skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How do you know what is and isn't following standard medical procedure? Are you a licensed doctor?

Let's say that out of bad luck, 0.5% of patients getting their wisdom teeth out lose all sensation in their jaw for the rest of their life. But if your dentist doesn't follow the standard procedure, there is a 30% chance of that.

You get your wisdom teeth out, and you lose all sensation in your jaw for the rest of your life. How do you determine if standard procedure was followed or not?
Oh My,

The last time south korea's govt wanted to fuk some shit up. they destroyed the British shipping industry and took over the global electronics industry.

Silicon Valley's VC money is nothing compared to what a nation state can achieve.
To your second point, Joe Biden's former economic adviser wrote an op-ed in the Times [0] to this effect; that free trade is hardly free.

"… various countries with whom we compete have historically managed their currencies to gain a price advantage (i.e., they keep their currency low to boost their exports to us and suppress ours to them), and this has long been a source of our persistently large trade deficits."

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-tr...
To me, TDD means:

1. No functionality is coded without a failing test.

2. Only code the minimum functionality to make the test pass.

It does not mean 'test more' or 'write tests'.

So I'm not sure more than 10% of this 'defence' bolsters the method at all. Seems like the normal rhetorical bait and switch - you pretend that your opponent is criticising testing and respond by defending some more or less vague notion of tests, with no substantive defence of TDD beyond "you didn't try hard enough." The example of the pacemaker, for example, has no relevance to TDD whatsoever.
Remember Google Glass. Google is worried about public rejection of uncanny valley scary robotic/AI.
That could undermine acceptance of its AI projects.
Important to note there is that employer provided health care (that non-wage compensation thats supposed to be making up for stagnate wages) has been falling for the last 20 years.
rodb is in-house, non-FOSS tech @ Amazon.
N-Track Studio 8.0 Full Patch and Keygen Latest Free Download
At no point in my statement did I echo Trumpism or political rhetoric. I was speaking generally about things that are rarely included in the "free trade is great" line of thought.

You are absolutely correct that every country has the right to set their laws and operate as they see fit. However, their trading partners have the right to consider the implications of those policies on their own objectives.

I have no interest in changing anything. My opinion is that when someone says "economists nearly universally agree on X", I generally think the best course of action is to lift up one's feet to avoid stepping in bullshit.

EDIT: Changed a word.
I know a couple of people who have worked for Adobe. I can't offer anything super insightful but they both liked it there. It isn't "glamorous" like Facebook, Google, etc. It sounded just like most other big IT companies. They were both working on the transition from a boxed product to their cloud platform so not the core products (Photoshop, etc.) but more the back-end platforms.

Do you know what you will be working on?
> You have very little of that in China + some other countries and that is their appeal.

China is busy building stuff that no one will use, it's the equivalent of paper-shuffling and is quite literally the product of a giant stimulus plan by the state:

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/kai-caemmerer-unborn-cities/
Minimalist try/catch wrapper for js
Ask HN: How common are stock bonuses/grants at publicly-traded firms?
This practice is very common at GOOG, FB, and AMZN, but what about publicly traded companies in general? Does this happen at banks, and other more traditional firms, etc.? Or is this more of a tech/silicon valley thing?
How would things fall apart, exactly? On my home machine I browse with NoScript turned on by default, and it's rare that I find a site which is broken badly enough to notice which I still care about strongly enough that I bother clicking "allow". I don't think that most of what people do with JavaScript in the browser needs to be done at all if you filter the motivations of investors and advertisers out of the picture.
Kindle PaperWhite! Though reading a book has it's own charm, at this point of time the books that i want to read, paperwhite is just fine.
Are those the same people that make assertions based on observations & models lacking legitimate control groups?

You seem to be discussing climate scientists, actually. I guess the NYT shouldn't take their consensus seriously either?

However, if they dont account for currency manipulation, tax loopholes, and labour safety standards, I think those same economists lose a lot of credibility clinging to this fantasy that free trade as we know it is actually free.

Yes they do. Currency manipulation is well understood - it's a country giving things away to other countries. I don't know what you mean by "tax loopholes".

Labor safety standards are also well understood by economists. Here's one article on the topic: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JobSafety.html

Economists are also well aware that trade is far from free. For example, Bryan Caplan is a famous advocate of increasing free trade in labor (via open borders). There is a general economic consensus that occupational licensing, as practiced in the US, is exceedingly harmful:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensin...

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden...

https://www.nber.org/chapters/c0601.pdf
A simpler case is a scalajs app depending on commonjs modules, I think this should be possible? One problem is that a commonjs module depends on other commonjs modules, so maybe it becomes all or nothing
Talos was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11132459
I'm foremost an American, and I'm enthusiastically for free trade agreements. The US government is looking out for its citizens, who on the whole will benefit greatly even if particular factory workers suffer.

