skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems that this analysis disregards important aspects of the electoral system in favor of simplified red vs blue partisan thinking.

This article is based on the unspoken assumption that allocating the right number of seats to Democrats, and the right number to Republicans is the goal of the voting system. If this is the objective of congressional voting, it should be a party popularity contest at the state level for congressmen and senators, with a national popularity contest for the presidency; and all of these should be run through telephone, mail, or internet polls (which are cheaper and sufficiently accurate) to save money and voters' time.

I do not agree with this premise, as it assumes that the two-party dynamic is either unavoidable or desirable, and that the only thing that matters about elected representatives is their party affiliation. The proposed measures could greatly damage the importance of third party candidates (because they are not taken into account), greatly impact the importance and dynamics of primaries (because they are not regarded with the respect which is given to elections), and impact non-partisan issues which the representatives often act on.
Going back to 1996, there have been zero fatalities in Australia due to mass shootings -- as well as fewer shootings, and fewer homicides and suicides overall.

Why?

1996 was the year the Australians banned guns.
I don't think he was referring to mass shooters. He was referring to rounding up all those guns owned by normals: law-abiding gun owners spread out across an area of 3.8 million square miles.

Frankly, I don't think the authoritarians have the stomach for gun prohibition. They need to get busy, pronto. It's going to take more, a lot more, than tweets to people who already agree with them. And so far, they've done nothing to get their "Repeal the 2A" ball rolling. Time's a-wastin'.
Not OP but I read a statistic that only 1 in 5 analysts at I-banks are still in the industry after five years in the book 'Young Money'
It is significantly easier to write a format decoder than to learn to read, much less write, Chinese or Japanese.

Also, on a pedantic note, kanji are Japanese characters. Chinese characters are hanzi.

For most characters, they're the same, but there are a few differences.
There's no excuse for Adolf Hitler's infliction of millions of deaths and untold suffering, but please keep in mind that he was doing the best he knew how at the time with the hand he was dealt (genetics, education, training, experience, social pressures, etc.), in a situation with enormous risks for his nation, which he believed to be on his shoulders. I'm curious what if anything you know of such pressures.

Seems like you can plug just about any name you want into this paragraph. What are you trying to say?
Hacker News, Newest
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10679276
In Soviet Russia, Hacker News uses you.
Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily

I laughed out loud when I read this. You are very, very naive. If this is representative of your understanding of how US constitutional law works, you shouldn't be commenting.
Paul Knoepfler has written on the topic of "GMO Sapiens" and he attended the summit, http://www.ipscell.com/2015/12/perspectives-no-moratorium-fr...

"Heritable human genetic modification could prevent some rare genetic diseases so there is real potential there, but it also could open the door to serious problems such as unforeseen health consequences across generations, social justice issues, and eugenics … Keep in mind that most but not all genetic diseases already are preventable via existing technology that allows for genetic screening of unmodified human embryos … Time is short. The technology in this arena is advancing at warp speed, it is so ubiquitous, and there is such strong enthusiasm that we do not have the luxury of years to have more meetings and discussions, as much as they may be very important, without taking a clear stance."
Ah, I see. In that case, the financial sector may be the way to go. They're always looking for people to improve throughput, and there are a variety of fun tasks to do related to low latency market data processing.

I would say your best bet is to focus on skill. If you can dive into a large C++ codebase and solve a crash, you're skilled, and people will find your contributions helpful once you're there. So that's really not such a high bar to aim for.

In terms of experience, this tends not to matter too much. Use a talent agency to place you in the field. They will take a chunk of whatever value you would have otherwise pocketed in salary. But it's a way of getting in to the industry that I know from experience works. It's much more effective than trying to send resumes or cold call managers, which is why it might have seemed like "experience" is a necessary requirement.

Experience is just a proxy for skill, so if you have skill, you're fine. A portfolio is helpful, and I'm sorry to say I can't think of specific projects that you might like to work on. But I know that if you can optimize a trading company's firewall-to-firewall time, you're highly valuable to them.
" Biosband is not in any case a slimming (sic) or an appetite suppressant."

What is the science then? Any actual peer-reviewed support for your concept?
You're flooding this comment thread with these posts.

A single person didn't build any of these billion dollar companies you're referencing; at some point they had to hire more people, who in turn "sold themselves" by your confused logic, to build the company.

Most of these halo companies have non-programmers who were brought in to monetize and grow the value in them. Sheryl Sandberg isn't a programmer nor I think the rest of that board. Eric Schmidt was an electrical engineer.
We live in an era of viruses, rootkits, botnets, ransomware, adware, spyware, and industrial sabotage. This is at the hands of script kiddies, political activists, criminal networks, corporations, and every nation state with the budget for it - or some close approximation thereof, it seems. Sourceforge has been breached. Debian builds have been breached.

