skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
DOCKER-3-tier-java-app-nginx-tomcat-mysql-automation on any Cloud
It is a bit disingenuous to compare video codec quality using stills. One can simply choose a key frame (= no temporal compression) to compare, and they'd likely be identical regardless of how well the codecs compress motion in non-key frames.

(Not sure if the video clarifies this point since I cannot watch it right now.)
I'm not well-versed enough in investment to reply to your comment on purely financial grounds, but I still see a problem -- how often are those steps actually taken in practice? How would it even be possible for an employee to know that the founders have taken (and will continue to take) responsible steps with their funding rounds?

Part of the issue at question is whether it's worth it for employees to bet on founders having done (and continuing to do) the right things with regards to investment. So when assessing the risk/reward of equity over cash, an employee now has to not only examine the marketability of a company's product and sales, but also whether they can trust the founders, board, or whoever to be responsible with equity dilution and valuations.

Given the huge variety of unknowns (and very high risk of dilution or lack of a liquidity event), as a non-startup-employed observer I have to say I'm very confused as to why startup employees take effective pay cuts for stocks.
Ukrainian startup: We’ve solved long-range wireless charging
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385

Batch Normalization http://jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v37/ioffe15.pdf

Deep Neural Decision Forests http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/255952/ICCV15_DeepNDF_mai...

Spatial Transformer Networks https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5854-spatial-transformer-networ...
I can't be the only one who thinks it is pessimistic to say "if you put a back door in, that back doors for everybody, for good guys and bad guys." Very few people even seem to recognize this as a problem let alone are working to solve it. Maybe we should stop laughing at Clinton and her "Manhattan Project" comment; that might be the only way to get enough tech people on the problem to actually solve it.
The Distressed-Debt Trades That Obliterated Bonus Checks in 2015
Agreed, but the article is focused on why these companies that have done significant things to protect users with encryption technologies haven’t been a lot more vocal like Tim Cook has. This issue is so important to them and to everyone that they could spare a little time to speak their minds. Otherwise it just looks like that "kooky Apple" going against the grain. Who cares, they are going out of business soon, right?
> They wouldn't even have functional languages without C.

The functional paradigm is, as are some language families in which the use of the paradigm is idiomatic (esp. the Lisp family), older than (or roughly contemporary with and independent of, as in the case of ML) C. So, no, this is clearly not the case.
Confusing gotcha: PSECURITY_DESCRIPTOR is not a pointer to a SECURITY_DESCRIPTOR
bcrypt and HMAC fill different roles and have different security properties: bcrypt is a key-derivation function, and HMAC is a message authentication code. They're not comparable. In particular, HMAC should be used with a high-quality key; bcrypt is for deriving high-quality keys from lower-quality keys.
Given your skillset, I'd pick React over Scala or Docker. If you're into PHP/Wordpress, you could also look at Drupal 8, which was just released. Given your CSS/JSS/Angular skills, you could also look at Meteor for apps.

All that said, from a blank slate perspective, I'd suggest learning Phoenix (http://www.phoenixframework.org), and in turn Elixir. Phoenix is great framework for building moderns apps, in that it's open source, database & frontend agnostic, leveraging the battle-tested Erlang VM, highly scaleable (WhatApp built w/Erlang), and real-time (via Channels). Good overview video here: https://vimeo.com/131633172
We use an iPad based SASS POS, and editing the menu is a pain. Every time I start to edit something, I have to wait 60 seconds while it pulls in the list of every item on the menu. If I want to edit five specific menu items, I don't want to wait for the entire list of items to load five times. Updating prices or costs on our menu literally takes three of us an entire day to pull off. We've been meaning to clean out some discontinued items from the menu, but... that would take three of us an entire day to do.

We do retail alcohol in addition to restaurant food, so we have a lot of items on our menu. I don't like how the menu is organized, but it would be too slow and painful to reorganize at this point.

I would kill for an API so that I could make mass numbers of menu edits by script. I would require some sort of a testing environment for that, though.
25 upvotes in 17 minutes?

Don't ask friends for upvotes.
When looking at the emails from both cases, have you taken into account that the adversarial nature of the Viacom vs YouTube vs non-adversarial nature of the emails from the MegaUpload case?

Specifically, emails from the YouTube case are available from both sides (emails that show YouTube in a good light presented by YouTube, and emails that show YouTube in a negative light presented by Viacom), but in the MegaUpload case the only emails are from the indictment (and thus are likely to be hand picked for the purposes of helping secure the indictment).
You can continue to down vote me, but none of these examples went into 'space'. Also I reiterate my point, that the average person is not going to know or care that grasshopper went up and down 2440 ft in 2013. Or that others had a rocket that went up a few hundred feet and then landed in 1993. They will remember that Blue Origin just did this and that SpaceX did it second.
Why? Because this isn't just about encryption! Crypto is just the current attack strategy.

