skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But... from the same site, we have an article entitled "HOLOCAUST GOOD FOR YOU, RESEARCH FINDS, BUT FREQUENT TAUNTING CAUSES CANCER IN RATS", which includes this quote, that attempts to explain why holocaust survivors have on average longer lives:

"One possible explanation for these findings might be the “Posttraumatic Growth” phenomenon, according to which the traumatic, life-threatening experiences Holocaust survivors had to face, which engendered high levels of psychological distress, could have also served as potential stimuli for developing personal and inter-personal skills, gaining new insights and a deeper meaning to life."

So taking the 20% that receive food stamps, say, and dumping them wholesale into "really miserable people" category seems rather misguided.
They're currently, as I understand it, doing the herpes test commercially (sometimes, apparently). The question was what they are able to do, not just in a commercial sense.
The kicker is right after your quote:

He added: “This is product development, this is how startups are built.” The reply ended with an edict that the “only email on this topic I want to see from you going forward is an apology that I’ll pass on to other people.”
I don't think I missed your point. I think I said that a rational duopoly won't bother worrying about what economical solution best prevents a third entrant, when there is always the possibility of simply paying from established wealth to compensate a would-be entrant for their willingness to not enter.

I don't see it as a political problem. It's such a ubiquitous part of any real market that I just see it was a way in which typical econ toy problems fail to correspond to reality and fail to produce useful predictions. It's like trying to use Newtonian physics when quantum effects really matter, except you've got so many economists employed because of the Newtonian-like toy models and they have a real need to keep hand waving and trying to convince everyone that the Newtonian approximations matter, that deriving theoretical results like this matter to "build intuition" or "create the mathematical framework" or whatever, but it's just clearly not true or useful to anyone but those researchers themselves.
previous discussion here :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10796567
> Sunny Balwani is an entrepreneur and a computer scientist. Sunny joined Theranos after dropping out of the Computer Science program at Stanford University. He received his MBA at UC Berkeley and undergraduate degree from UT Austin.

Honest question, can you claim to be a Computer Scientist if you drop out from a computer Science program ? To me it sounds like calling yourself a Doctor after dropping out following the first year of Medicine Studies.

Needless to say, this smells of arrogance more than anything else.
Amaericas banks & banking system are a joke.

You could put a trained chimp in the fed and get better results just from which paperwork the thrown faeces landed on.

It's hardly surprising he wants to replace the people involved.
This Is Your Brain on Nature
Thanks!

Sometimes I have a specific vision, other times the design is secondary to the idea. A lot of the aesthetic comes about naturally while hacking away. :)
No- but glassdoor can remove reviews on companies' behalf :)
It does in Ubuntu starting with 15.10 (as I mentioned). I don't know about Debian.
Glassdoor seems like it has the same business model as yelp- "Buy our advertising and we will make your good rankings rank higher and your worse reviews be filtered or lower."

Maybe not outright extortion but certainly not what they claim of being a truly independent forum.
Well Dropbox has weird board members as well.
Except it was not built overnight - it began with the Enablig act granting extraordinary power to the government, which then extended their power gradually over the late 30s leading to the war.

If you read primary sources it is obvious that many people are aware of what is happening but none felt powerful to act, a situation not that dissimilar to our present.
posted Friday under original title, 20+ comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791938
It does feel a bit dystopian, but it's not trying to prevent supposed societal "ills" like "the gays" or "socialism". Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact every society.

Calls for violence aren't considered valid free speech and can be directly banned. Calls for things that can eventually lead to violence are a much murkier area. They shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be mitigated.
If we, as a society, believe it is possible for an _idea_ to be dangerous -- not a person, nor a thing, but an _idea_ -- then we have already lost the purpose of the right that the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault? And how do you measure the effect racist and terrorist speech has on these assaults? And who decides for us what's ok to watch and what's not? And once you decide it's ok to censor, well, we all know where that leads.
I was just thinking that someone needs to write a novelization of this Theranos nonsense & turn it into a screenplay and voilà:- Silicon Valley's "Wolf of Wall Street" or the next "The Social Network" ... I'm sure someone is already writing it up.
If Doctors Learned to Cook, They Might Give Better Advice
CppCon 2015: Herb Sutter "Writing Good C++14... By Default":

https://youtu.be/hEx5DNLWGgA

Sutter comments on const_cast around 11m15s.
You are just used to confrontational rating grabbing interviews. The fact that someone does not answer a specific question is valuable, just not as entertaining. The more questions the interviewer can deliver, the better. She dug her own grave.
> He replied to the employee, who no longer works at Theranos, denied all the claims and questioned the employee’s understanding of statistics and lab science.

