skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This strikes me as a huge issue, which I've also seen:

“I have been told in interviews that they want somebody younger,” said Karen Lamkin, a lawyer with 25 years of experience who lives outside Boston and has been out of work for three years. “It does not matter that I would be satisfied with the salary for a junior position.”

I have seen that many times. Managers will want someone younger. Pay has nothing to do with it. Rather, managers believe that someone younger will be willing to work longer hours, and will also be easier to manipulate.

The unemployment rate would have to go extremely low before businesses began hiring the unwanteds. It is worth noting that in the USA male participation in the economy peaked in the late 1950s, and has since declined. Much of this was racial: blacks were barred from getting good jobs, so they were overly concentrated in textiles and agriculture. Then a combination of automation and outsourcing reduced employment in textiles and agriculture. 60 years later, and the USA has still failed to recover.

How low would unemployment have to be before USA businesses would hire so many men that labor participation rates would go back to the rates of the 1950s? Clearly, the USA would need a long labor shortage before businesses would give up on their biases and hire all of the willing workers.
You’re good. Way too good to be on UpWork
I think you're taking this too literally. For instance, "ending economic inequality would mean ending startups" might be translated into something like: "Implementing policies that marginally reduce economic inequality would marginally reduce incentives to start a startup, and consequently reduce the number of founders that will start a startup in this country ever so slightly".

Sometimes it's easier to understand the consequences of doing something by pointing out extremes. It also makes for better reading, but the price you pay is that some people may think you're an extremist.
Take stuff out of the vault. /s
Jean Piaget's theories are pretty in line with this. In his book "Biology and Knowledge" he sets forth the idea that higher level cognitive abilities are built via the coordination and integration of basic sensory/motor behaviors. The progressive construction of higher level behaviors eventually leads to logico-mathematical thought.

He even did extensive biological experiments to demonstrate that these concepts are valid interpretations of organic biological phenomena and thus reasonably extendable into the domain of cognitive development. It's a shame his work was reduced to the "stages" theory, which really doesn't do justice to his work as a whole.
You could argue the opposite too. If print wasn't changed, a Python tutorial from 10 years ago would have a better chance of working on a modern Python installation.
You are welcome to try to eat and drink through tens of millions of dollars, but I doubt you can do it. Even if you can, there will be a lot of happy waiters and cooks serving you ;)
The article is written by Eric Elliot and literally every one of the ten articles he recommends he wrote himself.. reminds me of the plastic surgeon in the show Workaholics who said "I'm widely considered by myself to be the best plastic surgeon in Rancho Cucamonga"
It seems like there is always a mix of 2 worlds: messaging and queuing, which are not the same job.

Does a proper "queing" project, that is messaging independant exists ? That would open the door to a standardization of the queing semantics and API.

Like, if I want to use crossbar.io (with it's WAMP protocol) for the messaging part, but need task queue, what are my options ?
I'm glad I'm not a manager. Humans are too complex.
The only one that had me stumped for a bit was 'undesirable' but even there it left only one possibility. The rest I didn't even notice, I read what you meant and now that you point them out I see them. Funny thing, the brain.

I have a rule when I write reports: don't send it on the same day. Let it sit for a day and then re-read it, from paper if possible. That's when I spot the typos and the weird sentences. If I proofread right away I just read what I think it should say rather than what it really says. Frustrating!
They did. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but got invaded because the cabal behind the U.S. President had declared they wanted to invade Iraq already during the Clinton administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
He doesn't say anything to indicate that he thinks that wealth must necessarily be globally conserved. He's just saying that at as a matter of fact, the period that saw a rise in inequality did not see a rise in the absolute wealth of the majority. That's a factual claim that's either true or false; it would make no sense to say that it's fallacious.
Strawman Paul Graham's Conversation with the Poor

Man: I am worried about my next meal and seeing my children move up in the world past my station.

Graham: Well I can't relate to that I live in one of the best school districts in the world with some of the country's highest housing prices. My primary concern is what I will choose to eat at Sweetgrass or Chipotle.

Man: The school's in my district can't afford enough desks for students and are using Textbooks from the 90's. If the government was better funded by the taxes of the wealthy it could help to alleviate poverty.

Graham: Are you anti-startup? We have brought you Snapchat: the foremost service to allow upper-middle class teenagers to share pictures of their genitals, and Uber: a taxi substitute that makes it easier to get home after drinking yourself silly at the local gastropub.
We created wealth, don't blame us for fighting tooth and nail to keep from paying our fair share into the government while we benefit from it's protection and services.

Man: I don't use any of those services, in fact I don't even have a phone or Internet services.

