skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I disagree with the common advice here that all stock options are worthless.

You say the company is late-stage. Assuming it's currently valued in the $100M range or more, I would estimate your upside to about 4X, maximum. Worst case of course is 0. So take the price of your options today, multiply by 4: that's the best case scenario of the one-time bonus you'll be receiving about 3 to 6 years from now.

Does the amount sound interesting to you? How does it compare to a slightly higher salary (that you get every year for many years to come)?

If the valuation of the company is much lower (<$50M), then the potential upside is larger (say 10X), but much less likely (higher risk of being worth nothing). That's when it gets really tricky to decide.

In the end, it's all a function of where you are in life: can you afford the risk, what is your current cash flow, savings, etc.
I knew those people. But my contention is that if you have those things, you're still competing with a surplus of people who also have those things. What we don't know is how to reliably raise the chance to a level above about 10%.

I'd add a couple of other factors: The people I know who got into tenured jobs, had binders full of shovel ready research ideas (backed up by literature and/or preliminary results), and a comprehensive knowledge of the literature in their specialties.
People who don't care for privacy
SEEKING WORK • REMOTE

I am a data polymath, remotely working data scientist and а python programmer, with the following profile highlights:

• SKILLS to handle large data volumes, undertake predictive modeling and obtain actionable insights (data science, machine learning, business intelligence, etc.);

• STACK consisting of state-of-the-art tools for advanced computing and data analytics (Python, R, Java, Spark, etc.), with experience in freelancing and coding challenges;

• EDUCATION obtained from some of the world's best universities and online courses providers (MITx, BerkeleyX, Udemy, Lynda, etc.), with a strong quantitative background;

• PERSONALITY of an INTJ analytical problem-solver with the intellectual curiosity to make discoveries in the world of big data.

My objective is a challenging position requiring the expertise as a data scientist and a python programmer, working remotely worldwide with the optimal trade-off between the job performance and salary. I am open to explore career opportunities where I can combine my skill-set and mind-set, with an aim for innovations, best practices, and ways to be more productive.

• Website • http://www.datapolymath.com

• LinkedIn • https://www.linkedin.com/in/datapolymath

• GitHub • https://github.com/datapolymath

• AngelList • https://angel.co/datapolymath

• E-mail • datapolymath@outlook.com
"Engineer" can be either degree/qualification or position.

In software business there are no mandatory degrees, only positions. Person without formal education can be in "chief leading senior engineer" position if he has good personal track record.

Personally I like the word programmer more than engineer.
Weekly technology winners and losers
Just remember that companies like Box and (in the future) Square have IPO values below their final private round valuations. There is a reason your the the value of the common stock (your strike price) is half the price of the preferred stock's value, because there is a very high chance the common stock will never be worth the same value as the preferred stock (which likely has protections about IPOs or acquisitions below the valuation).

So with that out of the way, you are just an investor. Do you feel the valuation of the company is low/medium/high? If you think the value is low, then you'd want more stock. If you think it is high, take more money. The company probably wont give you enough information to actually figure this out, so you have to use your intuition.

The safe thing to do is just take more salary.
This doesn't disappoint me at all, honestly. I knew it had to be some kind of trick, and it is, but it's quite a clever trick.
Fertility Rates: Empirical View
A bit more compact go-version:

package main

import (
"log"
"os"
"strconv"
"time"
)

func main() {
f, err := os.OpenFile("/sys/class/leds/beaglebone:green:usr0/brightness", os.O_RDWR, 0666)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
defer f.Close()

state := 1
for i := 0; i < 3*2; i++ {
_, err = f.WriteString(strconv.Itoa(state))
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
time.Sleep(2 * time.Second)
state = 1 - state
}
}
Right, I get the idea of people wanting things. That's not enough to validate the want! I'd like to dupe everyone into giving me money for doing nothing, but that's not a valid justification for scamming.

The game theory dynamics aren't in dispute. The question is, why do you defend a system that boils down to "they take advantage of people's ignorance", of what they're obligated to pay, and that they're paying more in return for nothing.
Cygwin is a lot bigger and more time consuming to install. Putty is what? Half a meg and you're done? Much much much lower barrier to entry.

There's also the issue that in a corporate environment, having a much smaller attack surface is greatly preferred. Trying to get something like Cygwin past the security dept in a BIG company - quite challenging.
Yeah, and the two ideas can be combined as well, with fat pointers that are base pointer and offset/index pairs.
Being a foreigner I do recognize the dynamic described in the article on some level, merely by observing the American culture from the outside, but I hadn't realized it's such a serious and pervasive sentiment——or is it?