(Also very happy that the rest of the world benefits, and not a little selfishly. I don't think people have a good conception of just how incredible life will be in a world economy where the average Chinese or Indian worker produces and earns as much as the average American worker today.)
It seems that a lot f the issues the author has they can fix by moving over to OpenBSD. I'd be curious to hear what makes them stick with FreeBSD instead considering the complaint.
> Google, a company whose motto is, still, do no evil.

Seems to have been changed to "Do the right thing" to some extent when they changed to Alphabet [1].

Interestingly enough, I think that restructure also helps obfuscate where Google products are used. It's unlikely that any military robots would be Google branded. Instead they would probably fall under a relatively obscure Alphabet company that the average person would never relate back to Google.

---

[1] http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/02/alphabet-do-the-right-thi...
I sort of agree, but "free trade" and "anthropogenic climate change" are very different kinds of things.

Climate change is not a policy whereas free trade is.

A better analogy would be between "free trade" and "carbon taxes" or "free trade" and "renewable subsidies."

Polling "experts" on policy issues is a different beast than polling them on scienfitific issues.
Since the data was just anecdotes, how did you determine that you were at the low end, compared to what parent comment pointed out - that people self report high?
Can you even downvote root items, i.e. topics? I have 500+, and I can't.
They're spending less than a billion. Google/Alphabet is surely spending more than that.
> Is it because the author doesn’t trust `pkg` to do the auditing job safely as root?

Even if one asks the question and arrives at "yes, I trust this program", there is value in eliminating the question itself.
There are a couple of us here in the weird position of being senior enough that companies don't recruit for us through normal recruiters.

On the one hand, that screws up the usual "don't give a number" advice, including this advice -- there's usually not a defined salary range for a startup's catchall "we want somebody who does backend" poorly-defined job req.

On the other hand, I suspect "don't give a number" isn't the biggest mismatch happening there.
Globalisation is not as inevitable as you make out, and it is not at all clear it is for the greater good. What does the greater good even mean in this case? Globalisation is definitely good for the holders of capital, because they can move it wherever it gives the best return.

If you study the history of free trade (See [1] as an excellent introduction), countries in the past had a lot of policy options available to them to protect and develop their economy/industries. As neoliberalism has become the dominant economic paradigm (i.e. cargo-cult) a lot of the past has been forgotten, and neoliberals will have you believe that the rich countries all got rich following neoliberal policies. This is most definitely not the case. Capital controls, tariff protection and government subsidy are vital tools for protecting infant industries and AND protecting your economy from mercantalists.

It is interesting to hear from Americans in this thread, as I would describe the US approach to free trade as somewhat pragmatic. In contrast, Australia is has an extremely ideological pro-free-trade policy position. We do not subsidise agriculture, or car manufacturing, have low tariffs and almost no capital controls. This approach, amongst other policy decisions, has not left us with a robust or diverse economy. In contrast, the US fights hard in trade negotiations to protect its domestic agricultural markets, defense and intellectual property industries, whereas Australia will sign everything away for the faintest promise of maybe some possibly freer access to US sugar markets (see TPP negotiations) which will probably never happen since the US will find a way to keep us out.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1032019.Bad_Samaritans
On the other hand, it might help their efforts of making people skeptical of the big bad Singularity in which AIs make us their pets. But maybe commercial interests superceded their Singularity misgivings.
It could be a problem at companies where salaries are under an NDA. If the companies find out you broke the NDA you could get fired. I'm pretty sure my company has such a clause.
IMO the principal advantage commercial RDBMS platforms have over the open source ones is query parallism [0], which can be a big advantage for certain query workloads.

Postgres and others are working on solutions for this, and I find more shops look for alternative solutions instead of paying for Oracle licenses.

[0] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution
If an engineer or physicist says they believe something about their field (not at the cutting edge) I tend to believe that they are right but economists, however smart and honest they might be, don't have the luxury of performing experiments so many of their pronouncements are either mere opinions or are arguments from first principles unsullied by attempts at verification.
Sure, although my heuristic for trying new Software methodology tends to be "does it make things simpler?". That article made my head hurt...
During the pilot, if you receive an older battery you can take your car to a Tesla service center and they'll replace it with a new one.
That's not their motto anymore, now it's "Do the right thing" which is more ambiguous in my opinion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil#The_End_of_.22...
How to Use Twitter for Affiliate Marketing
> Also, do expenses include my time value? If not, what other expenses are there for OSS devs?

