skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I seriously doubt it was an accident. I'd love to see a 100 knot submersible though. As water isn't compressible the limit on how fast you can go through it is the amount of energy you expend in displacing your mass off water around you. Now the silly picture had this thing blunt nosed, which it would not be (since that would kill efficiency), so this thing has do displace its mass in water at 51 m/sec (100 knots is 51.444 meters/second) And they claim it can do that for 10,000 km. (and the comment from the Russians is that it does this the full trip to avoid being stopped by underwater detection systems.

The only way you would have a hope of that is by using a nuclear reactor as the power plant (I haven't done the full math but just looking at random magnitudes its going to need megawatts of generating capacity) and that makes for really, really, really expensive and hard to maintain "torpedos". Further, a torpedo that moves this fast is going to cavitate (create bubbles in the water) like the Shkval-E. So this thing would be really really noisy.

So something starts screaming across the ocean toward a port city, where at 185km/h it will take 10 hours to go 1850 km, and can be stopped in its tracks by a P3-Orion with a conventional depth charge barrage?

Fun idea, but physics makes it really impractical.
I don't think the "Supreme Court" is held in high esteem.

And it shouldn't be either.

Keyword #laughingstock
There are strong economic disincentives to training employees in transferable skills: the second you do, their market value increases, which means that if you don't pay them more, they will be recruited by other companies willing to do so. So you wind up paying for both their education and an increased salary because you educated them. It's cheaper to just hire someone who's already educated.

For example, consider the employer who decides to pay 10,000 to train their employees when doing so will cause their employees' market salary to increase by 5000/year. Assuming the employee will stay with him for 2 years if he does the salary bump, he's effectively paying the employee $5000 (salary bump) + 10,000/2 (training) = $10,000/year extra, when he could just go to the market and hire someone who already has the skill for $5,000/year extra.

Going to the market may also be faster if the skill is both complex & modularized (so it doesn't require deep insight into the current code base). You'll also benefit from the experience of the person who's done it before and gained battle scars.

So instead of promoting a jr engineer and training them, it's often just cheaper and more efficient to hire a senior guy who's done it before.
How much money have you got? Maybe the HN community can scrape together a few million to pay a private military contractor to go in and "bail him out"?
Completely agree. I would love to see more content creators using things like github to allow others to contribute and improve content.
I disagree with this article's thesis, that the industry is incorrectly framing the talent problem. Whether people are talent or have talent is philosophical; the truth of the matter is that it is really hard to find software practitioners that can come in and do the job and do it well.

The problem, IMO, is that we don't have a good and clear understanding of what is the professional skill set. Even companies like Google, etc have lamented the very difficult problem of interviewing and identifying talent that correlates to on-the-job success.

I know (believe) that there is an acquirable skill set of a professional software practitioner that maps to real value. It's just that we as an industry haven't successfully codified it yet, we haven't yet shown which of the practitioner's skills are the most valuable, and we haven't shown how to measure and evaluate those skills in a candidate.

Only when we can be specific about what is the talent, the skill set will we be in a better position to consider the shortage (or not) of that talent; and only then will we also be able to be specific with individuals on how to acquire that skill set.
The phasing out of on-the-job training is an atrocity, IMO, especially since what tends to replace it is training at a university, which ought (imo) be a place where people can get some education that isn't oriented primarily toward making them better workers.

It's especially ironic since often the university is a public institution, and the tech world (and the business world generally) tends to be so down on the public sphere and are big boosters of private enterprise. But they're not above taking a giant, giant handout in the form of worker training and then pissing and moaning when they think it isn't coming fast enough.
Lot's of interview seems normal. But the best companies I've interviewed at have figured out ways to condense the process into one day on-site. So you might go in and have 4 or 5 different interviews with different people back to back, but you only had to show up on-site once.
Craig Hockenberry noted the problems with cert caching two years ago[1].

[1] http://furbo.org/2013/10/21/mac-app-store-receipts-and-maver...
That's a low standard for the government to meet. "Preponderance of the evidence" means that the government doesn't need to prove the property is subject to forfeiture, just show that 50% of the evidence indicates that it could be. (guy in car from out of state at night, guy fits the profile of something, road is a "drug corridor", guy had alot of cash, guy was speeding)

It's hard to convict you of a crime for driving around with a envelope stuffed with a lot of cash. But's it's easy to demonstrate reasons why the cash may be used for nefarious purposes.
There is no indication that the sentence has been carried out, AFAICT. The black ribbon on the homepage is premature.
My company aggressively hires interns and new grads out of Waterloo.

I wish more CS programs would follow their model.

For those that don't know, the CS program at Waterloo is 5 years long. 4 years for the traditional education but there's also a requirement that the student complete FIVE internships at different companies(thus the extra year).