Maybe there's a bias such as the overmothering behaviour being overpresented in the media yet most families and mothers are absolutely regular people as parents, and possibly feeling bad themselves about never reaching the impossible expectations set in the media?

I'd happily read personal experiences here to figure out how much truth there is in it.
I'm actually at a bit of a loss for words that somebody thinks a business can be reverse engineered just by looking at it as a black box system. There are so many intricacies with cash flow forecasting and management alone, requiring deep understanding of each market's nuance and settlement mechanisms, simply to pay the bills. That's not even to get revenue in the door. Sorry, but most businesses aren't software programs, they're social systems and local contracts that were socially agreed upon to get something done in a politically acceptable way.
Recognizing that people like their existing watches is a great idea. The hardware looks really slick too.

The big problem, one that afflicts pretty much every smartwatch, is one of battery life. One of the great things about non-smart watches is that they run for years, not days. Chronos doesn't bypass this limitation (although one nice thing w/ Chronos is that if one forgets to charge, the main watch will continue to work).
Custom Windows Driver and C# Library for the Xbox 360 Scene It Controllers
You've established that you (and perhaps some others) believe that UBI hurts unions (and that you think that's desirable), but you've not really explained the mechanism by which they would be hurt.
Apologies for the repost and may well do it again in the coming days but seriously don't understand why people put up statuses like these! What is the matter with some people?! Nobody gives a damn about privacy these days or what they post?
That happens to me every time I delve into Xerox PARC documentation.

I only had a glimpse of those technologies by means of Smalltalk Visual Works and Oberon, and it was quite productive.

Nowadays it feels like only Cocoa, JVM and .NET development environments are the closest mainstream developers get from the whole developer experience from those days.
Ok, I'll also quote Wikipedia

"The long-term effects of benzodiazepine use can include cognitive impairment as well as affective and behavioural problems. Feelings of turmoil, difficulty in thinking constructively, loss of sex-drive, agoraphobia and social phobia, increasing anxiety and depression, loss of interest in leisure pursuits and interests, and an inability to experience or express feelings can also occur. Not everyone, however, experiences problems with long-term use.[10][78] Additionally an altered perception of self, environment and relationships may occur.[77]"
At what point can we call these attempts to undermine government power an attack? Modern war uses economic weapons, which can sometimes be more effective (and less expensive) than the more traditional invasion or blockade.

Consider the "tea"/wingnut faction in the GOP (I think they're gone full doublespeak and now call themselves the "freedom caucus"?) We have people cheering over government shutdowns and explicit claims that dysfunction of government is the goal ("It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”[1], "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."[2]). AT what point does that become "making war"?

I'm totally fine with people that want to argue even absurd points within the system. Attempting to replace that system with something else - such as the ISDS - is another matter entirely. Consider any sizable power of your choice (corporate, foreign government, or anything else). If they hired people to try and subvert the legitimate functioning of our government, would you recognize it? Or would you consider it the usual corruption we call "lobbying". No empire lasts forever, and the American empire is is more precarious than we like to admit.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-cusp-of-shutdown-...

[2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
It could be that founders (many in the community here) have a similar mindset to VCs: I need 10%+ to make it worth giving it a go. Standard equity grants for employees are tiny in comparison.
2. Cooking is easy and enjoyable

Okay, but what about washing dishes, and waiting in line at the grocery store, and taking out the garbage, and cleaning the refrigerator, and wasting food when you accidentally burn dinner, and when the recipe is bad, and when you botch the ingredients. And so on, and so on, and so on.
PuTTY is relatively portable, has just enough of a GUI to not require you use cmd.exe to run it, and is not GPL-ware.

(To be clear, I have nothing against the GPL, but some corporate environments avoid it like the plague.)
You don't appear to understand how the PGP web of trust works. The current release key is signed by the master key, which in turn has been signed by some keys which are indirectly cross-signed by a huge variety of developers many people are likely recognize.

https://sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=putty...

I guess it's true to say WOT is useless unless you participate in it, but at this stage, it is of comparable uselessness as the existing CA system.
> Opportunistic encryption, or OE for short, essentially means "try to encrypt it, don't bother if you can't". It also often means "don't bother to check the authenticity of the other endpoint."

I was under the impression OE only has the latter meaning, ie "Encrypt all the time, check authenticity if it's easy otherwise keep it unchecked but _still_ encrypted". The major idea is that checking authenticity is a hard problem so instead of trying to solve all problems at once, we do what we can already reliably do for now, while still acknowledging that the connection isn't technically secure but has good chances to be if you want to protect against passive/poor attackers. That's exactly what "opportunistic" means: in some cases (and some might say most) not checking authenticity can be good enough, so we should go with it _at all times_.