Technology in general has moved a lot of power away from government to the big players in the tech industry. An easy example is the somewhat-recent articles[1] about the political power that Facebook has with their ability to influence people... and influence elections. Obviously, Google could do the same.

This shift in power is what scares people who's only goal is to be re-elected. Therefor, they see internet corporations like Facebook and Google - and by extension most of the tech industry to varying degrees - as the enemy.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-04/how-fa...
> The only people who refer to it as parens hell seem to be non-lispers.

Confirmation bias.
Make that 100% of the American (or really any state's) public. Do you think your life would just go on without any troubles at all if government suddenly disappeared?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that everybody[0] depends on the social structures around them (which includes the government). It's just that for whatever reasons, often pretty arbitrary ones, there is a consensus narrative which labels some of those dependencies as "bad" and others as "good" (or "normal"). Then people invent lots of after-the-fact rationalizations and categories to try to ignore the "good" dependencies and focus only on the "bad" ones.

[0] There may be some persons out in the woods who live in a cabin they built using their bare hands, with only the tools that they built themselves, without using oil-based fuels or something like the weather forecast. I'd say it's safe to ignore those persons for the purpose of this discussion, if they even exist.
1 & 2 have almost nothing to do with it.

Most prisoners are in jail for violent offenses that have been crimes for most of human history.
Oddly those are my two of my three go-to examples of government intervention fucking the consumer...
I see basically two kinds of equity compensation.

The first is "what the founders have, but less of it." It's very difficult for the founders to make a boatload of money off the company without also compensating you. These have some sort of value - if the founders want to make $10MM off it, you're getting something like $100K.

The second is everything else. There's an obvious incentive to screw over the "founders don't have this" class of equity, so I value these at zero. This includes the vast majority of stock options.
That's certainly the legal doctrine. Personally, I don't happen to agree with it.
This topic has been in conversation a lot recently. Yet I feel we only have anecdotal data. I was wondering if we can get some real numbers on employee outcomes. I created a spreadsheet that aims to capture this and hopefully, we can get some real insights and conclusive data.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bIYwuz3bhRWPYazVamMD...

All data is anonymous. You don't even need to be logged in to edit.

What do people think of this?
For many people, everything that doesn't have a flashy Javascript-frontend does not count as a service.
RHEL (and by extension CentOS) 7 provides Ruby 2.0. And a 3.10 kernel even. If you're running docker with CentOS, this is what you're likely to use.

RHEL/CentOS 6 provides Ruby 1.8.7 and a 2.6.32 kernel. It can be made to run with docker, but it's unsupported and it won't be easy.

RHEL/CentOS 5 provides Ruby 1.8.5. The 2.6.18 kernel it comes with won't even run go binaries such as docker, much less lxc. Yes this is ancient. It was released in 2007 and it will be supported until 2017.
Investors made ~no money on this deal. That's not the playbook.

Most of your comment is just wrong.

EDIT: Ah yes. Downvotes. On Hacker News you get to pick your own facts. Lolz.
The general public has no idea what Blue Origin is.
Is Blocking Readers Who Use Ad Blockers the Best Strategy?
The analogy is roughly, 1) gov. makes law 2) markets acts opposite way as law intended 3) consumer requests more laws. "The no gun zone law didn't work, let's make the no gun zone bigger" vs "The local ISP monopoly law backfired, let's let the government invent more rules for ISPs"
What you think is a problem - is broken cryptography to experts.

There is no shortage of minds working on to create backdoors, or develop cryptographic methods that have backdoors, just look at Dual_EC_DRBG. It was a backdoor for the "good guys", but now its backdoor for everyone - eventually people will study the code and see the backdoor exists.

The crux of the issue is mathematics has no concept of good guys or bad guys, so as far as mathematics is concerned a back door for anyone is a backdoor for everyone.
There's tax due on incentive stock options (ISOs, I think I have the name right?) when you exercise the option. So, if my layman understanding is correct, you get an offer to pay a discounted price on company stock whenever you want (usually based somewhat on valuation when you're hired). Then, the company's valuation increases (all on paper and in private, not public market price corrections, just whatever investors think is "fair"), and you exercise your stock option. The difference between the price you paid (your option price) and the value of the share (as determined by the private valuation) is now taxable income in the eyes of the IRS. You will owe taxes on stocks that might still end up being worthless, and your employer also has the power to prevent you from selling them before they go public/are bought out.
One nit to pick: "tight-knit"
Search for those terms in google and see what type of explanation makes the most sense to you. There are textbook definitions, legal explanations and more business oriented explanations. Read through threads like these specifically for people's anecdotes about how they got screwed over.

