skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a junior engineer, you're expected to be able to handle specific tasks, that usually have been specified to some degree, or that follow existing patterns.

This is in contrast with senior engineers, which are expected to be able to handle responsibility for a large system or subsystem, and to be able to design and coordinate execution of work at a larger scope.

In consequence, junior engineers usually are not expected to have necessarily a very broad knowledge of different disciplines, methods and tools; they need to have sufficient knowledge to execute the tasks that will be assigned to them, and the ability to execute them correctly.

One particularly important skill to develop is how long one should try to find out things on their own, before asking for help. Many people fall into extremes -- either ask for specific help at every step (which hints at incompetence for that task) or waste many hours or days following a wrong path when a 5-minute chat with someone could have pointed them in the right direction (e.g. "use this library").

So my advice would be to find out which are the kind of tasks that you are expected to do at this point, which tools (including programming languages, database, web server, etc.) that you need to know, and focus on doing a good job in those specific tasks.

At the same time, slowly start increasing your scope (e.g. by doing reading and playing with different tools in your own personal time).

My main practical advice would be to make sure you understand the requirements of the tasks that are assigned to you. It's very common that senior engineers take something for granted, as obvious, but junior engineers miss those implicit requirements. E.g. "of course it needs to be highly available, fault tolerant, and with sub-millisecond latency, duh!"
It's usually safe to break safety laws, on the road or off it. Consider seatbelts. A wide net is cast to catch the exceptions. Nevertheless I agree that egregious unimpaired bad driving should be targeted too.
For me the tipping point is whether I can switch the automated systems off, and change their parameters (within reason).
>Do you all just keep the system because it keeps so many people employed following the pointless bureaucracy of it all?

No, the main reason we keep it around is to give arrogant Europeans and Canadians something to feel superior about. It's not because in a nation with 300 million people in a space as vast as America, it's hard to get people to agree on how we should do things. Nope, it's cause we're idiots and we like inefficient things.
James Deen Was Never a Feminist Idol
It's also faster. I have yet to wait more than 5 minutes for an Uber driver, whereas regular taxis take at least half an hour to show up after calling them, assuming I know a number to call.
Amazon Route 53 Traffic Flow, Global Traffic Management in the Cloud
You're getting downvoted, but I agree with you.

I think the problem is that people don't have respect for the system. The judge isn't the system, he's only one part of it, yet the author projects his lack of respect for the system onto the judge. Calling him "your honor" is a part reminding people, hey, we all need to be on our best behavior and be respectful.

Respect is something very lacking in society today.
Chrome Extensions with the most growth in 2015
> As software is so cheap to duplicate, why can't all cars be self-driving? Given the magnitude of traffic deaths, why can't all cars just be self-driving immediately?

I'm still feeling surprised by the number of intelligent people who are quite capable of thinking critically, quite uncritically deciding that self-driving cars are ready for the market now. The only thing which comes remotely close is Tesla's recent software upgrade, and Elon Musk was very careful to emphasise that it in no way replaces the driver. Yet still, the hype-train is running so fast that people decided what he really said was "self-driving cars are here now."

A moderately successful prototype from Google or anyone else does not mean the problems are solved. These innovations could still go the way of 90s-era virtual reality goggles, flying cars or the personal jet-pack. Don't get me wrong, it's exciting stuff but there are still significant technical issues, not to mention the legislative and social problems which will inevitably arise.

These links from a Google search for "Google self-driving car problems":

http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/technology/personaltech/go...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles...

There's much more, I can't dig out the links now. But don't be one of those guys in 10 or 15 years time being tedious about "Dude, where's my self-driving car?" It might not happen, and it's certainly not here yet.
Senator, if i was spending billions on robots to go to people homes and read their diaries and then explode before leaving, would you think there was some ulterior motive on me building those robots?
Both have serious problems.

1. Many Android apps depend on proprietary Google Play Services. So app customization is needed anyway.

2. Do ordinary people really need unified apps for PCs and mobile?

Currently an easiest way to develop multi platform apps is to create a native mobile app and UI for power users in web browser. There is no need to build a running tracking app as a desktop native app.

Recently notification center was removed from Chrome. To my surprise it turned out that nobody was using it. Well, I also wasn't using it because my (Android|iPhone) is always with me.
It's intended to eliminate people with preconceived biases, but attorney motives for selecting jurors usually go far beyond that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection
99% of code is written by people who won't file a lawsuit, most companies don't want to deal with the 1% chance of getting sued. In any case, Atwood's argument isn't that the code of conduct will change behavior.

He pretty explicitly says women are like children, and you should just emotionally manipulate them rather than solving their problems:

Even if you do believe these things [that a code of conduct doesn't improve safety], why would you say them out loud?

