skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I hear your argument against these sorts of quantum physics inspired models of consciousness, but I could never understand them. Since you imply a greater understanding of quantum physics than the author, perhaps you could help me answer these questions:

If properties like non-locality, position uncertainty, etc are real at the small scale, how are they not real at the large scale? Isn't the macroscopic world just a large number of these oddly behaving particles averaging out into emergent forms and behaviors? And arent these macroscopic forms and behaviors no more real than tiger depicted on a computer screen, which is really just a conglomeration of pixels? Or is there some special aspect of the universe that exists at the macroscopic level and not the small scale?
Panoramic, Dental Cosmetic Procedures in Thailand, Dental Services in Thailand
Debugging Go with VSCode and Delve
> life can be more rewarding if you not only aim for perfection or near-perfection, but achieve it

I do that with my own software in my spare time, but from an economic point of view I cannot justify to spend that time when working for someone else. And since projects are always evolving also in requirements "perfection" is a moving target.
An end to ‘bill shock’ as EU mobile roaming charges are slashed
Finding Memory Leak in Node
I happen to think that class division will become more severe and irresistible, because I think that in a generally free economic game, advantage begets advantage, and disadvantage begets disadvantage.
I find the FSF's mission extremely important on an educational, "meta" level — regardless of the particular content of their ideology — especially in the Silicon Valley culture. According to the SV ethos, laws come in two flavors. The first is man-made laws, like the laws of government. Those are often described as "silly", "outdated" or downright "stupid"; it is imperative that SV culture hack those — as in break — and replace them with something else (as in "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"). The second kind of laws is the laws of the society (or the market, as a special case) — "what people want". Those laws need to be hacked — as in exploited cleverly — and are on the same level as natural laws. Opposing those is seen as "ideology" (with an implied negative connotation, as ideology is the futile fight with the laws of nature), or worse: "political ideology". Never mind that the entire goal of technology is fight the actual laws of nature, that in their eternal indifference, have placed annoying limitations — nay, "challenges" — on us humans. There is a strong naturalistic fallacy built into the SV ethos, that is only in effect when social laws are concerned[1]. The FSF is a movement that tackles celebrated SV ideas (code; freedom) yet reminds us that "emergent" social laws are just as man-made as the laws of governments, and unless proven otherwise, they can — and must — be changed by human action.

This can be maddening to the hacker ideology, which views this direct, real political action as folly. Why fight what is impossible to fight if you can somehow hack a workaround? Wasting effort trying to divert a river seems crazy if you believe that "progress" can be achieved while swimming with the current.

[1]: I have a theory as to why that is: to the somewhat autistic mind of some technology types, the physical laws are governed by unforgiving but inherently simple laws, presenting a well-designed puzzle, meant to be solved. The social laws, on the other hand, appear complex, impenetrable, even threatening. They are then either discounted as stupid (i.e., society can be simple, but isn’t because stupid people complicate it; a utopia would be governed by simple laws, resembling those of the physical world in structure), or surrendered to as something too powerful to understand and contend with head-on. A clever hacker is meant to exploit their quirky, but superficial idiosyncrasies, uncovered by statistics and "data", but must never fight them and never try to untangle their deep structure.
This is a common argument used to justify these golden parachutes. While you may be right in the context of the current system, you completely ignore the fact that the current system is seriously broken.
PC sales have also sunk. Maybe Intel should quit the PC business, too. It seems hard to imagine they would do that now, but if 1) Microsoft didn't have such a strangehold on PCs, and 2) if Windows wasn't so dependent on x86, we'd be seeing ARM competition creeping up on low-end Intel chips in notebooks already by now.

Intel is lucky to have a lock-in on PCs thanks mostly to old programs being x86-specific. Hopefully Microsoft can change this with Project Centennial, if it's too late for Windows RT.

https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/B829

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=516...
When they decided to make Zurich the Google tech-hub in Europe I can assure you that taxes were not the main driver.

One of the big guys at Google at that time studied at ETH and therefore knew the place is full of talent. Also, the Zurich is more or less in the geographic center of Europe. So is Munich, Germany, but would a French or Italian programming prodigy move to Germany? Maybe, but maybe not. The probability of different people to move to (neutral) Switzerland is higher so it is a natural place to attract talent from all over Europe.
i dont understand why ceos get paid so much. companies are always trying to cut costs -- we see outsourcing to mexico and massive layoffs fairly frequently -- but ceos never seem to get cut as a cost. when one is fired another is hired and paid just as much. 40 million for being the ceo? how is it possible that you could never find someone who could do the job just as well who would take 20 million?
> An executive like her wouldn't settle just for a paycheck, success and image are way more important.

> I wouldn't want to go to another job with little accomplishment in my previous job. I just feel shit if I do.

