skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As a child I wrote "English" as my nationality on a form at school and I was told to redo it as there was no such nation - I was British. It was quite confusing as we cheered for the English cricket team, English football team and English Rugby Union team, although strangely Great Britain Rugby League in those days. But, soaked in privilege as I was it didn't bother me that much, but it is a problem.

An English national identity would necessarily destroy the United Kingdom, but if the United Kingdom is destroyed anyway then an English national identity will become a fact.

What would / should that identity be ? At the moment mad right wing groups and a confection of The Guardian / The BBC (amusingly) && The NHS seem to be the front running candidates. It's clear what anyone sane would prefer (hint : not the mad racists driving us down a path to blood and fire) but I do not think that The Guardian/BBC/NHS mashup is likely to provide a robust enough program to see through a decade in the modern world. Things like that can come unzipped quick.

Maybe a pseudo Thatcherite semi authoritarian ship steered by the centre right? I have doubts...

My point is that there is limited debate and discussion, just a lot of rather wishful thinking, and this may leave a vacuum which will get filled by something rather unpleasant and rather difficult to dislodge. I hope I am wrong and TG/BBC/NHS does become the national identity, while this kind of thing can come apart rapidly they can also prove surprisingly resilient - Catholicism is a rather similar set of institutions abet with a radically different world view, but I worry.

Cup of tea time.
In their paper they mention that they only did the verbal reasoning part. I'm pretty sure an AI algorithm that solves all three parts ( logic questions, mathematical questions and verbal reasoning) without some hard coded heuristics for the mathematical and logic part doesn't exist just yet.
What kind of training was this, can I look it up? Or perhaps the training isn't available, but it's derived from somekind of methodology. In that case, what methodology was it?
At one point I worked on a large, complex, and legacy code base averaging less than 1 bug per year without a debugger. Granted, now days you can take the debugger from my cold dead hands, but I also don't really understand the code nearly as well.
Beautiful! Things like this are one of the upsides of the proliferation of cheap cameras - rare sights that would previously go unreported or disbelieved can be easily captured. (Though it's not doing wonders for my holdout belief in Bigfoot.)

Science question here: what's the slit between the squid's mantle (upper body) and the eye? Is that an injury?
I'm sure that neither GCHQ or the Security Service would dream of directly spying on their political masters - the NSA will be doing it and they'll get to share some of the results.
> My opinion now is that websockets are an all-or-nothing proposition.

Interesting. Why? Why can't you get some not-so-realtime data via a classic REST API?
People quickly learn that it's better.
Guess what, when you insist on doing only useless work, people start to think your work is useless.

Humanities are incredibly important. I'd kill for somebody to help me communicate better at my undergrad, or understand people better, or any deep understanding of politics. Was any of that available? Of course not. There were only boring lessons, full of useless bullshit with professors claiming even objectively false facts. I'd think half the professors at the humanities dept were politically naiver than me at the time, today I think I underestimated it. (Oh, yes, I got some nice lectures about geography at the biology dept - go figure.)

Now the writing is on the wall, humanities "uselessness" is almost unanimous. That's a shame, but maybe that causes things to change for once.
In my experience and understanding, investors (almost) always get preferred shares with a liquidation preference. So unless you know what the preferences are, any such calculations are completely bogus. But even if you know them (and note that full cap tables are not commonly shared with employees in my experience) such calculations are still mostly bogus, because:

* You don't know what the preferences of future rounds will be. Your founders may say that they will never go above 1x or whatever, but the company may enter difficult waters and be forced to accept less beneficial terms.

* If you hold common shares in the presence of preferred shares with a liquidation preference, the payout function at acquisition/IPO will depend non-linearly on the selling price. There are steps and there will be a price below you will be 100% wiped out. So the incentives are not aligned. Preferred normally has all the voting rights, and for them 5% more or less on the acquisition price might not be a deal breaker. For for the common, 5% may be the difference between a nice down payment on a home or a 100% wipe out.

Based on this I would always negotiate a market rate salary at a startup company and value the options at $0, with 4 exceptions:

* You're offered to be a co-founder or one of the very first employee (< 3), with significant (~5%) equity. This is a risk that I personally might take.

* You're joining a late stage company and based on your industry knowledge you expect the company will do a successful IPO within 12 months. In essence you become a late stage investor in this scenario and your investment is your time.

* You're not in it for the money but instead want to change the world (and you don't mind someone else will make money based on your work if successful). For me personally a company like SpaceX could be in this category.