There's this scene in "the big short" where Eisman is talking to the credit default swap sales guys from one of the big banks. He's never traded credit default swaps before so he knows that he is at a disadvantage. He asks the sales guys, "How do I get f*cked in this deal?" And then he sticks around until they explain the scenarios to him. That's a really good lesson about financial securities. There are so many embedded options that each have a different payout scenario. You need to understand what are the potential future scenarios and how do they impact your position.
Okay, here's the full debate transcript on what Clinton said. I don't see any issue, aside from Clinton's wish-washyness and clear ignorance on this subject.

She understands that "Apple and Tech Experts" are angry about this issue, but she clearly doesn't understand why.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-cli...

> CLINTON: I would not want to go to that point. I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners.

> It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts.

> And maybe the back door is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that. But I also understand, when a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of preventing attacks -- to go back to our early questions, how do we prevent attacks -- well, if we can't know what someone is planning, we are going to have to rely on the neighbor or, you know, the member of the mosque or the teacher, somebody to see something.

> CLINTON: I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out. Otherwise, law enforcement is blind -- blind before, blind during, and, unfortunately, in many instances, blind after.

> So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe. And that's what i hope, there can be some understanding and cooperation to achieve.

----------

I would like it for my politicians to understand technical issues, alas I've resigned myself to the fact that politicians really don't know what they are talking about. And all Clinton has done here is prove once more, that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Anyone who knows this issue (ie: You and Me) both know that there is a direct contradiction in Clinton's speech here. She's either playing dumb, or is dumb about this issue.

And the rest of the reporters (Vice, Intercept, etc. etc.) are going crazy as if this is some existential threat on the internet. No, in my opinion, this is simply another presidential candidate trying to be vague about an issue they don't fully understand.
Add Your City to Linux's List of Timezones
That's not correct.

It's perfectly possible and trivial to put in a backdoor that only works for people who have access to a specific private key.

Obviously if that private key gets stolen anyone can then access the backdoor, but that's true for anything, and you can mitigate it by storing the key in self-destructing immovable hardware with access limitations, as well as periodically changing the keypair (with signed updates).

The real problem is that there is no single "good guy" to entrust with that private key: in particular humans are inherently not fully trustable or good and both individual consumers and other governments have no interest in using or allowing backdoored products.
memory networks: http://www.thespermwhale.com/jaseweston/ram/
The question is really do they want to learn, do they want to just see something cool and call it a day, or are they just humouring you?
Too bad Blue Origin can't actually put anything into space that stays for a while (such as 11 satellites). The only thing Blue Origin exists for is to give millionaires a thrill ride that lasts a few minutes. BTW, this isn't fanboyism -- I really fail to see how the suborbital rockets will advance humanity's future in space -- whereas getting down the cost to orbit (and remember, leo is halfway to anywhere) is what is going to open up a new future for mankind.
The best articles of incorporation I saw had preferred stock for the founders, but any acquisition or liquidity change would convert all preferred shares to common 1:1 and instantly vested all options.

It did cause some interesting tax issues for people when we were bought, but I don't think I'd sign any other set of terms now.

But then, the founders were very classy.
I think startups will soon be at a crossroads once the flaws in the equity compensation system become more widely exposed. People will be dis-incentivized from working at startups.
I think the bigger concern (as far as employees are concerned) in this particular case is that the board turned down multiple more lucrative acquisition offers.

In addition to all the other issues mentioned here, the preferred/common split means that the preferred holders (ie the board) have much different incentives/risks than common - they can afford to "swing for the fences" due to the downside of liquidation preferences.
But that means government controlling our food! /s

Seriously though, where does the hash/uuid get added? The farmer? How many people will be against tracking your food and saying this violates peoples freedoms.
> How many programmers belong to a union?

Thankfully none.

One of the main reasons the car companies stumbled are unions. The whole thing has degenerated to insanity squared.

For example, GM had a clause in their contract requiring them to not fire employees displaced by technology or automation. In other words, if you improve your workflow and process and can do the same work with 25 people instead of 100, you can't fire the people you no-longer need. All incentives to innovate in process and technology very quickly evaporate with such insanity in place.

They reportedly had thousands of people show up for "work" every day drawing 95% salaries and full benefits only to go to this building, read the newspaper and drink coffee all day.

Unions had their day and reason to exist. I am not proposing they need to disappear. However, they need to mutate into something that works towards a mutually beneficial and sustainable ecosystem.