...runs counter to everything I know about empathy...a feeling of safety is, in fact, what many people are looking for.

The quickest way to turn a child's frustration into a screaming, explosive tantrum is to try to fix their problem for them. This is such a hard thing for engineers to wrap their heads around, particularly male engineers, because we are all about fixing the problems.

It's pretty amazing to see someone with mainstream mood affiliation so openly admitting this.
The Mac was always an original platform for Office dating back to Word and Excel in 1985.

It also was never incompatible. Better than Windows at times (circa 2003 when they had a big team in the Bay Area) and Entourage was better than Outlook's usability. Shitty at times, especially the last several years until Office 2016.

With Office 365, they basically get your point. Unfortunately the new generation mostly uses Google Docs and Pages now, but most over 30 still use Office.
Stash is now called Bitbucket Server
An indictment is not a successful prosecution.

And it does cost money...money, in my opinion is well spent, because in brings in skeptical people such as yourself with the power to check an overzealous prosecutor with simply arresting people on flimsy charges.

There's no defense because no one has been charged; and if you decided that the prosecutor is full of shit, then it means an innocent person is not disrupted or tainted with legal action. That they withold evidence is to protect their sources....which is a trade-off for them, because to withhold is to weaken their case.

I see nothing ridiculous about it at all, really. You're serving a hugely important role as a check on the ability for the executive to go after people. It's a rare occasion where the government is directly answerable to YOU. Hold them to a high standard. And if you think they're trying to pull one over on you, the people, send them packing.
With blackjack, and hookers.
US Global Entry Service Now Open to British Citizens
It probably was, she probably was just too drunk to remember.
Yes, but you also want a jury trial if you're falsely accused of drug possession.
Think it might have been a joke:

http://usvsth3m.com/post/no-this-isnt-a-real-1970s-anti-drin...
I meant lasting in the sense that Chanel, Dior, Boss, are
I've met plenty of people where I grew up (Long Island, NY) that have gotten arrested for DWI that are not alcoholics. The fact of the matter is that, in the suburbs, you drive to the bar. And that's how you're probably going to get home. I've done it. . I'm not proud of it. People drink, and thinking people are going to stop is not realistic. People do all sorts of silly things in the name of fun or escape.

Now that I live in NYC it is infinitely easier and safer to go out for a night of drinking, knowing there's busses, subways, taxis or Uber to take me home, far safer than if I were back in the 'burbs with almost no good options.
nope, you can have accusatorial system with professional judges, the procedure is not implied by the quality of the judge.
Europe’s intelligence ‘black hole’
>Maybe Mr. Zuckerberg will make wonderful decisions, ones I would personally be happy with. Maybe not. He blew his $100 million donation to the Newark school system..

Hopefully Zuckerberg learned a valuable lesson there -- improving inner city schools is simply not contingent upon how much money is thrown at them.

Case-in-point: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html (warning, long read)

Are we really going to begrudge Zuckerberg for trusting Cory Booker, who was by all accounts very persuasive, and investing $100M+ in inner city schools? That's hardly bad behavior as the article seems to imply.
While I agree with conclusion, Uber, et al. doesn’t actually show real-time locations and the communication system is error prone.
No, the author says he will probably not have a code of conduct. And, in my opinion, he is pointing out the very important divergence between how professional organizers of events think and act and what attendees think how this should be done. He is explicitly saying that feeling safer does not make you safer: "We want people to be safe, not just feel safe. We bake safety into the event. We need to be deliberate. We must design safe events."
This is Uber's vision and the reason they're aggressively poaching roboticists from academia.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/uber-would-lik...
How conservative is your analysis? Is it whole program? Do you look at the class library? What's the largest size of program it handles in a reasonable amount of time?
>> ... Invest in public transportation.

>> ... The US is a country where it's very difficult to live without a car, except in certain major cities.

In order to do this, we need to rethink how we design cities. Right now, unless, as you point out, you live in a major city, it just isn't well laid out for public transportation. No amount of retrofitting is going to help. City planners need to take public transportation into account when they issue new building permits, etc. They need to encourage business to build closer so people can use public transport. Here in the south, thought needs to be put into thunderstorms. We can have afternoon thunderstorms with 50MPH winds and deadly lightning pop up very quickly. You can't have people out waiting on public transport in that mess.
Tools for debugging, testing and using HTTP/2
Incredible to see how many of the top extensions in terms of growth are spam / spyware extensions (ask.com for example). I'm sure it's a game of whack-a-mole for the admins of the Chrome Web Store.
I am one of the suckers that try to live with two google accounts.

It is maddening.

