skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For the last 16 years, I've mostly worked with startups. Most of them have offered me stock options. I've never made a penny from stock options. I don't take stock options seriously. If the goal is to find a way to give me an incentive to work hard, then stock options don't work for me, because I don't believe in them. They lack enough believability for me to get emotionally amped about them. And yet, that kind of excitement is suppose to be the point, yes? The startup that hires me has the option of simply paying me a salary in exchange for my professional services. But they want me to be excited enough that I'll work lots of 60 and 70 hour weeks. So they want to give me an extra incentive. So they offer stock options, but as I said, for me personally, stocks options fail completely as an incentive.

I could also write a long comment about how often I get into negotiations that take the form of "We'd like to offer you less salary, but more stock options". Ha ha ha, if I was that dumb, why would you want to hire me?

The problem is, there are too many things that can go wrong with stock options. The biggest, of course, is that most startups fail, and therefore most stock options have zero value. Or as Paul Graham once said, the median long-term value for any startup in any startup investment fund is $0 -- and that implies the median value of any startup stock option is $0.

The article lists many other things that can go wrong with stock options -- dilutions, side deals, etc.

I can think of some incentives that would actually motivate me. They would be expensive, but that is the point -- they would put real money in play, which would make them worse from the point of view of the company, but would make them real to me. They could then work as an actual incentive.

One such incentive would be for the company to agree to commit a percentage of gross revenue to the workers. Say, 2%, or 4%. Then lets say, for every dollar we are paid from our salary, we get 1 royalty point, and the gross revenue fund is divided up on the basis of how many royalty points we all have. As much as I laugh at the line "We'd like to offer you less salary, but more stock options", if I seriously believed that a startup was going to do well, then hell yes I would take a salary cut now in exchange for a percent of a pot that is guaranteed to get a committed amount of gross revenue.

I'll point out that Hollywood has been a trailblazer in this regard. It used to be an industry joke that actors were promised a percent of the "profits", but then with creative accounting, even very successful films could be shown to lack any profits, and therefore nothing needed to be paid to the actors. Because of the unfairness of those deals, Hollywood has moved toward royalty payments that are increasingly based on something like gross revenue.
Another alternative would have been to store strings in UTF-8 and generate an array of indices to the starting point of each entity only if needed for random access. Subscripting a string would use the array of indices.

Only a few standard member functions of string (find, rfind, index, rindex) return integer subscripts into a string. Those could return an opaque index object which has an index and a link to the string. Such objects could be used for string operations which need a string index. If an index object is forcibly converted to an integer, the array of indices has to be generated, but otherwise, it is unnecessary. You could even allow adding or subtracting integers from an index object, which would walk the UTF-8 string forwards or backwards as indicated.

This would make UTF-8 strings usable with subscript and slice notation without exploding them to wide characters.
> The Caddy performed perfectly, except when it had to merge onto I-395 South and swing across three lanes of traffic in 150 yards (137 meters) to head toward the Pentagon.

This is probably one of the most stressful maneuvers you can make on the Capital beltway. Honestly I feel like once we hit critical mass with driverless cars this action will be much more manageable. I and other drivers have to do some real aggressive things to make this work.
That is what I'm talking about. Note that it is a 3 year old article. You'd think environmentalists would get all over "The reductions of 40 percent in vehicle wait time, nearly 26 percent in travel time and 21 percent in projected vehicle emissions realized in this pilot are remarkable," but nope.
I don't mean to sound belligerent but you have the exact tone of a founder trying to swindle me into being the 15th employee for a paltry .5% in options with a 4 year vesting schedule.
Seems like a reasonable, if rhetorical, question. Hope Alex doesn't complain to his employer about it though ;-P
Nerd owns FB and wants to rub it in their face. FB power plays nerd. Nerd publicly pawns FB in retaliation.
Your core claim seems to be that the future of AI is impossible to predict for anyone, including Bostrom. If that's the case, it seems like that should inspire more caution, not less.

(There's also some DH2 http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html level stuff about the terms Bostrom chooses to use to make his argument... I'm not sure if there's anything to be said about this except that Bostrom's book seems more accessible to me than most academic writing http://stevenpinker.com/why-academics-stink-writing and I'd hate for him to receive flak for that. It's the ideas that matter, not the pomposity with which you communicate them. I also don't understand the implied disregard for anything that seems like science fiction--what's the point in trying to speculate about the future if all the speculation will be ignored when decisions are being made?)