I'm not sure from a legal standpoint as IANAL, but I can think of the price of a computer, a desk, a chair, Internet, etc. There are other costs associated with contributing to OSS in addition to the time.
> after three years they came back and said it was slow

They paid and used it for 3 years, I think at that point it would be safe to assume that the system was in spec (well unless I'm Oracle, which I'm not).
My personal aphorism (for at least 20 years now):

Warman's Law: That which _can_ be configured _must_ be comfigured,

Corr.: Defaults Aren't.

Impl: running any program on its defaults will get you in trouble somewhere down the line. This is no different. Configurations are there precisely to accommodate each users' individual needs, and we are not all the same. Typically defaults try to achieve useability by naive users, and usually do so in a way that is wrong for the sophisticated users. As well as often not chosen very well and really wrong for everybody. Then there is code written by naive programmers who code the naive default and do not provide any configuration because they are unaware of any other way to use the system. And the other extreme of course - Windws anyone? Multiple places to configure different aspects of a specific vehavior, and selection dialogues that "help" by not showing sub-options not used by the current settings, making it impossible to know the full set?

At least the /etc paradigm lets us get a canonical view of everything, explorable with a simple text editor. This article actually shows the advantages.
Ideas are worthless, except those that aren't.
Economics is messy, but the free trade and consumer choice are very basic tenant of economics which lie at the foundation of economics. This is not one of the messier, controversial aspects of econometric models.
They also take a lot of executives to strip clubs.
> First, even in your version, the "feel goods" (high salaries) and the "complainers" (low salaries) would cancel each other out, and (assuming equal numbers of them) will give us a usable median value.

Why would they cancel each other out? Why would there be equal numbers?
There is one clear benefit to global trade: It makes things cheaper. The problem is that it only makes things a little bit cheaper, and it's difficult for most people to see the effect in their daily lives.

In broad strokes, free trade is essentially a trade off between some US workers losing their jobs and reducing the cost to make everything that people buy at Walmart. I can understand that most people on hn don't shop at Walmart, and wouldn't even notice if prices for consumer goods went up by 5-10%. But the rise in household costs due to ending free trade would have a major impact on the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. A single mother with multiple children and one income simply can't afford to pay X% more for everything that her family buys.

And for what? So that a factory worker in Michigan or Ohio can have their union job back? That just seems like fighting progress. Those jobs are gone, mostly due to advances in technology and global connectivity. It makes sense to build things where it's most efficient to do so and to replace humans with robots wherever possible. Why increase prices on everything and hurt national and global economic growth just so that some people can keep the jobs that they're used to having?

And unfortunately, "re-training" programs tend to work out better on paper than they do in reality. The fact is that no one wants to throwaway a lifetime of work in a given industry in order to start all over again in another. It's not just learning new skills, it's years of meeting the right people, learning new cultures and customs, etc. So few people want to do that, it's just not human nature to start over from scratch.

HN is starting to sound like a broken record, but a Basic Income is probably the best solution. I believe that some politicians are also proposing a kind of "workers insurance", to help people who lose their jobs due to changes in technology or culture. Either of these would be a better solution than forcing price increases onto the millions of people who have jobs but still barely make enough to get by.
Are you certain everybody on your side of the negotiation is fully truthful? Do you include management, HR and recruiters in "everybody"?

If so, you're not talking to your recruiters. You should find out more about what your side of this negotiation looks like to a candidate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11313932
It happens for managers and executives. Equity sharing with individual contributors is very much a Silicon Valley innovation, although over the years options/rsus have filtered down from senior management and become a standard part of the middle-management and even line management comp packages at old-school public companies.
But economists aren't scientists. Most are employed to support government ideologies. And these IGM economists are handpicked by some committee.

For example, they're supposedly "geographically diverse". That means: Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale.

Where's Dean Baker, one of the few who predicted the housing bubble crash & impact of 2007-2008? Stiglitz? Pettifor? Varoufakis? Piketty? Do they not have sufficiently "impeccable qualifications" even by bureaucratic credentialist standards?

Pseudoscience and lying with statistics is the Economist Way. Consensus by a bunch of handpicked suit-wearing economists is nothing like the scientific consensus on global warming. "Globalization" and "free trade" are doublespeak; you have to prefix them with "corporate", like corporate globalization.
I've been using FitNesse heavily at work for the past few years, and I've been surprised by how buggy we've found it.

We have over 30,000 tests and we've had to rewrite part of it because it memory-leaked so badly. Unfortunately the company has strict rules against contributing back to Open Source projects.
I'm also curious how to contribute to the GUI. I'll trawl the github in the meantime but if anyone happens to know a good point to start I'd love to hear.