> Quality-control failures were due to the “newness of some of our processes, which we are improving every day,” Mr. Balwani wrote.

> He added: “This is product development, this is how startups are built.” The reply ended with an edict that the “only email on this topic I want to see from you going forward is an apology that I’ll pass on to other people.”

I would rather question Balwani's understanding of Lab Science and Statistics as someone who has never had a remote experience of lab science in the first place. And about his understanding of Statistics, I have no idea where he thinks he has any authority either. MBAs are not particularly known to be very good at grasping probabilities.
Andreessen Horowitz: Here's What We Need to Do to Get VR to Take Off
The US survived the Communist Party of the USA. It survived the German-American Bund and Hitler Youth camps on Long Island. It survived Lindbergh endorsing Hitler. ISIS is a nuisance compared to those.

Here's ISIS's magazine.[1] Read what the other side has to say. Their layout, photography, and typesetting are quite good. That's upsetting some people. Most nut groups can't format a newsletter.

[1] http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-p...
Sounds like he dropped out of a graduate degree from Stanford. If his undergrad degree from UT Austin he might have a plausible fig leaf to go around calling himself "a computer scientist". Though I certainly wouldn't call somebody who with just an undergraduate degree a "scientist" in any field unless they've proven themselves by practicing such science in a credible manner for a reasonable period of time.
Sesame Credit – The True Danger of Gamification
This is quite advanced. At least graduate math level.

This is supposed to be a "elementary introduction to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture". Ha.
well a different flavor of it. Wealthy people being disrupted tend to get a lot of stuff written. It was the fundamental thesis of Naisbitt's Megatrends was that they were made visible by the amount of column inches spent on them in periodicals. Didn't matter positive or negative writing, if there were enough column inches being spent (editorial resource) there was something there[1]

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=ILJ_pfMgLqsC&pg=PA293&lpg=...
>Depends, what's the likelihood of dying from a racist assault compared to a terrorist assault?

I think both are incredibly low odds, but globally, the chance of dying in a terrorist assault is probably higher. Most racist media does not advocate violence or death towards minorities; just discrimination and isolation, typically.

For example, probably one of the most popular racist websites out there is http://www.dailystormer.com, and they have a large disclaimer:

>We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently.

You can find similar disclaimers on websites like Stormfront.

But lectures from people like al-Awlaki? They're both more powerful messages, because they're objective directives ("God DEMANDS you do this"), and directly call for violence towards non-Muslims.

I think both send awful messages, but the latter is worse for society in general.
I don't suppose I can argue your point about the origin of the term. Perhaps "professional shit-stirrer" would be more accurate.

Certainly homeschooling isn't scalable. There are techniques, methods, curricula, which can be (and are quite widely) shared, but no one can systematize it into something which will guarantee a good result in every case. Unfortunately, I see no reason to imagine anyone can so systematize anything else, either. After all, the current lamentable state of affairs is the result of concentrated effort, over a period at least of decades, on the part of many of the world's finest minds. If they can't come up with a "one size fits all", why expect that anyone else can? Perhaps the "social sciences", so called, are fundamentally in error. Perhaps every family and every child is unique, a non-reproducible n=1 experiment -- and perhaps, cast in those terms, it becomes a little easier to see just how wrongheaded the concept of a "one size fits all" solution for human beings might possibly be.

As far as I can tell, the most common objection to homeschooling is that it doesn't work in the absence of parents who are interested and closely involved with the progress of their children -- not in the modern "helicopter" style borne only of a desire not to be seen to parent badly, but rather in a consistent and, to the extent possible, effective fashion, out of both genuine interest in the wellbeing and success of their offspring, and a sense of the duty to society which also inheres in parenting, that is, to bequeath upon the world children whose presence is more likely to be overall a benefit than a detriment. Or, to put it simply, that homeschooling can't work reliably because it doesn't work at all without good parents.

Unfortunately, as the last decades have also shown us, without good parents, nothing else works, either -- and a sufficiently broken system can easily overcome the effects of even the best parents, if only by being vastly larger than them and all but inescapable. Here we have a Yale professor telling us that the existing system is sufficiently broken -- and not really telling us anything we didn't already know. Do we assume that nothing else can work either, and that our kids are doomed? Or do we seek alternatives, even those which are utterly alien to the sort of systems-first thinking that got us into this mess?