The first meaning is just about using advertised capabilities.
Those are very interesting points. I certainly dont have the answers, and answering these sort of questions correctly is the challenge we are facing.

The values we are discussing do necessarily arise along with civilisation and specialisation. Perhaps for inspiration we should look at uncivilised societies, hunter gatherers who certainly must toil for food (hunt and gather) but not actually work per se.

I will have a stab at answering your questions with my own answers however..

Q:But how do you determine who gets what and how much of it?

A: Everyone gets enough for shelter, food, electricity, education, healthcare, other things which are considered basic necessities. Essentially just give people the basics rather than force them through pointless and wasteful hoops.

Q: I might want to produce 10-20 children all from different women.

A: I dont really see any problem here, people can choose to have children or not. Unless there is a problem with overpopulation but that is another issue. Generally the trend with more affluence is less children.

Q: how do you control people?

A: Laws would still exist, and there would need to be police and a judiciary system to enforce them.
Obviously there is some work that will always be necessary (farming, military, police, decision-making) Once all of that can be fully automated then humans would be obsolete anyway.

ps. This is a very interesting debate that may be relevant at some stage in the future but I'm betting that global industrial society will undergo a significant collapse in the next 50 - 100 years rendering all this moot.
While I think his insights on how we treat our children is amazingly insightful, and I love how it's described as a religion (the point that children are our sacred cows is very good in particular) his attempt to relate it to marriages seems shoehorned at best. There's a lot of problems with the way we treat children, but I think it's relation to marriage is the least of our issues.

But seriously, the whole "children as a religion" point is great. I mean, think of some of the bills and laws that get passed because "think of the children". It's not too different from religious laws.
I would like to turn this around slightly. Social networks are necessary and will be for a very long time as curation networks. The alternative is simple too much information to deal with.

Here is an excerpt from a blog post called "Slaves to the Feed - This is not the realtime we've been looking for" I wrote some years ago:

"Let’s start with what most people probably can agree. Information is accumulating online. The amount of available information is increasing at an exponential rate, some say it doubles every second year. This mean that any illusion of being able to stay up to date with everything that is going on is utopian and has been probably since Guttenberg invented the press.

Most people know this, yet that is exactly exactly what we all seem to be doing.

There is no shortage of content aggregators and aggregators of aggregators, daily developed to give us a better overview of all the sources of information we have subscribed to and found ourselves now depending on.

This has resulted in an endless stream of articles, news, pictures, websites, products, updates, comments of updates and comments to these comments, being delivered to us second by second that each of us have to deal with.

Constantly checking our feeds for new information, we seem to be hoping to discover something of interest, something that we can share with our networks, something that we can use, something that we can talk about, something that we can act on, something we didn’t know we didn’t know.

It almost seems like an obsession and many critics of digital technology would argue that by consuming information this way we are running the danger of destroying social interaction between humans. One might even say that we have become slaves of the feed.

It might be an obsession, but I think it’s an obsession that many critics will find themselves having to submit to sooner or later.
..."

http://000fff.org/slaves-of-the-feed-this-is-not-the-realtim...
The problem is that the dominant model of development today seems to involve increased wealth inequality rather than the creation of a stable middle class.

For example, China's development has involved considerable wealth inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_China
Isn't this kind of exactly the same sentiment as "the middle class is disappearing in the USA?"
Because a lot of us don't need anything else Cygwin has to offer. So using it just to have OpenSSH feels like killing a house fly with a hammer.

PuTTY is also much quicker and easier to set up.
In today's dollars, that marginal tax rate would surely start somewhere above one million.
I think you might be misunderstanding the intentions of this. AFAICT it's not a mechanism for supporting multiple interfaces, just a bit of a light trickery to get a length passed into functions within the limitations of array->pointer decay in C. It also helps avoid cases where a miscalculated n is passed by 'encapsulating' it with the data.

Edit: I stand corrected. Just had a look over the source and this does a lot more than the OP link indicates. The Github README is more informative.
Isn't a join of two tables essentially the product of the two tables?

That said it does appear that sums are missing. Infact it seems like every mainstream language manages to fail to add sum types for some strange reason and you have to recreate them from scratch.
How django-rest-framework changed my life
It's just anecdotal, I've found that my siblings and friends with kids are pretty up front about the negative attributes of their kids. So the "parenthood religion" isn't necessarily universal.