* You "trust" the founders to have your back and make sure your efforts will be rewarded whatever happens. This is a thin justification, but I could imagine doing it if you have been in business with the same team of founders for multiple times already.
>The end of this market in the much longer term seems to be self driving cars and some form of shared ownership. I could see premium ride sharing clubs where you pay more to ride in an Audi or something with common ride sharing clubs where you ride in a van. It is this much longer term that I see Uber having more potential competition.

I see it looking much like air travel today. Some will opt for fractional/full ownership like netjets and the like, but most commoners will simply pay-as-you go. I hope it evolves like travel by horse with the endpoint being only the very rich will be able to own their own car and there will be restrictions keeping them off important travel arteries because they would be relatively slow, stupid, and dangerous.
Almost certainly community members flagging the question caused it to sink faster than it would with ordinary gravity.
I didn't mean "elite" as a slight, but rather as a generalization of those that are speaking out against a service that they will likely never use. It's as though I find something distasteful and I don't personally benefit from it so I favor banning it. It is no cost to me since I don't personally benefit from the product or service. This type of attitude leads to the social acceptance of a lot of censorship (e.g. vulgar material, I have nothing to hide, etc).

I believe the keen interest lies with those that are going to potentially use the service. These "elites" don't know the people that could potentially use this service. They don't know their values, their circumstances, or anything about them. It is presumptuous to think that those outside groups somehow know whats best and can choose for those being forced to forgo the service what sacrifice they should make for their ideals
..but let's not overlook the fact that standardized tests aren't exactly stellar at determining "intelligence". I've had tests that allowed all manners of resources to be used during the test and it was still a difficult test.
Unfortunately, not telling people the total number of shares outstanding is more common than it should be (10% of companies? heavily weighted toward the crappy ones, but some decent ones, including at least one of the top YC investments).

This is probably something which should be fixed by regulation.
Neat. This set me off on a search of what people are doing with automated Lego brick recognition and sorting. Apparently it is a diverse field with no solid solutions yet, as predictably, the 3D image recognition challenge is the largest. It is pretty cool to see someone's solution that involves building the robotics side of their solution entirely out of Mindstorms NXT parts [1].

[1] http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/8580-a-...
I don't think WebSockets belong on a website (even an interactive one as discourse...

From the article "Discourse does not use WebSockets. Discourse docker ships with HTTP/2 templates."

The whole article is worth reading. It looks like the author is well aware the WebSockets limitations.
Holding public officials accountable with Twitter and Politwoops
Launch.
This looks very interesting. Is there somewhere to see this in action?
I've probably had some 50 nodes with Linode over the last 7ish years. Until about 2 years ago I would enthusiastically recommend them to anyone who would listen, but I've found the service has slipped massivel over the last couple of years and now we're trying to migrate people away. We have about 10 nodes left now and blips of lost connectivity and hardware failures are common unfortunately, and the feeling I get from their support team is that this is just to be expected now.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, having a hard time interpreting your tone. I agree though, shooting at looters to scare them off would be an overreaction, and I was raised to never point a gun at a human (or animal) unless you intend to shoot them.

What I remember is my dad, with his shotgun in a pocket/cradle position (muzzle pointed at the sky, a common field carry), going out to talk to people rummaging through the debris in our back yard, collecting tools and supplies blown out of our barn/toolshed, i.e., pretending to be reclaiming their stuff but actually stealing ours.

The normal protocol in that situation is to knock on the door and ask the owner's permission to reclaim your stuff, show them what you think is yours, etc. If somebody is violating that protocol, I think it's okay to take a defensive posture with them. Shooting at them or running out with your gun pointed at them would be a ridiculous overreaction and terribly unsafe.

The rules of engagement are similar. You still want to practice de-escalation techniques. You don't know if one of those boys in your yard (I remember mostly groups of 2-3 older teenagers doing this looting) is carrying a weapon. You don't run out guns blazing, shouting "get off my lawn." You walk out calmly and ask if you can help them find something. You're just trying to communicate that somebody lives here, we see that you appear to be stealing our property, and we have the means to defend our property if necessary. So move along – or explain what you're doing here.

The "or explain yourself" part is important too. It's central to my whole argument really. You don't know somebody's intentions just from looking at them. I remember one incident where a guy was looking for some tarps to cover a big hole in his roof. He appeared to be some rascal taking our shit – and he was, kind of – but it was more like somebody digging through your garbage for scraps to feed his family. So my dad came in and got me, and we spent the next hour pulling some of the plywood off our windows and helping him strap it (precariously) to the back of his ATV.