Have you managed to dodge all of the above? I haven't. I've had accounts on at least 4 services which were breached at some point. I've seen viruses, adware, and spyware. I've seen script kiddies in my communities, distributing backdoored executables, gathering passwords, and getting banned. And this is only what has failed to escape my notice.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

> But, I wonder, is this something to worry about everywhere?

Would it be useful for you to be able to detect when your build machine has been compromised, and starts producing malware laden executables? Reproducible builds are a tool that can potentially do that for you - just diff the binaries.

Whether or not it's worthwhile to set up depends on how much of a pain in the ass making reproducible binaries is. Ongoing research into the subject is interesting, if only because it directly correlates to making it less of a pain in the ass when other people figure it out for you.

> Is there a panic and an anxiety driving this trend, or are we just crossing dotting our i's and our crossing our t's with yet another set of best practices?

I wouldn't describe such interest as panic or anxiety - but I wouldn't put it down to merely getting in line with "best practices" either. It's an interesting subject of research - and a potentially useful one at that.
I've come to expect this kind of painfully unhelpful commentary from the rag that is the NYT. On par with their myopic mainstream-ism, this article's purpose is to confuse and pacify readers with a narrative that states we can continue on our current government's course, if only we were to allow for a minor change of our political system's vote-counting partitions. We cannot save or rekindle democracy with such pathetic incremental changes, nor are "we" as citizens empowered to make such changes anyway-- purge this article's idiotic train of thought. To be explicit: changing who gets elected via more neutral partitioning won't change a single thing, because the titanic problems of American "democracy" (in realistic terms, oligarchy or perhaps autocracy) occur post-election outcome, and occur regardless of whether it is Democrats or Republicans who win.

Redistricting won't save democracy; at best, algorithmic or "mathematical" (a fool's term for neutral and objective) redistricting will allow for the voters to pick candidates that are proportionally and geographically anchored to their districts. Geographical picking of representatives isn't broken beyond repair within the political system, nor is the physical counting of votes to determine which representatives win, though the electronic voting systems leave the latter terrifyingly unverifiable and unquestionably anti-democratic.

The slaughter of democracy in our time is an intentionally engineered result of post-election corruption as effected by bribes of lobbyists, raping the power of the vote in the name of capital flow to those that are already morbidly obese with riches. You cannot have democracy when money is allowed to have a coercive power that eclipses any feasible democratic comeuppance.

Let the banishment of money from the election component of political activity exist as an iron law in any new democracy which is established. That would be the start of having a fighting chance for democracy, which America has long since discarded.
This is particular evidence is relatively old news, the discovery was made during a History Channel special. There is currently a show running on the History Channel called Hunting Hitler that goes into much more depth on this topic and expands on the evidence (there is also a book from several years ago with the same namesake).

I agree that this information is not enough to say he escaped, but there is a plethora of other information that makes the case he escaped very compelling.

Some points the show makes:
- testimony from supposed eye witnesses in the bunker has been unreliable and inconsistent
- underground escape routes existed with possible tunnels (that have since been sealed) that lead directly to the templehof airport
- safe houses have been identfied that housed nazis after the war in spain and the canary islands
- eye witness uboat activity around argentina after the war ended
- various safe houses discovered in Argentina that housed Nazis
- ruins of a compound in remote Argentina that have nazi paraphernalia including medicines Hitler would have needed
- locations in nearby brazil that have nazi sitings after the war

There's a ton of new evidence, I really think there's enough to take these claims seriously. The only thing that I'm not sure about is the dental records that were verified in 1945. I'm not sure how well that was handled being that Hitler's personal dentist did the verifications.

http://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Hitler-Scientific-Evidence-Esc...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunt-Begins/dp/B017WZWN7S/ref=sr_1...
I don't like containers for the purpose of deployment. All they do is hide complexity from DevOps people - But the complexity is still very much there. Hiding complexity from DevOps people is useful in a PaaS context, but it is an anti-pattern when you consider pretty much every other use case.

Docker encourages developers to keep adding more and more different technologies to a system. If you consider most popular applications today, they are usually made up of hundreds of different technologies - Each of which requires their own bootstrap/setup logic.

Maybe if each micro-service was made up of fewer different technologies, deployment wouldn't be such a headache and you wouldn't need Docker to begin with.
It would surely solve that pesky problem that double-ROT13 is so insecure. (Hint: Unicode is larger than the BMP.)
"In the best case the programmer and the company will both think they are getting a good deal."