For example, if you do not agree to g+ on your main account and by mistake you select that account on the dropdown from hangouts or the play store* then you get the EULA agreement and there is no way to go back to the app and select another account if you don't agree. Because as soon as you decline you exit the app, and opening the app again will how the aggrement for the last selected account, if you having another account already green lighted. The workaround? remove one account. clear data on that app, and redo everything.

* there is no way to NOT show the main (undesired) account on the drop down, and you have to use the dropdown a lot on hangouts as SMS is another account! so every time i move from sms to wifi calls, i have 1 in 2 chances of screwing everything, even more so as my profile pic on my main account is not shown because i never agreed to some policy that would allow it
>> I'm still feeling surprised by the number of intelligent people who are quite capable of thinking critically, quite uncritically deciding that self-driving cars are ready for the market now.

I'm not. Not at all. Sadly.
What city do you live in? All I have to do is go outside and flag down the multitudes of cabs waiting to pick somebody up.
From the article. Assortative Mating -- Mating between people who are alike made more prevalent through higher college attendance (choice based) and online dating tools combined with deeper urban dating pools.

Also makes the (dubious?) claim that marginal increased cost of caring for an autistic child is less than marginal likelihood for increased combined salary.

Moral of the story: make babies outside of your own ethnic group.
- Do some research before asking a question. At the very least you should google a few keywords and look at the first 5 pages before raising it with someone else.

- Don't ask things you can easily find yourself. I've had junior engineers asking me "does git blah has a flag for ...?". It's disrespectful of that person's time.

- Don't question every tiny little thing you come across. Organisations can't maintain perfection, there's gonna be ugly things and people are aware that there's always room for improvement. Sometimes there is complicated history behind things that look stupid on the surface. Some things are the way they are just because they are. Not everything has some grand reason or justification behind it. Sometimes people keep asking questions like "Why was this written this way? Why was it not written that way? Why can't we make it better? Why can't we make it faster?"

- Remember the ugly crap you are seeing today was someone else's shiny shit some time ago and you are not an exception. The cycle will continue and the perfect little happy function you are writing today that's gonna solve everyone's problems is going to be the next person's ugly crap to rewrite and refactor and clean up after you have moved on.
SEEKING WORK

Location: Europe
Remote: Yes

I build web applications, from prototyping to maintenance.

Video: https://youtu.be/xw7wBPYVfzs

SaaS Rapid Prototyping Maintenance Subscriptions Integrations

Overview of application I've developed recently: https://youtu.be/2cS3bz0ovuE

www.kruszewski.com
wojtek@kruszewski.com
The Full Guide to Unmasking Ad Blocker Traffic in Google Analytics
A previous employer had an application that was very successful (from a business perspective) because it wasn't flexible - they did a lot of acquisitions (one a month at one stage) and if there were any questions around their internal systems they got this application inflicted on them. At first I was horrified (it was ancient, user hostile, completely inflexible) but I actually saw that it worked - the companies being acquired were all in the same industry and their core processes were all pretty much identical (even if the terminology was all different) - so they could all adapt to the new application and it actually ended up working pretty well.

More "modern" flexible applications ended up having multi-month/multi-year "implementation" phases as teams tried to change their new application to their existing processes when it was actually easier to standardise the processes around a fixed application.
When I sat on a jury in 1989, the main goal of most of the jury was to get the decision over with in time to pick up their kids from school. We quickly found for the plaintiff against the main defendant. There were a slew of co-defendants, who aside from the reading of the charges had not been mentioned at all during the trial. No evidence, no description of their supposed involvement, nada. The foreman started to copy our verdict onto the forms for them as well. I objected, pointing out that we had only discussed the one defendant and needed to consider the others separately. Much protesting and eye-rolling ensued, but the urge to leave won out and the jury agreed to find all of the co-defendants not guilty. I was pleased with the outcome but appalled by the process. I would hate to be judged so carelessly by my peers. Yes, having 12 jurors does increase the odds of having someone put on the brakes and insist on proper procedure, but it is by no means guaranteed.
Good point. And even longer ago, all conversations required meeting, and were private unless an eavesdropper was physically nearby.

Tech has created more extreme possibilities on both sides. On the privacy side, it's possible to exchange messages at a distance in an unreadable and nearly undetectable way. On the surveillance side, it's possible to eavesdrop on nearly everyone (except the very sophisticated).

We can't and (don't want to) go back in time. The real question is "which danger is greater: conspiracy or oppression?"
> Once Mass production kicks in the cars will get cheaper and cheaper as the processes to create them does so.

Yes, but there is an expected near-to-medium-term price floor on the sorts of good sensing equipment that such cars will require, not to mention certified (and patent-encumbered) software to fuse that data and turn it into useful and safe action.