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, and I'm not raising any kids of my own, but it seems to me that the only option compatible with even the most basic concept of parental responsibility is the latter one. After all, we've not only seen ourselves that what we've got doesn't work; here we have one of its highest exponents telling us it doesn't work, which should be authoritative enough for just about anybody. Perhaps something else might work better? It'd be very hard for anything else to work worse.
For any platform or service, the one with the best (sometimes that means most) and easiest to access content wins.

The fact that the Vive has SteamVR means they come out punching harder in content accessibility - even if Oculus has the Rockband deal.

None of that matters in the long run anyway, AR will make VR obsolete within 10 years.
I suppose you could go long LH and DGX. They might outperform if a potential major competitor fails to make an impact.
Somehow the ability to spend money scales pretty well relative to the ability to raise it.
Pricks
The Internet, the Deep Web, and the Dark Web
> Meanwhile the loser pays provision is so weak that it provides no hope to small businesses and little to large ones. East Texas judges have already shown it won't apply in their courts.

They've already shown that something that isn't yet the law won't apply? How have they managed to do that?
I prefer an operational definition: a scientist is somebody who does research using the scientific method. But then again, this eliminates a bunch of CS people, since they're mostly doing math and engineering.
What is the weather like on the Planet of the Obscure Language Clients? Is there any way I can book passage there?

Why, if I had a nickel every time I was forced to turn down a client who demanded the project be done in Clojure, Scheme, Haskell, Pogoscript, or Brainfuck... I would have zero cents.
Eh, I would argue that it's different from buggy whips, because there is a (somewhat) limited supply of oil.

The idea being that if it turns out you are off by a few years (or a few hundred years) in the buggy whip vs. car situation, and buggy whips are a thing for a while longer, well, it's not that hard to ramp up buggy whip production. I mean, you've got some training effort, sure, but there are more buggy whips to be made.

The idea is that oil is different, simply because there's only so much of it. If it turns out you planned wrong and have to come up with a few more year's worth of oil, and you are out? yeah, you have a serious problem.

As an aside, the hole in my argument is what was shown by oil shale. There is a lot more oil available at $100 a barrel than there is available at $20 a barrel. but the point is that at some point, we'll actually run out of the stuff, and even before then, we won't be able to make more oil the same way we had made more oil in the past; to get more oil, periodically, you need to come up with new ways of getting oil, usually at great expense.
In most democracies "The State" is more responsive to the will of the people than you give it credit for, though I will agree with you that it is not as responsive as either of us would like. Moreover they are orders of magnitude more responsive to the will of the people, than whatever strongman or military junta would inevitably fill in the enormous power vacuum left in the wake of dismantling every government in the first world, assuming human civilization could indeed survive such an event in the first place. (And who would quickly reestablish a monopoly on force anyway.)
I thought Arrested Development has been parodying the tech scene well.

Seasons 1-3, which aired during the Bush era, showed the lives of incompetent and corrupt property developers + military contractors.

Now the main running gag is a BS non-existent app.
That's not putting his idea to the test.
Perhaps the poster meant the numerous proprietary blobs and patches that can't be upstreamed for certain platforms.

The RasPi fixed those problems, though.
Their early strategy was to get military contract but it didn't go too far because they needed to get FDA approval or something.
I find it very difficult to take a shareholder seriously when his advice is for a company is to give up, sell all their assets, and give them to... ahem... shareholders.

Sure, there are reasons to do so, but they better be unassailable... like bootlegging equipment in 1933, or horse and buggies in 1908.
How would we get rid of non-practicing entities? Forbid patent assignments?
So wouldn't it help to hire people with more expertise than chimps?
> What's next, a new take on homeopathy ?

Not too far off, actually:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/12/04/and...
You are absolutely right. In fact I didn't know that Intel ME is that evil. Interesting (a bit hard to follow imo) talk from the recent CCC:
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7352-towards_reasonably_trustwor...
The US constitution itself explains what is apparently mysterious to some people. Rights are not enumerated. Indeed, as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others they are limitless. Otherwise our rights would be mired in the context of 18th c. morals and technology, and would require constant amendments to keep up.