I think it's still a good article. It comes down to balance in the end, I think. Kids are just another thing in your life that you have to balance—more plates to spin. If you're only spinning your children's plates, it seems obvious that your job and relationship plates are going to eventually fall...
No, they must control the server, and with that they can compromise the client. Or at least this is how I understand it.
is this the website that was formely rap genius?
A pointer you get from calloc() is guaranteed to be properly aligned to not cause SIGBUS on RISCs and some such. You cannot just add random sizeof(Header) to it and call it a general purpose allocation. struct Header needs to be a bit more elaborate than what they have. In fact, it shouldn't be a struct, but a union -

union Header
{
var type;
max_align_t foo;
};

whereby you get max_align_t from your standard libraries or do something like this -

typedef union max_align
{
int i;
long l;
double d;
void * p;
...
} max_align_t;
What better way to feed false information into a computer than giving it to someone else?

In all honesty, I think a security researcher would be more curious figuring out what they did.
PHP 7 Launch Delayed
He's generalizing way too much. There are so many different subcultures, which each have their own style of parenting, and even within them parenting varies person to person too much to generalize like this.
I have a hard time already convincing myself that correct sequential imperative algorithms are indeed correct - which probably means that I'm a bad programmer, but I can't change who I am. So convincing myself that that Raft, a concurrent algorithm, is correct (meets its specification) from an informal description is completely out of question - where is the formal proof of correctness?
Even the military may not be enough to protect an endangered Amazon tribe
They call this (also CRISPR) gene editing, but interestingly when I looked at the literature whats going on is always this:

1) Cells are put in a dish

2) Gene "editing" tech is added to the dish

3) Most, if not the vast majority of the cells die. Or this information is simply not reported, even if the authors did report it in other papers so they know it is important.

4) The surviving cells consist largely of those with "edited" genes. Control cells, who were not exposed to the "editing" conditions, also have a small percentage of "edited" genes.

It sounds to me like they are selectively killing the cells that are not already mutants. I read around 8 papers on CRISPR, none of them addressed this possibility (or mention it and cite someone who did address it).

Of course, in terms of getting the desired mutants for the clinic it works just as well. Misunderstanding why it works is not good though.
Facebook won't let you type this
Interesting. Due to the seed explosion (which is absolutely a good thing, more entrepreneurs trying new stuff) Series A has indeed become very challenging -- extremely challenging, even.

Rather than raise more seed, we decided to buckle down and try to fund through paying customer growth. Slower of a curve than a 2 or 3 million dollar injection, but no strings attached either. And I figure you need to develop your billing and customer chops eventually anyway, so why not start building those skills now?
Another interesting philosophical take on this is Timothy Morton's 2009 book "Ecology Without Nature".

http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-without-Nature-Rethinking-Envi...
This is fine obviously as days or weeks won't really make a difference.

Better delay it rather than rush it. The development have been making excellent progress otherwise and made the schedule stick well.
they really are crushing the game, and you are right they give a new meaning to the word(s) "loyal following" and "brand ambassadors" imgur.com users are insane!
A. Teller is probably more interesting to HN folks because he's head of Google X. This seems incongruous a little bit and then you see how people in Palo Alto parent...
Ugh. For the vast majority of companies, you would be far better off investing the time and effort meeting with your actual customers and/or doing development on your product.

I've stopped going to most startup events; they turn into cheap theater with folks who revel in their newfound roles as "CXO" or "Investor" (usually just a business card) and are unable to engage and actually get work done. Or those who choose to prey on such innocent lambs....
Considering the source of the gold how is this find going to be distributed?
You can't. There are academic jobs for fewer than 10% of PhDs. You have to be incredible or lucky.

We do know exactly how change this, though. Since it's probably not affordable or sensible to triple the number of profs (you can't do this without making profs much worse), the only way to increase the chances of the average PhD is to graduate fewer PhDs.

Back in the mid-20th century only 10-15% of people even got undergrad degrees and we did not have this problem so much.
Categories are just an utterly pared-down notion of composability, so most of the time you don't even recognize them in the wild (like the associativity of monads, which on an abstract level says that only the sequence of instructions matters, but not their grouping - it's something that you expect to be true in any imperative language!), or only recognize the absence of categories as horrible design.

If you haven't already, you should play around with the pipes library, because it makes very heavy use of categories and it's an extreme positive example of composability.

As another practical example, Haskell's class constraints form a thin category, with constraint entailment as arrows. This means that instance resolution never depends on ordering of imports, local bindings, or basically anything other than the raw set of available instances, and also any two instances at the same type must be equal. This buys us great scalability and refactorability, most notably in comparison to Scala, where alphabetizing module imports sometimes breaks programs.

That said, in category theory one rarely works with vanilla categories but rather other abstractions formulated in categorical language. Similarly, in Haskell vanilla categories aren't as useful as the many well-known categorical abstractions (basically, the core Functor - Applicative - Monad hierarchy is directly category-theory inspired, and they've proven to be insanely useful).