If an Oxford philosophy professor is not enough for you, here's a succinct explanation of the AI safety problem & its importance from Stuart Russell (Berkeley CS professor & coauthor of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach):

https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/research/future/
FYI: DuckDuckGo primarily leverages the Yahoo BOSS api in the US.
Gmail customer service  Phone Number 1 844 449 0455
Get in touch with Gmail Customer Service Phone Number which offering their services 24/7 and providing step by step solution to your issue by the expert professionals and your all problems will be easily vanished.

http://www.gmailtechinfo.com/gmail-customer-service
Possible reasons you might find more slow-speed minor rear-end collisions among self-driving cars than among human-driven cars on a per-mile basis:

1. There are only a tiny number of self-driving cars on the road, driving a relatively small number of miles, and accidents in general are fairly rare on a per-mile basis, so there might not yet be enough data to get a reliable idea of average crash rate. The linked study is based on analysis of only 11 (!!) crashes, 8 of which were at <5 mph, with only 2 causing “possible injuries”. As the study itself says, “[...] the corresponding 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, we currently cannot rule out, with a reasonable level of confidence, the possibility that the actual rate for self-driving vehicles is lower than for conventional vehicles.” (Personally I think their confidence intervals for self-driving cars are useless given the data so far, but whatever.)

2. The Google cars which account for all of the cited crashes are AFAIK doing all of their driving on city streets, where intersections, stops, and thus these types of collisions are more common than on highways.

3. I suspect most tiny bumper bumps which don’t damage either car or injure anyone are never reported to the police when both drivers are people, but self-driving cars record every case.

4. Self-driving cars have better sensors to detect road hazards, and as a result might stop in cases where a human driver would do something which risked a more serious accident. People tail-gating these cars will end up unable to react in time and bumping them, but even these 11 crashes might have been in situations where the autonomous car stopping prevented more severe car damage or injuries.

5. Driving cautiously and strictly limiting speed to 25mph might make following human drivers frustrated and more likely to tail closely. This might be exacerbated by the Google cars’ goofy appearance. (Would be interesting to see statistics for various skills/styles of human drivers, or for human-driven NEVs.) I’m not sure NEV accidents can be meaningfully compared to standard car accidents.

Overall I think this topic is worthy of study, but the data is not really all that useful yet. Keith Naughton’s Bloomberg piece calling this a “key flaw” seems like high-order FUD / clickbait.
The US Military has fairly strict rules concerning facial hair.
If we accept:

- that there's only one class of "humanic" intelligence;

- that we can approximately represent instances in this class of intelligence as vectors of {memory, learning speed, computation speed, communication speed};

- that any AI that could be created is merely a vector in this n-dimensional intelligence space, lacking any extra-intelligent qualities;

- that productivity and achievement increases exponentially the more intelligent being you devote to a problem, but logarithmically for more beings you devote (e.g. a being with intelligence vector {10,10,10,10} might be as productive as 10000 {1,1,1,1} beings);

then this doesn't exclude the possibility of us creating an AI with an intelligence vector twice an average human's intelligence vector, which can suggest improvements to its algorithms and datacenter and chip designs to become 10x as intelligent as a human, and from there it could quickly determine new algorithms, and eventually it's considering philosophy (and what to do about these humans).

The point is: viewing intelligence the way you suggest doesn't help us on what to do about "super" artificial intelligence.
That's what this meant:

"Note: I do like how, even with errors, it still takes under 20 seconds for me to get to any random part of the vid. That's an improvement over the rewind/fast-forward speeds. :)"
China Beige Book Shows ‘Disturbing’ Economic Deterioration
I am not sure what part of

"he has interacted with us using a synack.com email address,"

invalidates my reading that he was using his company's email?
That's true. Hence me asking for "hardware acceleration" to improve the speed to real-time if possible.
Not electricity but analog circuits. Many people think they have one or the other while they have a mix of both leaning heavily toward digital. So many misconceptions about the topic.
Agreed. Wasn't sure how to interpret...
A color laser printer with 127,000 dots per inch resolution
This has actually already been rolled out in certain markets: https://youtu.be/08OpjYn1BlY?t=1m50s
> I find myself often having to wrap expressions in list(...) to force the lists.

Out of curiosity, why do you need to force the lists?

> Generators make things much more complicated. They are basically a way to make (interacting, by means of side-effects) coroutines

Huh? Generators are a way to not make expensive computations until you have to--as well as to not use memory that you don't need. Basically, if all you're doing with a collection of items is iterating over it (which covers a lot of use cases--but perhaps not yours), you should use a generator, not a list--your code will run faster and use less memory.

> In most use cases (scripting) lists are much easier to use (no interleaving of side effects) and there is plenty of memory available to force them.

Generators don't have to have side effects. And there are plenty of use cases for which you do not have "plenty of memory available" (again, perhaps not yours).

> IMHO generators by default is a bad choice.