We have a right to use encryption. Cryptocurrency. CRISPR. Etc. We have those rights. Why? Because nothing in the constitution says we don't. Otherwise the constitution would be unmaintainable.
Can someone post those reviews? I'm curious to read them. Hopefully there is a daily cache of glassdoor that we can look at.
Why I don't care about Edward Snowden
That's true, but the comment was speculation, not accusation.
Don't forget the whole eugenics movement. The likes of Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant were very popular in their day, but ultimately subsided and in retrospect are derided. The NSDAP did borrow a lot from them, though - Lindbergh was hardly the only one endorsing Hitler, he was an intellectual featherweight relative to many others.
I think an important difference between holocaust survivors and the people under discussion in this article is that the holocaust ended. One day the allied army showed up and the camps were shut down and the survivors were freed. Their lives immediately and dramatically improved. For most of the people mentions in this blog post there will be no such single & dramatic event.
When the expertise in question is what's given you the current system, no.
This is probably my biggest criticism of React (and by extension similar such as Angular 2, although React's choice of JSX is a clear exacerbation of this problem) - the move towards more tooling is terrible for what should be something simple. HTML/CSS/JS are not rocket science - in themselves, they're simple languages for building a user-facing app. It is developers making things more complicated by having us use a whole smorgasbord of tooling to optimize for using [insert feature] instead of trying to keep things as simple as possible.

I just hope that over the next few years that this simplifies so that we don't need to have build tooling run everything.
Isn't it common practice to wipe the skin with a disenfectant to prevent this very thing? A 60-70% alcohol-based solution will kill the vast majority of germs on the skin.
Anyone working in microfluidics would've been skeptical at the time and is probably not surprised now. Microfluidics is amazingly hard to make work properly, and the history of the field is littered with great ideas which proved to be much harder to execute reliably.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10796872
1. Recently I was reading how in the early public school system, students of a widely different age all sat in the same class.

The bigger kids will learn first from the teacher, and in turn, turn around and teach the younger ones.

At least according to this article, it works. Maybe high school can also benefit from this.

2. I find it intriguing that a professor say this:

> Third, it’s fun for them. They can laugh and joke with each other, rather than sit in silence as I repeat information that’s right in front of them anyway.

Usually the teacher is doing his best to get the class as quiet as possible.
This article is actually highlighting (indirectly) the strengths of Ember.js and its ecosystem. As an Ember dev this article made me appreciate the way the development of ember tooling and the library itself are both intertwined, and that best practices are constantly being implemented into the tools used across all developers, core maintainers and simple users alike.
Up until the fracking boom, oil companies were adopting that strategy, they weren't replacing reserves through exploration as fast as they were depleting them, and they were using cash to buy back stock, and other companies that had reserves that could be acquired cheaper than drilling for them.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Oil-...

I think the big change in the market is fracking, some lifestyle change toward less driving and energy intensity, not so much alternatives yet. But it could happen.
Hehe, I really like Derek's sense of humor:

> A few billion years of blind evolutionary tinkering gives you a mass of insane, irrational, tangled interwoven systems with no documentation in sight. Crazy new things keep getting uncovered all the time (siRNA! Who knew!), and the number and scope of the crucial things we have no clue about is just another one of the things that we have no clue about. If your worldview has been formed by using human tools to make human-designed applications for humans, you are in for quite a shock.
Aerial corridors and traffic systems for drones ...
I wonder if you could apply some substance on the skin or needle so that after the prick it doesn't heal up instantly? Keeps the blood flowing for a few seconds.
No doubt it depends quite a lot. Too often people see "retirement" as "waiting to die" which is not a fair characterization.

People have asked me why I'm still working for other people, rather than pursuing my own interests. I ask myself that, and when I believe I'll be happier doing that, I'll take that path. But for now the kinds of things I like to play with (like large distributed systems with a tremendous scale) I can't really afford to host something like that in my home laboratory. I could perhaps put a couple of thousand Rasberry Pi equivalent systems in custom racks of some sort, but the overhead of that is so much easier when its someone else's job. Using AWS for experiments is fun but can be expensive for even short periods. So working at a company where they already need that level scale, and are willing to give me enough freedom to play with it (and even hire people to play with it with me ;-) it makes more sense for me to work for them.

That said a long time friend of mine retired from Cisco and now pursues the things he is interested in full time. He's a lot happier not being at work. For him the other choice made more sense.
Yep. I think the decision is Linux+Docker where all apps run in containers.
You can do everything you do here in Polymer in React. The complexity of React comes from being able to do a lot more. With choice comes complexity.
I seriously don't understand the issue here.

I find the overhead completely negligible. I've worked on many React apps. I've worked on innumerable apps in other, different frameworks, tools, etc. too. I still find my React stack (I say "my" because I'm sure my stack is different than yours in one way or another) to be the best solution, and this debate to be tedious.

That said, I feel like every ecosystems works this way: Complaints about lack of good tools/solutions, myriad tools/solutions are built, then there are complaints about the overabundance of tools and complexity of the ecosystem, so everyone abandons whatever the status quo is, and then...back to square one.