Edit: Found it, in case anyone else is interested: https://github.com/redox-os/redox/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.m...
I built Boilerplay for that exact purpose - https://github.com/KyleU/boilerplay

It uses the excellent sbt-scalajs to provide code shared between server and client, and a websocket controller that can receive those shared messages. It's tied to Play, sihouette, and postgres-async.
Very nice. It was time to do this.

There are three near-term products to develop on this:

- A small router (home/small office, not data center)

- A DNS server

- A BGP server

Those are standalone boxes which do specific jobs, they're security-critical, and the existing implementations have all had security problems. We need tougher systems in those areas.
Im curious how many who claim the "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" thought process about paying for Oracle for their support or so they can blame someone else for being lazy and incompetent have ever USED oracle support. Waiting a week or longer for a patch with no work around is not uncommon, and not exactly something I would pay for.
I'm constantly amazed at how people find a justification to fly a rocket just to get to the McDonalds a block from their house.
"How is labor history relevant here?"

It isn't relevant here per se. It's a merger with a cousin thread where you did not know what "scab" meant and didn't know about any STEM-related strikes, when I had heard of some, and was quickly able to find several such examples.

"haven't said a word about the shortage"

Do try to read what I wrote rather than what you think I didn't write. In the g'g'parent comment to this one I said that STEM is a meaningless term, and that "the shortage is only in from a much smaller subset of primarily programming related skills." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11311160 . I explicitly acknowledge that developer shortage is meaningful, even though I reject that STEM shortage is meaningful.

"ad hominem attacks"

Says the person who claims that I do not "have an idea of what good programming skill is".

Says the person who claims that ones_and_zeros is advocating a "very nativist, xenophobic, extremely right-wing and anti-progressive" view.

The Wikipedia entry for 'ad hominem' points out "Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact." Let's go back to your statement "I've never heard of strikes occurring in STEM fields." If you had deep knowledge on the topic then that would be meaningful. If you had shallow knowledge then it carries little weight. In that thread I pointed out your apparent lack of knowledge. Now I pointed out the reason for it. This means I know to attach less weight to future statements you make. My attempt to assess your credibility is one of the non-fallacious uses of ad hominem reasoning.

"lump of labor fallacy"

Interesting. I'm saying that STEM is a meaningless term because it lumps people together too much. Where is the increased financial and political support for evolutionary linguistics, urban anthropology, and palynology, which are all part of the "S" in STEM? Since by my reading, most people at the policy level equate "STEM" fields with the subset of science, technology, engineering and math that helps solve more business-oriented problems.

How you turn that into a belief that I believe in a fixed lump of labor is beyond me.
Really things might get scary when the DOD decides to direct some of its monstrous military budget at AI (which I'm sure its already doing).
yummyfajitas prefers to offer an alternate history of the USA, full of "what might have been"s. There was an era from the 1930s to the 1950s when the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. In the early 1960s, the top tax was lowered to 70%, and it remained at that level till the big tax cuts of President Regan, who lowered the top tax to 28%, back in 1982. When the top tax rates were extremely high, most workers sought un-taxed benefits, rather than money. For instance, in the 1950s, any income in excess of $100,000 was taxed at a rate of 91%, but benefits such as health care and life insurance and company sponsored travel were not taxed. Therefore, during that era, it became common for top workers to demand non-monetary, un-taxed perks. The same forces also drove the middle class, who were also facing high taxes -- they sought those benefits that were un-taxed, since asking for more money ran into the penalty of very high taxes.

Everything changed once President Reagan lowered taxes in 1982. Then it became much more common for workers to seek income. Seeking un-taxed benefits became less crucial, once taxes were lowered. For reasons that I don't understand, yummyfajitas prefers to flip this narrative, and suggests that workers sought non-monetary compensation after President Reagan had lowered taxes. That is both ahistorical and it doesn't even make rational sense.

The median male wage has been in decline since 1973:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/the-wages-of-men...

Some people like to disguise this fact with rhetoric about the increasing quality of products. The debate over the standard of living can get very complex. There are thousands of variables that can be considered. To my mind, the strongest fact that effects this debate is that Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the Consumer Price Index to keep track of the cost of an average basket of goods for an average American family, but rent is left out of the CPI. The ratio of the average wage to the average rent actually hit its happiest peak in 1958. For obvious reasons, this was also the peak year of the Baby Boom (if people have a more difficult time affording a place to live, then they will have fewer babies). Therefore, it is likely that men have seen a decline in wages since before 1973. That is, a full accounting of the median male wage, reduced by the full effects of inflation, including the impact on rent, suggests that men have seen an erosion of their standard of living since some point between 1958 and 1973.
I think I would enjoy the experience of daring assholes like that to fire me.