The difference between interacting with suspected looters and interacting with cops is that cops are agents of the state. If a cop feels threatened, he can give you a lawful order to lie on the ground, surrender your weapon, etc., and if you disobey, you're breaking the law. Now, exactly what constitutes a lawful order versus a "request" is debatable and depends on the situation, but I doubt there's a judge or jury in the US who would question the cop saying he felt legitimately threatened if you draw your weapon or point it at them.
You are a lot more likely to just get conversion from ISO to NSO and 7-10 year window for exercise, than either of these (which I've never seen).

You could also get early exercise. That, personally, is what matters the most to me in a company with common valuation <$100mm. I have very very little interest in holding options; shares (either directly via grant, or via early exercise), or RSUs (which are even flimsier than options, but at least come in public companies.)
The Bizarre Story of the Girl with No Vagina Who Was Stabbed and Had a Baby
How do you make sense of that media without already knowing the language?

I can see reading such media to improve fluency to be sure, but I can't see how a sufficient amount of listening to foreign gibberish somehow makes it not-gibberish.

I tried this for learning Japanese while I was an anime fan in high school, and after taking classes in college I could understand every 10th word or so. I was a C student in those classes, so it's possible I just suck at Japanese. Is German easier to do this with?
What would you have done differently if you had known at that point what you know now?
In addition to the # of outstanding shares, you want the valuation, the # of preferred shares, their liquidation preferences and multiples, and a couple more things I'm probably forgetting.

You can never get this information even as an employee. You ask directly, and nothing. They don't want to give it to you.

Your company could be sold for 100's of millions, paying off the investors at 2x investment, and the common stock holders get nothing.
don't be naive, people that rich don't need to stay in one place, and especially don't have to claim residence in any one place.
We've used rebrickable since early 2014 I believe, it is unbelievably useful. We keep our full inventory on the site, and it's really convenient to be able to see how close you are to having the retail sets as well. The guy who built the site (someotheridiot) used to be fairly active here, he built it originally as an exercise in Postgres if I recall correctly. He even has an API for the site.
Previously on Hacker News:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812412 (19 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10806982 (6 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10812342
> Well, I just think its a little classist to have these elite Indians decide what free service should or should not be allowed to be provided to poor Indians.

And it's not internet colonialism for Facebook to swoop down, decide what Indians need, and take over their internet?

In fact, I've seen many well informed arguments from the so-called "elites" with numbers about internet adoption and _why_ the Internet isn't used much in India. I've seen none of this from Facebook; which has just assumed that India is full of clueless poor people.

For example, if you look at the costs of mobile data in India, the cost of a smartphone that supports the modern web (enough for sites like, say, Facebook to be usable) is more than the cost of data for a year or two. Most of the people Free Basics "helped" already were able to get internet. Folks are jumping onto it because it's free (and "free" has its own charm "If it's free, why not?"). There may also be people who already had internet switching to the free thing since they mostly use Facebook/Whatsapp/etc.

And given that Facebook isn't even paying for the data, what's it's role here? Some infrastructure (which is unnecessary in the alternate net neutral free internet models -- the infrastructure is only to make "internet.org" work), and some outreach.

You see a bunch of elites pushing back a philanthrophic company trying to help the poor. We see a company deviously inserting itself in the midst of something our telecom operators could have made work on their own, and structuring it in a dangerous way so that it is highly benefited.

(On a side note, a lot of students who came from poverty are on the side of the "elites", but this is anecdotal)

> the sacrifice that the poor will make (by forgoing this service) to serve their ideal (net neutrality)

I already said that there are net neutral ways of doing the same thing. It's not a sacrifice. You're making the same non sequitur the article says that Zuckerberg is -- saying no to Free Basics is not the same as saying no to.

net neutrality isn't even the only ideal involved here. Privacy is. You know, that thing the West is so crazy about right now? Free Basics is structured as a massive MITM. Facebook is in the business of data, and we can't trust them to not exploit the MITM.

Are you going to tell us to ignore this -- the same thing the West is so crazy about -- because it helps the poor? Even though, I reiterate, there are multiple models which have worked which provide internet to the poor without any of this crap? You're asking us to roll over and accept whatever we get because poor people. If you're from the West (many of the folks making this kind of argument are), that's way more elitist.

> want to provide a more competitive service you are free to do so

The internet, as Zuck himself is saying, is a public good and need. You don't unleash full market forces on those; capitalism can be harsh on them. An example is what's happened to the cost of higher education in the US.
It's a little trickier these days because Lego sets now consist of a high percentage of "custom" bricks, not the basic core building blocks we're used to. Also, as mentioned by another, building from plans can be really fun, too.
There are so many different ways of delineating the "Highlands" that I'm not sure how you would draw a single boundary that includes the political, cultural, historical and geographical boundaries.