I think lists by default was a bad choice, because it forces everyone to incur the memory and performance overhead of constructing a list whether they need to or not. The default should be the leaner of the two alternatives; people who need or prefer the extra overhead can then get it by using list() (or a list comprehension instead of a generator expression, which is just a matter of typing brackets instead of parentheses).
I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly, how much would it cost to replace all the traffic signals with roundabouts (per your original statement)? I am betting that would be cost prohibitive much less concerns for space.
The ultimate dream of visual programming cannot work, at least not at present because we lack the models to represent software adequately using visual schematics.

Consider electronics. One engineer can create an electronics schematic and hand it to someone else who will build it and the second engineer will build what the first engineer specified. Right now, no such thing like that exists for software that isn't effectively a 1:1 mapping to source code. Flow diagrams and UML ain't it. And there's so much ambiguity in higher level diagrams (here's some layers, here's some lines, here's a thing that looks like a cloud) to make them only barely useful in describing software.

There is no standardized nor de facto schematic visual language of software that enables one human software engineer to specify the design (not even the full implementation) of a software system sufficiently enough to be able to hand that off to other engineers to build and be successful and predictable at doing so consistently. And if we can't get a system like that to work with humans in the loop we really aren't going to do much better purely digitally. You can program visually, but so often you end up spending more effort on minutiae than you would if you were coding textually, and so often you run into a very low ceiling where complexity becomes unmanageable.

P.S. Using interactive visual tools for things like UI design, that can be and always has been very beneficial, but that's a far cry from "visual programming".
I always give the url as ddg.gg
You are arguing a viewpoint that is not in contention here. The post I was responding to was talking about "Middle America" versus "coastal intellectuals." In other words, you are attempting to refute a position I haven't advocated.
I know man. It's a semi-joking and semi-serious post where I point that people step from one mental, model (reliable/p2p/digital) to another (lossy/continuous/analog) to come up with a good solution to a problem. In this case, kind of reinventing one but with a medium that has plenty of cheap HW supporting it. It's technically digital but most like analog for the average person's experience with the attributes.
I'm a big fan of Swift 2.x and am doing most of my programming lately in either it or Perl. The two languages compliment each other very well. Lazy properties work as well in Swift as they do in Moose/Moo and handling options with the if let pattern fits well with the standard Perl if (my $var = ...) pattern. I can go on about some of the other things I've noticed but I'll leave it at those two.

As such, I think the answer to your question is eventually you'll have the same depth is Swift that the Perl community has but so far Swift is still behind in tooling and libraries for many things. Since server side Swift on Linux is weeks old, there isn't a simple well known go to library for web work like CGI.pm, or my preference for simple web services, Web::Simple. And of course if Windows is something you need to support Swift won't help you.
I think when you are saying "early" employees are getting screwed you have to be really specific. Joining Box etc. a few months before an IPO is not an early employee. You're joining at a point where the company is pretty thoroughly derisked, so you're taking very little personal risk yourself. You're probably not taking a pay cut (may even be getting a raise). So yeah: don't join a company 6 years in, get your ~10k shares with a price of $12 and a projected IPO price of $16 and expect to get rich.
Sōtatsu depicts nature's depth of color with exemplary detail.
I just think it's unlikely outside of domain specific problems. For example, flow charts and state machine diagrams can elegantly describe some algorithms but they have limited power which limits the complexity of the diagrams. If you want a visual language with programming features like function calls, state, threads, recursion etc. it's going to end up being of comparable complexity to just writing it in code in my opinion. Even visualising how a relative simple algorithm like quicksort works in an intuitive way is challenging let alone a fully working application. Happy to see examples that go against this though.
I'm a Software Engineer, have been passionate about computers my entire life, and I've never once played Minesweeper.

I actually have no idea how.
If you need binary reads/writes for stdin/stdout, you can use the underlying binary buffer objects (the "buffer" attributes on sys.stdin/stdout).
Interesting. Coincidentally (or not?) yesterday Bloomberg posted an article about George Hotz building his own Self Driving AI and he talks about the very problem Google is having with the car following the rules too strictly. Looks like he's right at least about this one thing.

Article here for the curious: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...
Honestly, I think he did go too far downloading the S3 data, but nothing in their policy stated or implied that was against the rules. He did not violate their written guidelines. And so, Facebook should have paid him (and then changed their policy), even if begrudgingly.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But without 3rd party we're basically trusting the participants that it didn't happen.

E.g. "I'll give you $500, but you also have too sign an NDA, so that people don't know we cheated."