Graham: Well that's okay provided you fit into a model I have chosen to explain away the guilt I feel at becoming the thing I vowed to disrupt and change for the better as a young man, let me tell you about The Polynomial Curve. That should make you feel better for not being able to send your daughter to college.
>* I've cut myself on packaging before, definitely. I've probably done it in the past year. I am not 'an idiot'.*

Well, I've cut myself too. That's not the problem.

It's the E.R level injury though that I say implies some incompetence.

And if they have "blood disorders that could prevent blood from clotting", they shouldn't mindlessly be using knives and other sharp objects to open packaging.
I think long walk/run would be better than staring at yet another screen in this case..just my view. I find both running and walking extremely relaxing.
The argument is you do not need a load balancer because performance of one host is good enough. But that would become a single point of failure. And thats why AWS is so awesome. Start with an autoscaling group when you create your ec2 instance, you dont really need alot configuration.
Yeah, that was widely reported in publications spanning the political spectrum (excluding most of the tech press).
This post uses some inflammatory language, but people should really think about what its saying before they flag it. Being rich and connected is extremely likely to be why PG never ended up in jail and went on to create YC and this website.

Consider what other people that get written off by society for being poor or lacking connections or being criminals could have contributed.

A world where nearly everyone is relegated to these groups is increasingly becoming our world. That's why income inequality matters.
I've been using Sidekiq for the past 2 years, and deem it as production ready. It does force you to use Redis and Ruby though.
I like the quip but that's barely an answer given OP avoided Rust specifically. There's a difference between a high-performing language in development (and debugging) vs a high-performing language with over a decade of work into its tooling and support. The latter's strengths and weaknesses are known through and through with many implementation and library problems likely worked out long ago.

So, if it was apples to apples, I'd probably cite Ada, Eiffel, Modula-3, or Component Pascal as the closest to C++ in terms of performance and key features while being safer and more readable. Each has had years of work, support from commercial sector (except Modula-3 now), and programs tend to work more than break after a compile.

That said, your Rust work is exciting and I hope it gets in that same category. It's just so new and evolving that its not in C++'s class in terms of risk or predictability. Not yet.
Work: 1 to 2 per week

Vacation with family: 4 to 5 per week

Other: zero to x per week

Total: 50 per year
On this topic, I like Joel Spolsky's essay about Software Inventory: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2012/07/09.html

He provides some suggestions on improvements.
Why Death Doesn’t Take a Holiday This Time of Year
A world where nobody drives over the speed limit
But std::string is a wrapper for a heap allocation, and a reference also incurs the same indirection cost as a pointer?
"A physicist who chose physics over Wall Street in 1990 was making a sacrifice that a physicist in 1960 wasn't."

The trouble is the proportion of those who have the highest technological leverage and are engaged in rent-seeking rather than wealth creation. The 1960s physicist was creating wealth they couldn't capture, while the 1990s physicist was capturing wealth they didn't create. If physicists (and other Ivey grads) all only chose wealth-creation, we'd see far less inequality (at least outside the Bay Area). The trouble is the pull of the largely zero-sum (or negative-sum) world of finance, which more than startups has increased the pressure to "make your fortune". Inequality begets more inequality, because when half my cohort is suddenly making 10x more than me, there are real consequences to my own social, personal, and civic life.

This is all on top of the relatively novel wealth imperative introduced by the progress of biotech. It used to be that, beyond a certain point, money only really conferred social status (and even then, only within a certain peer group): if I don't care about status within that particular group, then why should I care about making more than (say) $200k/year? Except now, with the rapid development of fancy unaffordable therapies and med-tech devices, having an extra 10 million $ lying around can have a much larger impact on quality of life than it did even a couple decades ago. And then there's the significant (if small) possibility that, if Kurzweil + co. end up being right, a bit more wealth might mean being able to "live long enough to live forever".

Current tax policy is heavily skewed in favor of the already wealthy, and wealth inequality is currently orders of magnitude worse than income inequality. So rather than just asking everyone to get comfortable with it, why not do something to actually address it? We need to make significant adjustments to (a) strongly discourage rent-seeking, (b) encourage those with the highest technological leverage to make the most of their talents, knowledge, and access, and (c) greatly increase everyone's ability to create, capture, and save wealth.
That's a fine argument, and now that we are no longer making the claim that my proposed approach is immoral on the face of it, we can have a reasonable discussion. :)

I think you're totally right that this motivates public ownership (or at least Larry Page selling his company to other private owners, once his shares are worth $500M), and that this doesn't seem to be usefully doing anything productive for economic inequality.