It's a great combination of learning and on the job training, and they get paid for their work.
There is another side to this than age. "Culture". A lot of people don't buy into the startup "culture" and won't be a good fit no matter how hard they work or how good they are.

I know people my age (30~) who can't get a foot in because they don't fit in with the hipster-frames-hoovering-art-director types who apart from being well connected founders also part time as diversity activists.
We may or may not solve it with engineering, but one thing I've become increasingly certain of is we won't solve it by convincing others it's broken. For decades Freedom of Speech was sacrosanct, and now we have a whole generation that rejects it out of hand and feels they have the right to control others speech, even trivially "offensive" speech.

Bitcoin and other engineering efforts, however, have great potential.
Building a new university is difficult. Buying investment paper from Sallie Mae is easier.

Building a traditional bricks-and-mortarboards university with actual tenured professors and students seeking valuable skills and knowledge is difficult. Making a half-assed university that gets all its revenue from government grant and loan programs while its graduates can't find jobs decent enough to pay off their loans is easier.

As long as there are ways for people to invest and reap the benefits rather than spend money and do the actual work, there will be investment bubbles, because there will never be any shortage of humans who would prefer to sit on ass and cash fat checks than to sweat all day for little visible return.

You alma mater pisses me off. It could have hired 80 non-adjunct employees, and built a new building with 40 classrooms and 100 offices in it. Instead, it hired one guy, whose job is apparently to beg people to give the school more of their money. And specifically, beg from alumni, many of whom will now be debt-encumbered and underemployed because they spent too much in tuition, learning things that don't help them to create beneficial economic activity, from people who are essentially underpaid temps with no future career path within the school.

The availability of the loans just makes it easier for schools to raise tuition without providing better service.

If you take away the loans, it's true that people who want degrees will have fewer opportunities, but one of those opportunities will likely be to attend school in a strip mall cubicle, learning from robot-assisted professors, for $500 a semester, plus $50 per credit-hour. That dude is going to learn just as much as the guy in the swanky dorm with theater-quality lecture halls and famous professors, but it'll cost him $10k instead of $200k.

Throwing money at a problem does not help, unless you are throwing it specifically at those people who are capable of fixing it.
Where and what are these schools? What about your average state school outside of the tech areas?
I don't really want to get into the whole "Tax the 1%" issue but it's becoming more obvious that taxing the ultra wealthy will lead to these kinds of sustainable companies. That tax revenue, when streamlined into larger research grants for DARPA projects or NSF stuff would produce technologies and general scientific advancements that startups would be able to develop on. Not just cool new ways to serve advertisements.

The ultra wealthy are desperate to find new ways to double their money through investments [1]. However, they are not desperate enough to start their own research labs, from which great advancements are made. Thus, I feel money could be more efficiently allocated for future sustainable scientific and technologic advancements if the government utilized increased tax revenue from 1%'ers to create more opportunities for such companies.

[1]: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21678215-world-enteri...

Edit: typo
FWIW (Rayiner knows this, but maybe everyone else doesn't):

The concept of "proof of innocence" does not appear in the Constitution; it derives from common law, and the Latin word it comes from doesn't mean "prove" in the mathematical sense.

Which makes sense, because "innocent until formally proven guilty" doesn't make sense in a sentence that proceeds to "beyond a reasonable doubt".
CoreOS Introduces Clair: Open Source Vulnerability Analysis for Your Containers
Sill both zero (dot many zeroes).
The tech talent shortage is a lie when you don't know what tech talent actually looks like. It also doesn't exist nearly as strong as it does in SV. Remote is a solution, but not everyone knows how to run a company with remote employees.

> And therein lies the problem: The real shortage isn’t of talented people; it’s of employers (and, by implication, society) who are willing or able to nurture talented people.

When everyone has a runway of 18 months, spending the time and money to nurture talented people isn't feasible whatsoever. You need productive people on day 1.

> Despite the tech industry’s propensity to hire people of privilege, research shows that people with different backgrounds are no less capable or successful as software engineers than those from privileged circles. And there are strong bottom-line arguments for a more diverse workplace.

Yet, the author's company is full of white males in their 20's and 30's...[0] It sounds like the author wants other people, with other capital to invest in the hard part of what he's suggesting to be solved.

For the record, Google brings in 1,500 interns per year. That's a pretty significant investment in talented people who many not necessarily be productive...(hint: they take a lot of Stanford CS undergrads) of which many will eventually take full time jobs there when they graduate. I've tried to hire these people and they are extremely difficult to attract when the alternative is a cushy job at Google.

[0] - https://www.vividcortex.com/about-us/#leadership
You can hire and start training people now. They can start being useful fast. The whole bootcamp model proves this. If there's such a shortage businesses could just subsidize the bootcamps.
New in the Wolfram Language: RandomPoints
I think "grace periods" should be a lot more common in software. Not every issue is the user's problem, and not every problem requires a drastic response.