Bullshit. Most people would be fine feeling a little shitty for a few years for THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

This theory that somehow executives are motivated "differently" is totally bonkers. They're just as selfish and short sighted and apathetic as you or me, but they're playing at the high-roller table with other people's money.
Yahoo! Chess was really fun back in 2005. Lots of blitz games and trolling sore losers who lost won positions on time. These days chess sites are too civilized to be fun.
uMatrix makes it really, really easy to disable JavaScript by default. Yes, I have a tiny tinfoil hat, but it's about 7 seconds when I visit a new page to enable needed JS, and I'm not making thousands of random calls to foreign domains unknowingly.
use my brakes as little as possible

I play this 'game' all the time, everywhere, and when it's time to slow down more than what simply releasing the pedal does I'll first try to shift down and have the engine brake for me. The latter not only because it lowers fuel usage but also because it makes me keep even more distance, which is the key point for me. It is just so much safer (hitting another car because you cannot brake in time isone of the most common accident types) and leads to much more relaxed driving without fast acceleration/deceleration. Only disadvantage so far: other drivers not understanding it and passing you in anger.
The comment has context. So read: adopts much more responsibility than an engineer. On a day by day basis she makes decisions that have a more significant impact. She has to cover much more territory for understanding aspects over the whole organization.
Ending the tyranny of unix permissions (2006)
Sounds like "Resume Driven Development" http://imgur.com/DQcks8ul
Yeah. This seems really illegal. You're getting into others' routers? I wouldn't ever want to change the SSID or post about it on a site that can b used to identify you with. You could get into serious trouble. Especially if you're from Europe or North Americas.
I think that their aversion to compromise -- effective in practice or not -- is an antidote to Silicon Valley's inherent is-ought fallacy when social laws are concerned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11600803
I like the idea of forcing people to consider living, feeling creature vs not but I dunno how they would ever reduce the cost of artificially grown. Maybe a technology that doesn't exist yet. It would have to be grown like plants/mold.

The livestock industry is sure going to push some nasty ads to fight artificial.
Ask HN: AWS engineer looking to do low level development. How do I land a gig?
I currently work for AWS and am looking to leave. My resume is pretty strong for high level programing, distributed systems (monitoring/operations, setting stuff up, root causing problems), web dev, and I've got good algorithms chops.

Unfortunatly, low level job postings seem to all want years of experience writing C/doing kernel development/niche specific skills. Recently, I've taken an interest in firmware and kernel development, and I'd love to get paid to do it. Does anyone know someone who'd hire someone like me? Should I get a ton of OSS experience first or something?
Corporations constantly decide what people deserve. They also have mechanisms for deciding if a high value deal is risky, unnecessary, or poor value for money. Because those rules are flouted when hiring CEO's a huge amount of risk is created. That threat (of a bad CEO) is mitigated by trying to hire and retain "the best", and consequentially the most expensive. It all makes sense because they have you over a barrel.

The problem is that companies are over reliant on a single leadership figure. This makes little sense in large companies with lots of complex divisions and interests. Does it really make sense to rely on a single person to guide the company?
I would love if someone can mention these things too:
1. For remote jobs, the timezones that they are comfortable with.
2. If they can sponsor overseas candidates.

This would make it easier for the candidates
Yahoo replaced its native internet pioneer culture with a corporate culture too early in its development.
> It's modular arithmetic because of the internals of the processor, not because of some law-of-the-universe

I beg to differ. There were various integer representations tried, such as having a separate "sign" bit on integers. But the two's complement finally was used by everyone. So there's something deeply unique to modulo arithmetics that none of the other representations could offer. This is not just about saving a few gates in the circuit.

> However, it's easiest to just truncate the number and essentially do modular arithmetic

The point is, there is no truncatenation step. It's just a side effect. If you build any naive adder circuit, substractor, multiplicator - even if you totally ignore negative numbers, you automatically have a full working two's complement, that works for negative numbers without any additional effort.

And why is that? Because the mathematical structure behind it is so dead-simple that it almost works by miracle. (except for division, which is highly non-intuitive and has more pitfalls than usual pitfall of division by zero.)

As a consequence of this simple math structure, it is very easy to build in hardware without any additional handling of nasty special cases.
Incredibly fast and mobile only Ghost theme
Maybe she is going to become the buyer? She's got more money than sin.
I don't see it as direct payment for the job that she's doing, but rather paying to cover her downside risk. An engineer at Yahoo, if they're sufficiently good (and they do exist), can make it to a life raft and continue their career elsewhere.

Marissa likely has no post-Yahoo career. I doubt she will ever have another regular job after Yahoo, and instead after a little while she'll be a board member and have advisory roles at some places. I don't see how there is another CEO role in her future after Yahoo gets ripped apart by an acquiring iceberg.