NB When you say "Highland Line" I think of the rail line, then maybe the Highland Boundary Fault....
Evil business is often sustained by some form of government subsidies. Examples abound in education, healthcare, finance, etc.
You're getting a lot of suggestions about how to ensure that you'll read the content eventually, but I'd like to offer the suggestion that you shouldn't read it at all. I can't speak to how busy you are, but if you can't make the time in two years, that says to me that this is something you really don't want to do at all.
So, when computing power increases, we just add useless parsing at every level of software, decreasing performance and causing bugs like these.
> But why do you not want poor people to have Internet?

You're making the exact same fallacy the article says Zuck makes. Free Basics is not the only solution, there are other solutions out there which don't need Facebook's involvement, which could and should be implemented. Opposing Free Basics is not opposing free internet. Get rid of that strawman.
They are paying for a piece of paper, with their name written on it.
You didn't have to name the company.
The UK has some "befriending circles" where people befriend offenders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031625.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8611279.stm
IQ tests may be designed to measure g, but that doesn't mean they actually do. The best thing we can hope for is that a test correlates with g. But for every finite test it will be possible to find an algorithm that will produce high marks without requiring general intelligence. In the specific case outlined in the article it's clear that they only found a method to answer a very specific type of test.

(And all that's assuming something like g even exists.)
I make somewhere around ~150k and feel like people in my income bracket should pay more taxes. I absolutely have no sympathy for a household making $1M "only" keeping $0.47 of ever additional dollar.

And yes. I could write a check to the IRS, but it isn't about my $2000, it's about the cumulative revenue from taxing everyone in and above my income more.
Physiological Changes in Klingons Between Star Trek TOS and Star Trek TNG
Simulating DNA with supercomputers
> I had respect for Zuckerberg, have lost it completely.

Do you mind if I ask why? Zuckerberg is perhaps alone among tech figures in that I've never really had any respect for. Hell, Steve Jobs was a pretty scummy guy, to users/competitors/partners/everyone, and yet I still have more respect for him. Zuckerberg's attitude towards the user has been pretty consistently shitty going all the way back to the very beginning of the "thefacebook" service ("they trust me -- dumb fucks"). The guy's as cynical as they come.
Perhaps issue a interest bearing senior bond to the employee in return for services rendered?
With the massive escalation in fees, and the ubiquity of phones, with instant access to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and more, do you really think things haven't changed?
creative process of interpretation

That is simply not true, and I suspect most biblical theists would brand you a heretic. The Bible is a very specific text with a specific content. It simply does not permit an infinite succession of creative interpretations: not for the purposes of believing those interpretations to be the meaning, let alone to be true.

doesn't have the same goals as science at all

It absolutely has some goals aligned with those of science: providing an explanation of the world (where it all came from). In fact, religion is basically an outdated form of science.

Science doesn't have the goal of dictating how you should live (morals aren't facts), and doesn't provide hopes regarding anything beyond death (life after death conjectures have never been verified).

neither would help the discipline

Publishing results is what distinguishes a discipline.
In all honesty this writer sounds utterly curmudgeonly. He writes passionately about what "real education" is, dispenses some good ol' Hard Facts About Life, and urges us all to put down those dang computer-devices and just learn! This is classic finger-pointing, angsty whining.

I'm sorry, but the conceit here flagrantly disregards modern reality. Learning is easier now than it's ever been. People don't need to give undivided attention to professors anymore. Kids today can listen with one ear, read with one eye... Do their research with one tab and chat on Facebook with another. The education system in generally feels like an industry that is just barely stepping into a technological age in terms of format, expectations, and content.

I don't think young people need to force themselves to regress to the antique stylings of almost all Universities, I think Universities need to realize their systems do not suit young people. And that's their fault.
The lecture part of college in many cases is the least valuable part of the experience. Adding something to your lecture more meaningful that can be gleamed from the book or the completion of home work is nontrivial, and many schools can't afford the rare talent that and provide research and a strong teaching presence. The students are, and have always even in the "good old days", paying for certification, the network, and the time to get a foothold in the world.
Can anyone justify the down-voting here?
Sure, it mainly depends on the data size whether embedding makes sense. For instance I've written an 8-bit emulator recently where all available software ever written for the original machine is under one MB. In this case it definitely makes sense to embed the data into the application executable. It doesn't make sense if the data is dozens or hundreds of megabytes big, and especially if only a small chunk of the data is needed at any one time.

I don't quite agree that the 'finding the data' problem is trivial. You can't just do an fopen("mydata.txt", "r") and expect it to work for different platforms and different launch methods, especially when launched through a desktop environment instead of the command line. There's always some platform-specific code involved to get the data's absolute location, on some platforms it's more complicated than on others.
I had pretty much the same situation. I think you handled it exactly right.