IMO that is far from the best case. That allows "ignorance is bliss" and, at the other end of the malice spectrum, for one party to be taking advantage of the other.

I once sold a rare trading card for $50. I thought I was getting a good deal, the other person knew it was worth much more than that and thought they were getting a good deal. Was this situation optimal?

I once sold a laptop to a person over craigslist for a fair price. He thought he was getting a good deal as well. When I got home I discovered that model had just been obsoleted and so a brand new one was as cheap as the used one I'd just sold. Was this situation optimal?
Total Video Converter 8.1 Crack and Serial Key Free Download
There's a funny contradiction in the setup of this piece. It starts off like this:

> PARTISAN gerrymandering is an offense to democracy. It creates districts that are skewed and uncompetitive, denying voters the ability to elect representatives who fairly reflect their views.

But the issue they're talking about is actually the opposite of this! Further down:

> Partisan redistricters stuff voters of the opposing party into a smaller number of districts, while spreading their own voters over a larger number of districts to eke out as many bare wins as possible. It is possible for a party to win more than half of the popular vote in a state, yet control fewer than one-third of the legislative seats. This is not a theoretical problem: Precisely such a thing happened in 2012 with the congressional delegations of Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

The charge here is that the party controlling districting wants to make it as easy as possible for voters in the enemy party to elect the representative of their choice, by taking away all of their opposition. At the same time, the controlling party is trying to make the districts it wins as competitive as possible (while staying above 50%). Any votes you earn above the 50% threshold would be put to better use in some other district.

Now, the strategical analysis is perfectly sound and this is a reasonable complaint to make. I just think it's funny that the rhetoric of the piece is actually opposed to the policy complaints.
If you go away and everyone in your environment only speaks one of your languages you will get better at all of your languages.

Languages are ways of communicating, if you can use more than one then your mind will start creating connections where they "shouldn't" exist, i.e. "everyone speaks english and spanish so I can use them interchangeably so it must be one language" and you'll start talking a hybrid language.

Regarding cognitive advantages of being multi lingual I'd say they are mostly related to abstractions and thinking patterns. You learn how to express yourself through different patterns and have new abstraction to understand the world around you. The same is true for learning any way of expressing yourself (not just languages but also math, programming, dancing, music, whatever...)

For example: Some people speak math+english as one language but most people don't know the abstractions that they use even if they know 'the language' (english) and therefore sometimes have a hard time understanding their way of thinking.

Sry english third language not prefect
The issue of effecting web layout can be resolved by simply appending the appropriate resetting codepoint to the tweets. (U+202C for bidi overrides)
there is commentary on the editorial here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10682298
To be fair that's a sample app which is part of a tutorial demonstrating the capabilities of the web platform on Windows 10.

https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/JSBrowser
> Care to name some, besides banking and consulting, and possibly corporate law? I'd suggest that in most fields, you don't make significantly more money until you're managing a significant percentage of people, or tasked with making decisions that set the direction the company.

This is fair / you're right: I was mainly thinking of banking, consulting, law, and buy-side finance. As you say, though, there are plenty of highly-trained professionals who don't experience a 5x earnings increase over 10 years; functional medical roles (e.g., anesthesiologists) come to mind.

Something I was wondering when I wrote the original question -- and I may be way off here -- is whether there are cultural or structural effects in tech-industry programming that cause wage stagnation. For example, there is less wage stagnation for programmers in quant hedge funds than there is in the tech industry; part of this is the clear p&l, of course, but perhaps there is a cultural / structural component as well? I'm not a programmer, but I once heard something that stood out to me: A friend, who was a senior programmer, discovered an inefficient process where he worked. In brief, whenever a certain "event" occurred, the company lost money; the senior programmer noticed this, and built a fix -- no more "events", and hence lots of money saved. From what he told me, my back of the envelope was that by building this (which took him about a week), he saved the company more than $600k a year. I mentioned to him that if he had come in as an outside consultant with a black box solution and offered to charge $100k a year to save the company $600k per year, there was a nonzero chance they would have said "yes"; he laughed and shrugged. This made me wonder whether there is something intrinsically non-value-capturing going on; perhaps (1) tech-industry programming doesn't have a culture of individual-value-capturing, or (2) the role of a programmer doesn't have the structural leverage to reliably capture value. Of course, this story is just anec-data; there may be no conclusions here.
This is an interesting point; thanks! Found this article incase anyone is interested. One quote stood out to me:

> Private equity recruitment firm PER conducts an ‘unofficial count’ into how many analysts join the M&A and corporate finance teams of six leading banks in London. In 2010, PER calculated that 250 people joined a combination of Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. After tracking those individuals for three years, it recently calculated that 140 of them are still working in banking. That’s an attrition rate of 44%.