The money she stands to make is meant to compensate her for that scenario. It's also meant to be a deterrent to proceeding with a sale in the first place, although I think it will prove to be insufficient.
6 ways to help your employees be authentic presenters
How do seemingly invincible forces in the market get killed by smaller foes?

Back around 2009 I had a little visibility into Intel's mobile efforts. My information is way out of date, but unless Intel management changed drastically, my hunch is that this explanation is still valid.

At the time Intel had already introduced some mobile silicon, but there was little uptake. So they were iterating; they wanted to improve for each succeeding generation. But they had a kind of design-by-committee process. One person or group wanted a certain feature, another group wanted something else, a third group though that yet another thing was important. And so on. Sorry if that sounds vague, I won't write anything more specific.

The end result was a chipset that had a lot of features. A LOT OF FEATURES. Gold plated features. But that meant higher power consumption than the competition, higher cost, larger form factor, longer time to market.

At the time, there was nobody like a Steve Jobs running Intel mobile. Nobody had the intuition and the gravitas to say: "we want A, B, C, but not D, E, F. Quit wasting time and build the fucking thing! I need something that's competitive!"

This is similar to something that an Intel chip design manager told me about 30 years ago. His view was that there were really only two ways to motivate engineers:

1) show them a path to lots and lots of money. This is the path that startups take. Focus, build something quickly, get rich or die trying.

or 2) engineers will "play in the sand", they will add in all sorts of neat features that they think are really cool, that they want to implement, that they are convinced are important. But all that crap isn't very useful to the average user, it just results in complex designs that miss their market window in so many ways.

Intel probably continued to choose path 2 for their mobile efforts.

Intel didn't fail because of any variation on The Innovator's Dilemma. They understood that mobile was the future, that it was very important. They expended tremendous amounts of capital trying to "win" in mobile. They just didn't have the organizational structure that let them execute.
Don't worry, any germs or other organic nastiness are completely neutralized by the vast quantities of chlorine, which is what you should actually be going "eww" about.

(I once drank a mouthful of pool water as a kid and got a really awful headache shortly thereafter. I suppose I'm lucky that's all I got.)
This is a path that must be followed with great attention. Giving up on low-end, entry-level parts often looks great in short term results but may doom the company in the end.

One of the reasons we deploy to x86 servers now rather then SPARC, POWER or MIPS is that we develop on x86. When Sun and IBM chose to exit the low-end space and pursue only large clients, they doomed their platforms to the legacy of those clients who already had their systems running on their platforms.

How many fresh applications are designed with SPARC or POWER in mind? How many are designed for zSeries mainframes?
>teens who can sample alcohol at home are less likely to binge drink

That's patently false. Cf. http://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.212

So far I find the argument far from convincing.
What I heard from a friend of a friend is that QA was not handled as well as it could've been.
Abs are made in the gym and revealed in the kitchen.
nice post nigger
Just browsing the web can often be quite painful as they struggle with javascript.

You mean... browsing the web can be quite painful with a crap-ton of advertisements. Lots and lots of Javascript, auto-play video advertisements... ugh.
I believe they sold that license about the time they went for Itanic.
thanks for the info
"Both are signs of inexperience."

Case of pot calling the kettle black methinks.
This is certainly a factor. Family run businesses are, on average, twice as profitable as those run by salaried managers.
I'm guessing this is why people tolerate it - the world with 3d CAD is still a vastly nicer place to be an engineer than otherwise, so we just rationalise away the shitty parts as a reasonable price to pay.

Yeah, I know. In my experience, engineers are normally immensely pragmatic people. My dad was an engineer, so I have a lot of respect for the profession. It would just be nice if CAD would be more open.
the whole reason left pad was such a big deal is because of padStart.

People writing polyfil's to add padStart to String.prototype used left-pad.
I just finished reading Andy Goves book "high output management" it was really quite good.

It's also Zucks favourite business book as well apparently.
Global Catastrophic Risks 2016
Ah, I should have checked. I did read through the ARM architecture page† on Wikipedia and it does not mention that fact. It does say,

"In 1994, Acorn used the ARM610 as the main central processing unit (CPU) in their RiscPC computers. DEC licensed the ARM6 architecture and produced the StrongARM. At 233 MHz, this CPU drew only one watt (newer versions draw far less). This work was later passed to Intel as a part of a lawsuit settlement, and Intel took the opportunity to supplement their i960 line with the StrongARM. Intel later developed its own high performance implementation named XScale, which it has since sold to Marvell."

I'm not sure how much sense it makes for Intel to be both an ARM licensee and develop Atom.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Core_licence
Paysafecard Code Generator 2016 – Easy Hack Tools
Yeah, so there are always trade-offs that an individual would have to make. Freelancers get freedom and flexibility, but they take a bit of a pay cut for it (as in the form of 401(k), like you mentioned). This might be a more optimal outcome for a particular individual with a particular set of circumstances.