I also think that there's no guarantee that Page or Ford will, in fact, decide to prioritize something other than shareholder value. In fact the argument for allowing them to make profits from the company seems to rest on the argument that they should value shareholder value. An alternative approach would be, once the CEO's shares are worth $500M, they should start to increase salaries or issue shares to their employees or donate to charity or something, such that their personal ownership interest remains valued at $500M but they retain creative control (which they wouldn't if they let it go public). But we're assuming they won't choose to do that, and that selling their shares is more valuable to them.

And there's no particular need for this change (which is extremely disruptive) to be the only change to society. What if we rework the assumption that a publicly-traded company needs to maximize shareholder value at the expense of employee welfare? What if there was a rule that, say, any publicly-traded company needs to at least start with majority employee ownership? Or union ownership?

These are probably also terrible ideas, but my claim here is that we don't have to accept that the world as it is is optimal. There may be fairly fundamental changes we can make to our assumptions that result in a better place.
So you are arguing in favor of exactly the "straw man" that PG is arguing against?

Thats totally fine. There are a lot of reasonable arguments for that (as you have just demonstrated!).

But my point is that PG is not arguing against an imaginary viewpoint. You believe it right here.
Sum to 0 if probabilities are nonnegative scalars seem to be cumbersome. If probabilities are mathematical entities that are free to choose, the sum to 0 "can be played" by quite a few abelian groups.

I think it's especially important to be able to make a distinction between truth and falsehood however. If they are both 0, this is difficult. :-)
Amen, brother.

It's odd to me that people assume that just because you've got a small business you won't jump at a market opportunity that could lead to something bigger...even Apple at one point was just a few folks selling stuffed PCBs and doing drugs.
"If you look around and everything is on fire and your application seems to be about to collapse into the sea AND you produce a graph like this from your tracker, it's a sign of a real problem that needs to be dealt with right away."

Would be a clear indication that this isn't the heathy version that you describe but rather the unhealthy version the author suggests.

At some point your bug tracker becomes noise and you just never deal with it. I have seen it happen, and cleaning it up is a whole separate set of pain.
You get people to accept the truth that characters have a variable length in bytes.

Then you offer a data structure that lets you perform O(1) or O(logn) operations on sequences of single-character strings.

If it's read-only you could make it just be an index, blah blah the details don't matter a lot, the point is you can make something that's both correct to grapheme clusters and probably more space-efficient than UTF-32 despite the extra data.

And then the encoding inside the character strings isn't particularly important, but might as well use UTF-8.

-

Either that or make yourself a hilariously inefficient format based on:

UAX15-D3. Stream-Safe Text Format: A Unicode string is said to be in Stream-Safe Text Format if it would not contain any sequences of non-starters longer than 30 characters in length when normalized to NFKD.

Who's with me on 128-byte characters.
Multiple studies have shown that startups are dying in the USA. The great era of startups in the USA was in the mid 20th Century. At least since the 1970s, new business formation has been dying:

http://econweb.umd.edu/~haltiwan/dhjm_jep_5_17_2013.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/...

Here is the abstract of that last study:

"Business dynamism is the process by which firms continually are born, fail, expand, and contract, as some jobs are created, others are destroyed, and others still are turned over. Research has firmly established that this dynamic process is vital to productivity and sustained economic growth. Entrepreneurs play a critical role in this process, and in net job creation. But recent research shows that dynamism is slowing down. Business churning and new firm formations have been on a persistent decline during the last few decades, and the pace of net job creation has been subdued. This decline has been documented across a broad range of sectors in the U.S. economy, even in
high-tech."

And here is the start of the first:

"The pace of business dynamism in the U.S. has declined over recent decades. The decline in business dynamism is evident in a pronounced declining trend in the pace of both gross job creation and gross job destruction. An important component of these declining trends has been the decline in the firm startup rate. The decline in the startup rate has yielded a significant decline in the share of employment accounted for by young firms – this share has declined by almost 30 percent over the last 30 years. "

And please, please, please note that a country can have an incredibly dynamic, innovative industry, but that nation can still be in long-term decline. See here for details:

http://www.smashcompany.com/business/if-the-usa-is-the-most-...
That's ability, not opportunity. (Ability is what you can do, whereas opportunity relates to markets, regulation, social capital, etc.)

My argument is that everyone has the same 15 or 20 basic human needs, and increasingly each of those needs is being met by two or three global corporations, as opposed to two or three local or national companies. Which means that even if you as the individual are more talented or whatever, there is actually less opportunity to use those talents to fulfill human needs at scale in a profitable way. That's why such a large percentage of employees today work low wage jobs in the service industry, as opposed to physical/digital manufacturing.

