keys etc. etc. then yeah, Blender does have those features and as far as I can tell, they're pretty well polished.

What I like best about the way animation is handled is that you can keyframe (almost) anything. As an example, you can add keys for the strength (or some other value) of the normal map that is a node in a material that is applied to one or more objects and animate that value. I dare say that's feasible in other packages too. Whether you can do it by just hitting "i" on the keyboard while mousing over the value you want to animate, I don't know.
I think this is a demonstration of the limits in "app-ing" an industry. Uber worked fantastically because it leans heavily on the geolocation facilities in a smartphone - you're always moving, getting picked up from different places, by cars located in different places.

Homejoy had none of that. You rarely move home, and your cleaner rarely does either. Effectively, from transaction #1 you're in a perfectly replicable pattern - Cleaner X comes to your house every Y weeks and works for Z hours. No matter how great that initial app experience is, it's basically not needed afterwards.

There's also something interesting in here about the limits of the "gig economy". Arguably, by creating a marketplace of cleaners competing with each other for your money, they'd drive costs down for customers. In reality, inviting someone into your home is a very personal thing, and people much prefer to build a relationship with someone that they might pay a little more on a regular basis, than get a different person each time. It is a premium service, after all.
The underlying question is "Does skirting employment law by using only 1099'ers make a profitable business solution?"

In this case, the answer is no. But the general answer to that question is "Yes, it is very profitable to upend employment law for the profit of the few, on the backs of the many."
Why does "pay disparity" or income inequality matter?

Suppose two people start at 10. One person finds a way to go to 20 and the other goes to 11. The inequality has increased and the wealth of both people has increased.

Technically, this is a social improvement. But egalitarians would say this is a terrible situation because the gap has gone from 0 to 9.
I'm always wary of the "one size fits all people" mandate.
Infographic: Whole Foods – From Beloved to Troubled
National Novel Generation Month (third Annual)
Trick or Treat. Get a Mystery Box
The preferred way is App Paths [1], it's just that there's not really a good UI for that and most people are used to Unix-style PATH environment variables so a lot of software depends on that that maybe doesn't actually need to and a lot of installers are built for that because the person building the installer didn't find the App Path tools but did find the Environment Variable smasher.

[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/07/25/10189...
Guitar Pro 5 Keygen Generator &#038; Patch Full Version Download
To clarify: the annotations are grand really but I don't find notes, footnotes and introductions good companions to literature. They break the flow of one's reading. They should be kept strictly at the back and not intrude on the text. Reading a story like this is personal and immersive...this text breaks that down.
Competition is really the big thing. Redbox has pretty much doubled their price in the past few years, and they can because by now all the meat-space video rental stores are pretty much out of business. However, at $2 for a blu-ray, it's already at the point where if I'm not going to the store anyway, I will just rent through the cable company for $4 or $5 bucks. And then I don't have a chance of forgetting to take the movie back and getting charged again. If Netflix got more new-release movies, I wouldn't even have to do that.
Groovy programming language thrives under Apache
Jeff Bezos Got Darwinism All Wrong
That's a reasonable evaluation to make. I'd note though that people use cleaning services all the time so Homejoy wasn't in any way unique in this regard (which was one of their problems).
>So it's probably better to leave the switch alone rather than potentially causing even more harm.

More formally there's two cultural issues that the philosophers more or less refuse to deal with and instead claim inherent biological instinct or whatever.

One is we've been indoctrinated for better or worse with a deference toward specialists via all kinds of morality tales and drama. You shouldn't tell a doctor how to doctor, or a laborer how to labor, according to a zillion dramatic morality tales. Its deeply hardwired into the culture itself. Therefore its culturally wrong to mess with a railway workers switchgear unless you're a railway worker, which you probably are not. You can daydream all you want about possibly knowing how to operate railroad gear, but according to doctrine if you were a railworker, you're supposed to be pretty pissed off if some random member of the general public disrespects your entire field of employment by flipping switches. No matter your real or theoretical employment, we're indoctrinated to leave those switches alone.

The next deeply indoctrinated belief is people are conservative about what they know best. Obviously you know nothing about railway operations, or at least less than the guy assigned to operate that switch. Clearly someone who knows what they're doing set the switch that way for a reason, so if I operate that switch I'm almost certain to be doing something wrong because the guy assigned to it felt he was doing right. In part two of the classic telling, clearly the fat guy knows he's not fat enough to stop the train by lying on the tracks so he didn't jump on them by himself therefore pushing him on the tracks is just going to increase the death toll. The only people who want to upend the cart are actual experts, arrogant, or insane, at least according to cultural myth.

Its possibly in a different culture we'd get totally different results. Maybe in a video game where its "make believe" and not in our culture, you'd get different results. Someone should try these scenarios in minecraft and then compare/contrast results.
The risk here is that many of the comments are extrapolating to the larger market. Yet Handy seems to be doing well and has much higher retention rates. Homejoy could just be bad management. Seems like a classic case of a leader who was good early on (rushing off to do a bathroom on a holiday) but couldn't solve for the bigger problems at scale (retention) which Handy has.
Spain to Invest 90M € in Natural Language Processing Technologies
>This claim does seem to be a bit disingenuous and exaggerated. Sure teachers cover an unfair amount of supplies and get paid very little. Do they really rent their classrooms, buy their own computers, and pay for 100% of everything out of pocket?

It was exaggerated a bit!

>Do they really rent their classrooms,

Of course not, but increasingly, my own resources are being put to use on behalf of my / my employer's students. Furthermore, remuneration in my field is easily several times what it is in education; and I think that's true for a lot of teachers. Sure, there are other benefits, but the pay is poor, approaching minimal, and that's not going to get you the best teachers.

>buy their own computers

Often enough, yes.

> and pay for 100% of everything out of pocket?

Far, far too much out of pocket.
Steve Jobs in 1994: NeXT and OO [2011]
I saw this in practice in the small town I grew up in that had 3 big supermarkets where the population could only really keep 2 going. Publix paid employees about a dollar an hour more than the other two (and would assume the same for management staff) and had very low tolerance for poor performance. So they always had the friendliest and helpful staff, cleanest stores, best stocked shelves, best kept meat and produce sections, etc. and was able to charge a higher price.

Once someone was fired from Publix, they would start working at one of the other two stores within the next week.
Good luck getting the IRB to approve an experiment where the participant thinks they either killed someone or watched 5 people die.

Also in reality, it would probably depend upon who those people are and factors such as their age, attractiveness, and even protected classes.
WebLogic 12.2.1 (Java EE 7) released