For instance, they could have:

- Quietly noted the issue in a file somewhere, waited 24 hours, and checked again.

- If the problem was still present after 24 hours, they could have made the software discreetly submit a problem report to Apple (but still launch and work correctly).

- After 48 hours, they could issue a background notification to the user indicating that a problem has been detected in the program and to “please check for updates on the App Store”; but again, continue to work correctly.

Or in other words, there were only about a half dozen more reasonable things they could have done that didn't involve an Amazonian break-things-immediately type of response.
I am not sure what you mean by 'want to pay'. It isn't like the companies that can't pay higher prices are rolling in profit. The companies that DO make a lot of money DO pay their engineers good wages. It is just that most companies tech workers don't add enough profit to afford their work.

If a company will make $100k extra in profit a year from the work a developer does, but the worker capable of doing that costs $150k a year, that company isn't going to be able to hire the worker. It isn't about 'wanting to pay them less' it is about the fact that every worker needs to produce more value than they cost, or the company will go out of business .
Well, not all universities are Waterloo.

The shortage comes from all companies only wanting Waterloo/MIT/Stanford/etc-like grads, but there's only so many.
It reminds me of the way certain clinical terms entered the vernacular like idiot, retard and moron. IIRC, all were clinical terms before they became insults. I could see "voluntarily exited" being used to describe a suicide.
This article is wrong for the wrong reason. There's no talent shortage, companies just aren't willing to pay for talent.
I cringe every time I hear someone say it's hard to find talent. I've been a software engineer for over 12 years now and I know I'm good at it. My problem is that I truly suck at interviewing. I have no social issues whatsoever, I'm just a normal guy outside the interview room, but when I do get in there - I'm at my absolute worse. I've been out of work for going on 8 months now and I just don't get it.

I've tried many things to overcome my severe interview anxiety and I've tried creative ways of getting employers to give a second chance or even a better first chance :) But it fails me each and every time.
You can shrink an interval [a,b] by two methods [a,b'] with b'<b or [a',b] with a'> a, what you see is [a,b'] (NP-complete seem easier or lower in the difficulty scale), what I see is [a',b] that is P cover a lot more ground, I think P will cover all NP-complete problems and then the interval becomes a unique point.

If [P,NP-c] = [0,1] I see GI as 1/4, if GI is proven to be in P then I should say [P,NP-c] is now [1/4,1].

In order to reduce more that interval one should find a problem that people think has a probability of 0.5 to be in P and 0.5 to be in NP, if it is proven that problem is in P then the interval get reduced a lot more. Just trying to explain my perception of the intuitive complexity of algorithms.
How do I use that to stop this person's death? 1) Realize power of mind. 2) ???? 3) Stop execution.
IIRC, most stuff gets around the US on 18-wheelers using highways. (Train infrastructure in the US is laughably terrible.)
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I don't mean to sound rude but it's easy to not see any issues with the industry's hiring when you go to Waterloo/MIT/Stanford/etc.
The author is making a lot of statements without any evidence. For example:

> Unsurprisingly, this has spawned an arms race where companies like Facebook and Google keep swapping engineers like they’re pawns in chess. It’s also closed the doors for talented people who need an opportunity to develop and demonstrate their skills.

The "closed the doors" point links to the anti-poaching agreement that stopped 5 years ago and Facebook wasn't even involved in.

My experience at Google was also exactly the opposite of what he is saying. I was hired as a new-grad who knew very little and was extensively trained via my more experienced coworkers and a bunch of classes that Google has explicitly set up to train new engineers.

Not to say that Google doesn't have its faults, but to argue that "even the large prestigious tech companies don't train their employees" is just not correct.
The cost to attend college in Canada is nothing compared to the US.
I do not perceive myself to be Nikolai, but I do not trust my memories enough to claim I could not possibly be him, provided someone had the needed technologies to interfere with this timeline and my memories of it.
In most locales you are by-default a Sole Proprietor already. As long as those companies are paying you as a 1099 (and not a W2) then you should be able to write off most of the expenses.

That being said, I'd recommend you head to your local Barnes and Noble and grab one of the Nolo books on incorporating a company, they are fantastic resources.
Language Understanding for Text-Based Games Using Deep Reinforcement Learning [pdf]
I think a better approach would be to turn the money to the state's general fund. That way you avoid the problems with cops loading up with overtime and buying fancy cars.

The problem with the direct seizures going to the cops is that the local government underfunds the overtime budget -- that affects the policeman's pocket and is a powerful motivator.
Ask HN: What is the best tutorial you've ever worked through and why?
I'm currently working on writing a tutorial on saltstack. As I think through the problems of trying to help someone else build a mental model, I feel like I don't really know enough theory of how that is done. It occurs to me that I've never read a close reading or literary/pedagogical analysis of a tutorial. I am currently drawing most of my inspiration from things that I liked about the django and angularjs tutorials, but I really would like to broaden my horizon.