And network effects are only one way in which technology has decreased opportunity. Another is environmental degradation. E.g. 300 years ago anyone in manhattan could feed themselves just being sticking their arm in the Hudson river. But now all 100% of those (edible) fish are gone, and all the profits that were made from dumping industrial chemicals into the river have been privatized by the wealthy.

A third way is legal regulation. Every time a new technology comes onto the market the government has to regulate, which often shuts out everyone except the super wealthy from competing. (Want to start a cell phone company? Good luck with that.)

There are more one-in-a-million lottery ticket opportunities than ever before. But for the average person, there is actually much less opportunity for them to be successful. And not just less wealthy relative to the rich because the rich can gather sticks faster or whatever, but less wealthy on an absolute scale because there are no sticks left to gather.

It's nice to talk about making furniture and fixing up cars or whatever, but I think the number of fortunes that have actually been created by making wealth without externalizing massive costs onto the poor and middle class are probably few and far between.
The so-called Dutch Sandwich exists because the United States is the only country in the world to practice worldwide-basis taxation. In any other country, that income would not be taxable at all. Which is not to say that there are no issues with correctly attributing corporate income to the countries in which it occurs, but figuring out which governments are entitled to which corporate income is a fantastically complicated question without clear answers. It's certainly not obviously the case that the United States government deserves a share.
The New York times has been very sexist for as long as I can recall. If you have any doubts, search Google against New York Times on general terms like men, women - see a trend of extreme sexism? It's hard to miss.

As has been pointed out by many other posters, there is no difference in the figures of unemployment for older men/women.

I honestly believe society is far more sexist today than it has ever been in at least 50 years. In my lifetime, no one would ever do a code.org by saying on the front page that (only) girls are welcome, or in Australia, we now have minimum quotas for police based on gender.. They must hire women regardless of who applies or their experience.

The sexism and misrepresentation of this article should not be a surprise to any intelligent person.
I don't get your logic, that it's okay to go into debt for a boat but not your education, an investment in your future earning potential.

The problem with education loans is that they're not real loans. The government gives them distortionary financing that inflates tuition. Everytime the government raises the max loan amount, tuitions rise to match it. The college bureaucracies grow to match revenue. It's the same that happens with any bureaucracy that gets unearned money.

Everyone should pay the full price of their college education, either up front or in the future. That's the best way to keep college affordable.

Free markets work, why is there this presumption against them?
Like bill gates you mean?
What is a week other than work or vacation? Those account for all days of the year, by tautology if nothing else. (except for the unemployed, I suppose, but him being retired I would think it's impossible to be unemployed).
I'm skeptical. So long as the lots of the poor keeps improving (which it has- nearly nobody lives in single room dirt floor log cabins anymore. Thank you Progress, thank you Technology) it seems unlikely that hordes people's lives suck so much they wouldn't mind dying in revolution- even if the rich continue to get richer.

The righteous indignation option (ala Taxation without Representation- the instigators of the American Revolution were all well-off, not economically miserable) could come to pass if the top echelons continue to tighten their grip on the country, but that doesn't automatically come with inequality... hmm.
Drop me a line, my email is in my profile, or you can find it all over the course on Udemy
There's perfect.org that came out in Nov 2015.
The same is true in the Netherlands, customers can return something within 14 days (in fact I think they only have to initiate a return within 14 days, the retailer may not receive it for a while). The retailer is not required to pay for return shipping, or to refund the initial shipping costs. Many retailers do, however.

Recently I've been buying one of the most likely-to-return things I regularly purchase (running shoes) online. Two out of four have been returned, and the seller (Zalando) reimburses shipping costs and pays for return shipment. Hopefully the have negotiated some nice rates with the post office...
I wonder why the choice of language is framed as being between C++ and Ruby/Python? Yes, C++ is known for being fast while suffering from a shortage of easy libraries and being more verbose to write and intellectually challenging to write in, while the mainstream dynamic languages are known for being not so fast but having a vast array of handy, easy to integrate libraries and being fast to develop in. But I think there's a number of choices between the two that seem worth considering.

C#/.NET doesn't get a lot of love from the startup community, but it's mature, stable, fast, full of advanced features, and has good library support.

Java and other JVM languages have similar advantages and better compatibility with Unix-based OSes. Java itself is a little long in the tooth, but there is the option of alternate JVM languages.

I'd probably be most tempted to check out Go if I was working on something that absolutely had to wring the best possible performance out of my hardware. I don't honestly know that much about it, but it has a reputation for getting you most of the performance of C++ without the complexity.

But I will say that if the author has lots of experience in C++ and comfort with the ecosystem, and not much in any of those other languages, then by all means go with C++. Getting your product out there is more important than getting the perfect language.