By pushing for, and obtaining, ridiculous grants, they create short term apparent gains and HUGE long term losses as thousands of people lose their jobs when they industry they worked in simply crumbles under the weight of onerous arrangements that cause them to lose the ability to compete and remain financially viable. In fact, if you look at Detroit, one could argue the unions went beyond costing people their jobs and companies their ability to compete, they actually succeeded at destroying a whole city.

How is this, in any imaginable reality, good?

A couple of articles:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114118143005186163

This one covers other issues:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/20/what-explain...

From the Forbes article:

"A worker might be able to retire in his early 50s and collect an annual pension of $37,500, paid wholly by GM. By 2008 there were 4.6 retired GM employees for each active worker. Did anyone think this was sustainable?"

It's called "killing the golden goose".
Cloudflare breaks badly with Tor.
NSA Helped British Spies Find Security Holes in Juniper Firewalls
I'll add in response to the grandparent, that I don't get "upset". And I can enjoy such situations that are genuinely in good humor. I recall for example game nights with a nice group of people, where there is good humor over winning and losing but no malice and no jealousy.

But I also recall other settings -- settings where often participation is mandatory in an unspoken way if not through explicit policy -- where such activities are anything but. It seems to be an extension of attitudes that e.g. always seek to qualify someone else's success in a manner that relates to and boosts the ego of the observer/commenter.

What this mostly makes me, is tired. Very tired. It doesn't feel productive, useful, nor terribly interesting.

So, sort of back to the original post that started this thread. More than once, I have helped a friend to "game" such contests and exchanges. The friend who, through collaboration, won the cuckoo clock while I got the runner-up Swiss Army knife. The other friend who won the telescope by combining our credits and shutting down potential competition with a somewhat shocking initial high (but not higher than the bidding might/likely would have gone) bid.

I also registered, with some discomfort, the shock and varying degrees of chagrin I registered coming from the other participants.

Just like every "victory" at work had some asking, "How and why did he get that." Even though I always, invariably tried to be the helpful one -- even towards them. A "team player."

I don't like such games in such settings, because they too often bring up shades of such divisiveness. And they are promoted by a culture and leadership that is all too busy winning at the larger, economic game. (Another year of "cost freezes"...)

Such zero sum gain scenarios, I guess, simply do not interest nor engage me. Even if I can "win", they can prove unmotivating.

I can and do try to change the tone. E.g. joking and engaging in (genuine) good cheer, even at my own minor discomfort. But the larger context out of which the divisiveness springs, can prove overwhelming.

Whereupon, I'd rather not engage. Not even, nor especially, in an Ersatz Spiel of secret Santa.
If you're going to work at a startup, ask for two things:

1. No employee equity whatsoever, but a slightly higher salary to make up for it
2. The ability to invest in the the next round

I've worked at a startup and done #1 and #2 above, and it's working out great. I'm very happy to be owning preferred shares.
Love the article. Wish I read this before joining a startup.

Minor nitpick, please remove the number from the title.
I recently had this conversation:

Me, to CEO: Hey, think we should ever build a backdoor into any of our
products that employ encryption to help the US government
and law enforcement?

CEO, to me: No, that's a terrible idea.

Me, to CEO: Okay good, just making sure we're on the same page.

I don't think there are many honest and competent technology CEOs who would rally against encryption.
In my case,

* Internal buybacks ("tender offers") were actually all above the current (publicly-listed) stock price. Private valuations can be pretty inflated. I think it's a good idea to take these and diversify.

* My company did use a backchannel to stop me from selling privately to one of their investors before the IPO (at roughly double the current market price). So I think the spirit of your comment is right.
Benchmarking Smart Meter Data Analytics
http://openproceedings.org/2015/conf/edbt/paper-55.pdf
Real data is good, but that's not a good way to get real data.

I'm not a stats person, but it would seem to suffer from both an extremely small potential sample (those who read your post), a self-selection bias (those who gain an advantage by participating, e.g., the aggrevieved), and an outright unsual candidate sample pool (Hacker News).

Perhaps try something like Google Consumer Surveys, and ask a one-two question like: (1) are you currently working for a pre-IPO startup and (2) are your options underwater. Or similar.
f()
Fortunately for SpaceX it doesn't really matter what the general public thinks since they're not buying SpaceX's services.
I believe it may, perhaps analogous to its Any and All, etc.
TBF, 1KM is less than 100KM and Falcon 9 Dev didn't successfully land until 2014.
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/index#wiki_cre...
You can also use ulogd and iptables accounting to count hits per IP or per subnet if you want something more light weight. If you have a non-trivial system you can probably produce a netflow stream from your router which gives you the accounting without performance penalty.