(http://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-en/139375/nearly-half-o...)
Are you talking about it from an SEO perspective?

If it points back to the original Google recognizes the original for SEO purposes.
I was on a civil trial jury for a very similar situation. Construction worker 30 years ago, exposed to asbestos, lung cancer. Oh, and also a lifelong smoker. Originally sued ~30 companies, whittled down to 3 by the time the trial started, 1 by the time the trial ended, a company that mined asbestos.

The striking thing was the degree to which the other jurors seemed to be making decisions based almost completely on emotion and which side told a better and more sympathetic story, with little regard for facts or reason. One of the jurors at one point gave a blatantly incorrect explanation of a simple statement about probabilities, and got angry when I corrected her.

The jury ended up awarding a pretty significant amount of money, because the plaintiff was relatively poor and sympathetic, and because the company had acted somewhat shady with regard to knowledge about the dangers of asbestos and warning labels. That's despite the tenuous connection between the asbestos they mined and the asbestos that may have been in his lungs (there was no direct evidence of asbestos in his lungs), and the significant probability that the lung cancer was caused by his smoking and not asbestos at all.

The scary part is that I felt like most of the jury was at least trying to do the right thing, using the cognitive tools that they had available to them (mainly empathy and reasoning like "they acted shady so they deserve to be fined"). If people didn't even try, it could have been much worse. As it is, though, I pretty much lost my faith in the jury system.
I don't get this fascination with hunting down the truth behind a single person. He died, whether then or 20 years later, case closed.

I find more interesting the that ex-Nazis worked on some of the most important discoveries and inventions of the modern age, as well as them working behind the scenes to fight against communists in West Germany (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/wehrmacht-vetera...).

History is not about one person, it's about society and civilization as a whole...
Not sure if a DNA test was necessary to determine that skull fragment wasn't the result of a suicide... not that this says much about whether it is Hitler's skull or not. The picture provided in the article clearly shows a downward angled hole high on the parietal lobe of the skull-- a typical suicide shot, assuming it was taken at roughly the temple, should be in the temporal or sphenoid bones, and angled flat or slightly upward.

EDIT: I don't know if Hitler was right or left handed, but a right handed person would likely use their right hand to fire a suicide shot. This may be another fact that is inconsistent with the existing skull fragment, which has a bullet hole on the right half.
Because you couldn't find a meaningful way to assign Chinese characters to represent each possible combination of two of {left, right, down, rotate}, which is what the previous hex encoding mentioned can do, let alone do better. (As a novice, I can think of relatively reasonable ways to represent some of them, but no way to account for order. For example, "down left" could be "southwest" via the Zodiac animal, "left right" could be "horizontal", and "down rotate" could be "screw"... but that wouldn't help with "left down", "right left", etc.)
A simple demonstration of chaos and unreliability of computer models
Well, what's the alternative?

"Yeah, these guys have some impressive technology and ideas that can revolutionize our world. But they killed a lot of people, so we're gonna just kill them"

Very rarely those who take the absolute high road win...
Same topic in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tklx3j7kgJY
Hiring gets a lot of attention, but pricing is vague there.

It is much easier to estimate the price of an already hired programmer with a track record known over years and who has knowhow of the company's infrastructure, style, and knows the interactions between people and teams.

Also, it is usually easy to estimate how much it would cost to replace the well-known, skilled programmer with a new hire so I might assume that a careful owner or manager would be eager to re-evaluate his/her price continuously and adjust their salary upwards regularly to basically re-hire the hired programmer, to re-establish the position over and over again.

But large or continuous salary increases are not that common. You generally have to change jobs to get a significant raise to your salary.

It seems to be companies are more careless and flimsy with spending money on new hires and more conservative and thrifty with spending money on their existing hires even if that behaviour is in direct opposition to the amount of betting they are required to do.
Pragmatically speaking, a human embryo that does not end up being properly embedded in the endometrium of a suitable uterus is not destined to become a human person. I do not think that the possibility of in situ genetic experimentation (on a naturally implanted embryo) was taken into consideration by whomever came up with the phrase.
Good. Anybody who disagrees should go visit a ward full of children dying of genetic diseases like MD or cystic fibrosis.
Another in SF, heading southwest for several blocks from the intersection of Harrison/22nd in the Mission

2901 22nd St San Francisco CA
If the US has proportional representation, there might be more than two opinions on every issue.
See comment from Mike Stute here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-coders-worst-nightmare
You do know HN is hosted on the U.S. soil, so HN can totally report you to FBI for a criminal investigation, right?