I don't want to imply that they cheated, just want to reiterate my original argument that the lack of transparency makes the experiment effectively invalid. Think Tesla and his claims about World Wireless system.
I have a friend at space x who can earn performance bonuses relative to the improvements within the company, such as reduction in cost or construction time. This feels fair; if you find a way to save a million dollars a year you should get some portion of that. I hope other companies begin to have similar performance bonuses instead of randomly walking stocks.
People have already studied this. You make it sound like an open question, but the answer is right there in Bostrom's Superintelligence, or any works on cognitive heuristics & biases, the physics of computing, or the mathematics of decision making. The answer is "no. we are nowhere near the smartest creatures possible". And there are multiple independent lines of argument and evidence that point directly to this conclusion.
California DMV regulations may kill the state's robocar lead
In any case, there is one question remains. How do facebook defines a "million dollar" bug if the security team is not aware of the damage it can do. Since this is not the first time this bug was reported, did they actually give a big bounty to the first person who did the initial report(Given that it can lead to this much damage)? Or just another small bounty saying that it's not a very important security flaw.
The article said he was there for 4 years, joining in 2011, and watched it grow from 50 employees to 1000+. So not a total early employee, but also not a few months before IPO.

You also need to consider what equivalent returns would be at competing companies. Someone who joined Google or Apple in 2011 with a decade of experience could easily have made $350K in stock compensation alone, but with a higher base salary and even less risk.
It plays well to the audience, but it's effectively less than two years of salary, when you consider the high marginal taxes (depending a bit on whether they were ISO/NSO, etc). Given he was significantly under-market for four years, it's not a particularly good payout.

Remember that everyone who joined early was taking a gamble on a high risk, high reward company. You see an OK payout for him, but you don't see the 0 payouts for the people who bet on the wrong horse. So if joining a startup as an early employee is changing from high-risk high-reward gamble to instead high-risk OK-reward, that's a problem.
DNC Suspends Sanders Campaign Data Access after Private Clinton Info. Accessed
By California law, NEVs are vehicles which are incapable of driving faster than 25 mph, and are allowed to drive (unless barred by local ordinance) on any street with posted limit ≤ 35 mph.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...

This traffic stop was caused more by cop ignorance than any problem of Google’s. No harm done though.

Human drivers of NEVs go the same top speed on the same roads, it just doesn’t make the news if one gets stopped and has a conversation with a cop.
I've never had a problem remembering their name after I first heard of them forevvvver ago, and recall thinking Google was a stupid name. Altavista, infoseek, dogpile, askjeeves... clearly the name is not important
> I'm 40, so perhaps things have changed a bit more than those younger than me, but I can still make most food from scratch ingredients, have no issues sleeping outside in the cold, and can iron and mend my own clothes.

I'm only a few years younger than you, and I can do all those things too. I think you likely vastly underestimate the gulf between the old-timey things you know how to do, and the old-timey things you'd be forced to do in 1915 -- the Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns.
So, how does this generation of Americans inherit their now dead politicians from years ago?

You don't get to come back after seventy-five years
and ask us to please be nicer to Nazis. And Scientology.
And whatnot.

Contention: If one can't inherit my father's debt, then why are people who were mostly born into a particular place responsible (or the same people as?) those who had power 60 years prior?
Yeah clearing 350k pretax, 40% tax, for four years is $52k/year. Is that what we're calling a "win" now? In the land of (no longer just million dollar homes but million dollar condos) that's a 20p down payment. It doesn't even get you into conforming loan territory.

As (I think potatolicious) said on here the real scandal isn't the shit odds of a win, its how little many people come away from a win with. (Paraphrased)
Wondering whether it is becoming easier to publish long articles as opposed to shorter and concise
Delivering Healthcare,The Way It Should Be Delivered – Prasad Hospitals
From a 50-bed single maternity and nursing facility in Warasiguda,the brand has become a house-hold name in the locality,courtesy of caring and effective healthcare delivery under Dr. K.V. R Prasad & Dr.Kandipudi Suma.
Seems that way, but I wanted to invite anyone who knows more to comment.

Alex's response uses extremely misleading language to justify the employer contact:

- "account on our portal mentions Synack as his affiliation" amounts to nothing more than "he lists his job on his facebook profile"
- "he has interacted with us using a synack.com email address" -- OP claims otherwise. Taking OP's word, the use of "has" perhaps prevents this from being an outright lie: yes, as of *right now* he "has" used a synack.com email. But did he before you reached out?
- "he has written blog posts that are used by Synack for marketing purposes" -- ... and? What does that have to do with anything?

"He listed an employer on his fb profile" is literally their top justification for the supposed belief he was acting on their behalf. Yikes.
IQ tests? Sounds too good to be true.
Yes, why was the title changed to "anti-immigrant" rather than the more accurate "hate speech" that the original article uses?

Facebook previously would allow hate speech(like calling for violence), but take down comments by people talking about sex.
> Is there anything I can't do in Swift?

You can't do nostalgia for the good ol' days in Swift.
Wookienomics