So I want to know: are there any good tutorials I should also check out? Anyone who has written an analysis of what makes a good tutorial?
This seems so obvious, I can't believe others aren't seeing this. It is a clear collective action problem - the free loader (the company who doesn't train and just hires the trained worker away from the other company) will always have the advantage.
The current black ribbon is due to Gene Amdahl's death.
I live in St. Pete, FL and pay $104 for 150 Meg Down / 10 Meg Up connection from BrightHouse Networks. Even though VZ FiOS services the surrounding area BrightHouse locked my community in.
> But it's not like there's a natural force that ensures, compels, or mandates these rights.

A lot of really well regarded philosophers throughout the ages have disagreed with that.

> I guess my point is that taken less cynically, rights... only exist [with] sufficient power

If I follow that line of thinking, justice is only an extension of power. I don't think people agree with that.

I don't believe you think that. Perhaps it's just a matter of phrasing; surely we both agree that it's important to recognize that people should never murder people. We use the word "right" because it's important to be absolute in this rule.

It's worth distinguishing between:

* life is not a right
* we don't have enough power to enforce murder laws

...the second case is preferable, even if it may be hard to distinguish between the two looking down the barrel of a gun. If you believe in a deity, the could be justice in the afterlife. If you don't, one can be justified in history, if nothing else. For example, we don't say it was OK for Thomas Jefferson to own slaves because the U.S. didn't have the votes to ban the practice altogether. We say the slaves had their rights violated, not that they didn't deserve freedom and dignity because nobody could guarantee it.

tl;dr To say there are no absolute rights is to say there are no absolute wrongs.
"The question is often asked, what intrinsic reason is there to worry about income inequality?"

A stable society - when income inequality goes to far, it leads to first a destabilized society and then, occasionally, a revolution. As someone once said to me in answer to the question of why we pay taxes (a similar but different question) the answer was "To keep the pitchforks off your lawn."
Simply Typed Lambda Calculus
Exactly. This makes no sense. If we think there is a enough to be concerned about, we don't want a terrorist to get it. Just by the stuff. 3 middle man have been arrested for delivering samples. How about just hire some Russian mobster to meet with the next middle man and get it off the street. Seems like they are too focused on catching the current owner of it which seems stupid to me.
That is both hilarious and practical.
Ha and I see that pinboard just tweeted sth relevant: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/665235613373718528 "Recurring theme this morning is Minimum Viable Education, how to train future tech professionals without the baggage of reading English lit"
I have several friends, including non-tech people, who avoid Facebook. It's become an en vogue thing to ditch Facebook and I've seen more people doing it. I have to remember the preferred communication medium for each individual friend, because I have people that do text/iMessage only, Hangouts only, or Facebook only. I wish there was one non-email fast-chatting way of talking to everyone, like a unifying app for all these services, but that feels a little like this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/
It's not quite that simple:
https://play.rust-lang.org/?gist=7f6ba6bcd1c50868928a&versio...
Joe Biden is a republican? Didn't you vote for him in the last two elections?
The whole idea of you need to be well-rounded and take those $$ general ed courses is such a money grab. You want people to be able to speak, so let them take speech courses.

I'm all for apprenticeships - you learn by doing - but will there be enough companies willing to participate?
Scala has higher kinded types (or, generics over generics). This is amazing (but can take a while to see why/get confortable with). .NET doesn't have this feature.
> you'd see salaries rising

Residents of the Bay Area looking for housing would beg to differ.
Oh, right, I just noticed it farther down on the page. :(
Why time-limit it? There's no rule that says you must publish every app you make to the app store. What if you're making an app that's intended precisely for your own personal use and nobody else's?
You seem to be under the misconception that you would be allocating the money.
If you believe you can do better consider acquiring Assembly. It is better to start with a community that understands the goals & potential for failure than to start from scratch with a community that does not understand the risk. Moreover, their branding is very good.
The article puts forth a couple paltry reasonings. First, there's a shortage of tooling. Second, there's no existing standards for collection/analysis/etc. Neither of these attack the real problems that immediately spring to mind and are the basis for having no standards or tooling. What if you have little to no mucus available? What if the mucus is unknowingly tainted? (as it's for filtering and catching things)

Blood makes much more sense because it's a relatively well regulated and pure substance. Anything that got in your body and is circulating, isn't an external contaminant.
I, too, have never heard of Assembly till today. Here's their CrunchBase profile page: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/assembly
The lifecycle of a durable good should be more durable. I'm on my 3rd or 4th fridge since 2004. My parents still have the fridge they installed when their house was built in the late 80's.