This is stuff that you don't want to cheap out on; it's how the car sees and operates safely!
Hot code reloading is always more work than just blue-green and should be avoided if necessary. For example, author of Learn You Some Erlang writes [1]:

> if you can avoid the whole procedure (which will be called relup from now on) and do simple rolling upgrades by restarting VMs and booting new applications, I would recommend you do so.

Erlang grew out of the challenges faced by telecoms industries such as what do you do when blue-green isn't an option? Think an in-use packet switch that is the only point of contact between two networks. No way to take the switch down for maintenance without some interruption in service, which gets messy when dealing with timeouts. In the Armstrong thesis paper he gives another example [2]:

> Usually in a sequential system, if we wish to change the code, we stop the system, change the code and re-start the program. In certain real-time control systems, we might never be able to turn off the system in order to change the code and so these systems have to be designed so that the code can be changed without stopping the system. An example of such a system is the X2000 satellite control system developed by NASA.

This power comes at a cost, though. LYSE again:

> It is said that divisions of Ericsson that do use relups spend as much time testing them as they do testing their applications themselves. They are a tool to be used when working with products that can imperatively never be shut down.

The point being, hot code reloading is an additional feature that can come in handy but for most of HN's audience probably won't be relevant; the cost outweighs the benefits of just blue-green deploying it.

[1] http://learnyousomeerlang.com/relups#the-hiccups-of-appups-a...
[2] http://www.erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf
>> As software is so cheap to duplicate,...

Wait, what?

You're not considering the cost of development.
Followed by Uber eliminating drivers all together in the future, where possible, with self-driving vehicles. I have this nervousness, excitement, that would could see the biggest free fall in all of history for a company at some point in the future if they ever legitimately start abusing (that's what I would call it anyway) the relationship with the drivers.
It was. She had to enable the feature so that it could use her phone's bluetooth.
And why exactly are you supprised that services designed to be integrated
deeply with one another are integrated with one another? Integration pretty
much guarantees that data will leak between them.

This is one of the main reasons why I don't use Google services, except for
their search engine.
I installed the app and the estimated trip prices seems from 1.5x to 2x more expensive than for competing services.
You also need to be root to manage your init process and in production, this is how Docker is treated. That said, I've seen work being done to add RBAC, given there are a set of users that desire this.
I dunno. I always thought the ++ operator was evaluated after the entire statement, and every compiler that I could get my hands on behaved that way.

But, well, the specs are another matter entirely.
They don't eliminate one side of the network but they do turn it into mostly a Capex problem, which is easier to solve, especially for cash rich companies like Google and Apple.
That was the first thing that came to my mind after reading this.
I was at reddit when the author of OptiKey posted it, the responses were amazing.
Yep, this was covered about a decade ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/world/asia/21transfer.html...
> improving inner city schools is simply not contingent upon how much money is thrown at them.

Because of the prevailing infrastructure. If instead he had created a customized boarding school for the inner city kids somewhere safe and pleasant we'd be seeing real meaingingful change in their outlook right now.

As it is, they were in the same unhealthy environment they've always been in. It's not the schools, it's the teachers, the streets, their peers, the home life, everything.

A boarding school is the best solution to fix all that.
Men at work
It's a good question. Originally, there were two reasons why I didn't do this.

First, the contract is slightly different, as I am also asserting purity. This means that one @ImmutableValue knows that another @ImmutableValue (perhaps from a library package) is pure. Whereas, a class annotated with @Immutable might not be.

Second, I developed this with the bank I work in in mind. They are still on flavours of Java 6 + 7.

However, I am currently in mind to port this to Checker Framework, http://types.cs.washington.edu/checker-framework/ which is fully supported by the JDK8 compiler.

I expect I'll still keep the separate annotation, but there are a lot of benefits from a tooling point of view to doing this (IDE support, gradle etc)
> Followed by Uber eliminating drivers all together in the future

Nah, having to own and maintain a fleet of vehicles would bring about similar issues. Uber wants driverless vehicles but they'll want to subcontract to fleet owners (or individuals), not to be on the hook for maintenance and legal issues.
And even if the technology was ready and on sale, the idea that we'd instantly dispose of our existing stock of automobiles and never feel the need to pay attention to the road again contrasts starkly with experiences in the aviation industry, with most control still being exercised by pilots (also the cause of many mistakes) despite viable autopilot systems being very well established.
If I've drank anything in the past 24 hours there is no amount of money you can offer me to drive a car. There are fundamental differences like that.
Wetherspoons UK hacked
> China and India, which rank among the top greenhouse gas emitters globally

Gosh.

They rank top in absolute numbers. Germany ranks top per citizen. The western model is not a model for the world.

Source: Matthews et. al, national contributions to observed global warming https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/1/014...
also, the more steps you add to the process the more people drop off similar to an abandoned shopping cart.