And it IS possible for a freelancer to charge way more and get way better clients than an average salaryman, but that requires being able to deliver superior results. That's a responsibility that few people seem to be willing to take.

The central thing about either side of the fence is– nobody owes us anything, and it's up to us as individuals to negotiate for the conditions that we want.
CV of failures
Just curious - can you elaborate on your second statement?
Looking for a Call Reporting and Analytics System? Choose PBXDom Now
'I'm really glad I don't have to work with people who think like this.'

You're glad you don't work with people who weigh up the list of possible solutions based on the specific problem? You're glad you don't work with people who care about performance, size and redundant code? You want to work with people who don't think, who don't question implementation?

Thats pretty dumb isn't it. If someone has an alternative solution and a sound argument to back them up, your response would be 'I don't like the way you think'.

But I guess projects are only worth talking about when they are incredibly complex. A simple website taking 10,000+ hits a day isn't worth squat unless you have a big JS framework under the hood. Complexity = value, not users, not the UX, not the support, not performance, but COMPLEXITY.
> Well, unless I'm hellbanned for going against fatlogic.

Could you not do that, please? I was with you up to that point. You don't need to be a dick about it.
It's interesting that by comparison, a lot of these modern JS frameworks are positively tiny. No comparison to e.g. Cocoa, QT, MFC, Rails, Spring and all the things usually called the f-word. React itself barely qualifies for "library", more like "helper functions".

So, having started outside the web world, I really don't understand the hullabaloo. It reminds me of a certain point in Windows development, when shareware etc. was a thing, but download speeds, RAM and disk space were still low. Creating smaller programs was a thing for some developers, both for distribution and an alleged "bare metal" feel (whether they were that much better than e.g. a big package including all of Tcl/Tk is another matter). Programming Win32 with assembly. The ATL. Compressed executables. People recomming a new weird command-line oriented operating system made by some crazy Finn.

Both ATL and Win32ASM bring in yet another feature: Programming in my favorite, possibly new idiom. Another reason for creating these mini-frameworks in the JS world. All glued together by slapdash micro-libs and utilities, that might be there one day, might be gone tomorrow.

I might finally be getting old and cranky, but I actually feel that some bigger frameworks wouldn't hurt. Some kind of standard library included, given that this won't come out of standards or the global community. More opinions. A set of standard components/widgets, not just three score methods of displaying them and two score of connecting them to a score of different backends.

Go all in: If you really want to just use the web browser as a delivery system for all kinds of GUIs, give me a GUI framework. I think that strangely enough ExtJS used to have more competition there...

Either that, or make more use out of the old-fashioned tenets of HTML, do more with text and links and stick to progressive enhancement. The middle ground of shiny but tiny GUIs that seems to be the rule for modern "SPAs" is neither fish nor flesh. (And I don't think that "isomorphic apps" is the answer here, either.)
Happens to the best of us. My editing issues is Apple's autocorrect, I get some truly strange results sometimes.

That makes sense - though I hope you don't mind me asking but when you say "I also know what isn't currently scientific", do you mean untested hypotheses?
> If you like to emphasize the fact that it's mostly modulo a power of two (2^n), then call it two's complement.

And it's signed, and negative numbers work by, well, two's complement...

Referring to unsigned integers, modulo a power of two, as "two's compliment" is at least weird.

Referring to integers with a different encoding of negative numbers as "two's complement" would be incorrect, even if they still wrap around near a power of two.
Take for example a school project...if the group is graded based on everyone's contribution, but you've got one person who contributes nothing or actually makes it harder for the others to contribute. The person who drags everyone else down was given an equal opportunity, but they squandered it and actually interfered with the opportunities of others who would otherwise take advantage of it. If you're forced to tolerate that person who is a negative and pander to them as if there isn't a problem, you're held hostage by the weakest link, and the entire group wastes time on fundamental problems of getting any work done at all, while they should be moving up the ladder of solving higher and higher order problems. Eventually, the frustration of the negative actor begets apathy and a sense of insurmountable problems, and endless discussion about matters that should never need to be discussed while real work goes unfinished. This is the condition of America in 2016.
Aws was an absurd success, no one saw it coming except bezos
> How do seemingly invincible forces in the market get killed by smaller foes?

In terms of value ARM is a far smaller company than Intel. But in terms of cores manufactured, ARM is way larger. ARM (through their partners obviously) shipped 10 billion cores in 2013. Intel shipped about half a billion.
I'm sure nobody would ever blame you if the original typeset paper were to suddenly land on Sci-Hub.

But seriously, what you're basically saying here is that in fact it would have been better to have published it yourself - except you may not have had the same audience who would have known about the paper?

Or did they also go through rounds of peer review and ask for clarification or find errors?
It's unfortunate that you are now clear-headed and disappointed.