skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A disciplined sort of triage can work for this. First, do they have real business experience? Ideally, have they started successful businesses before? A lot of the learning curve of startups is the learning curve of just being an entrepreneur.

Also, does their idea make intuitive sense to you, especially in terms of how can this be monetized? Vague, handwavy social apps that don't charge directly are a common problem. Apps for customers who don't have money is another popular antipattern. Apps that seem trivial are generally bad. Apps that respond Boolean true to "Can I already do this with Yelp?" are toxic.

But you find someone who has a couple of businesses already under their belt, who has some specific customers in mind who have a specific problem that person already understands... then you're getting somewhere. And it may be an entirely unsexy problem. One of my favorite startups locally is a company that has built a system for detecting excessive water use/leakage in toilets - something that can be repaired at cost savings if you have a large building (say, apartment complexes). Totally unsexy. Great market.
> If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men.

If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.)

Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)
> Maybe there are some doctors who schedule it just because but that's an exceptional case, statistically.

In actuality, measuring the C-section rate is one way to measure the quality of a hospital. Of course, the morbidity of the population must be taken into account, but it is worth noting that a C-section is a surgical intervention with much higher associated costs and pay.
ImageTragick: ways to verify image files before processing
I've seen you post that a few times, so two minor nitpicks.

In the mental model in which the /dev/random manpage lives, it makes (some) sense to read /dev/random until you get a short read, then make a userland pool from all the data you've read, "to get as much entropy as possible". That reasoning doesn't actually make sense, of course, but I would be surprised if nobody thought that such a construction would be a good idea.

Separately, there's quite a lot of code - and I've written some - that reads a byte from /dev/random at daemon start, specifically to block until the system has built up enough entropy. FreeBSD blocks reads, even from /dev/urandom, until the [EDIT: estimate of how much entropy has ever gone into the pool] gets high enough, which makes some sense; but there needs to be some way to block-until-random.
Replacing "Photoshop" with "Design Resources", really slim and useful article I think. Especially agreed to the "design + dev + dev-ops" responsibilities are mostly neglected by the client and should be described within handshake process as described.
As an end-user that doesn't affect me (it does, but it's pretty indirect). The Android ecosystem doesn't seem very healthy to me; it works merely out of sheer effort by everyone involved.
The idea is: They will. We're getting more and more automated every day. I think looking at and talking about UBI at this stage is much better than waiting until there aren't any more jobs left, and deciding we should have done something in the past. Lets experiment now, and get ahead of the curve.
The BSD family of operating systems
I guess that's what disability insurance is for? You also get a pretty good safety net in Canada in terms of health insurance coverage and disability payments.
Valve and GoG aren't comparable to Spotify or Netflix because the former use a "buy model" and the later use a "rent model."

Most of the point of the DRM for Spotify and Netflix is just so you don't sign up for a week and download the parts of the catalog you like and then quit. That's why spotify uses DRM and itunes doesn't.
The Independent Discovery of TCP/IP, By Ants
The point of view you speak for -- that education is an end in itself -- is a privilege of the rich and reflects their historical attitudes towards education. Back in the day, liberal education was for the children of the rich, and it gave them culture, polish, and perspective that was hard to attain elsewhere. Those are the non-economic benefits of studying the humanities. They're certainly real, and valuable. I'd definitely prefer that people in positions of power and authority have studied philosophy, history, and literature.

However, to argue that a young person of modest means should study the humanities is just cruel. If your family and connections aren't going to set you up as a company vice president or send you to the legislature, your job prospects are dismal.
The difficulty of converting a Photoshop design to an actual UI reminds me of this passage from Paul Graham's essay "The Power of the Marginal" [1]:

> For example, it recently emerged that the famous glass artist Dale Chihuly hasn't actually blown glass for 27 years. He has assistants do the work for him. But one of the most valuable sources of ideas in the visual arts is the resistance of the medium. That's why oil paintings look so different from watercolors. In principle you could make any mark in any medium; in practice the medium steers you. And if you're no longer doing the work yourself, you stop learning from this.

In the case of mobile app development, it's probably best to let the constraints and idioms of the platform, which the developer knows best, steer the design. So maybe part of the solution, contrary to what the article suggests, is to further collapse roles; maybe the developer should do the design, too.

[1]: http://paulgraham.com/marginal.html
In many cases if it weren't for the medical sciences, we'd already be dead or die from the ailment a physician or surgeon were trying to fix. I think people lose sight of that. If you have any doubt about making it through some event, buy your own insurance. If you can't find someone to insure you, it's likely it's too risky a behavior and you should question your acceptance of it as a solution to your problem.
Dkjskd
dssds

fmd,fm,dmf
I don't think this author has articulated their point well. If they have, then their point is poorly reasoned and considered.

BUT

If you think someone who works for the sake of money is
a "horrible" person

This is not, at all, in the article. The author's thesis is that "money is motivation for work" is a horrific definition of work. Not that the people who hold that view, or the people who are motivated to work for money, are horrible people.
A more correct interpretation would be "Much higher chance of dying of something trivial at any time before 85."
The Vital site: http://doximity.github.io/vital/, Doximity blog: https://engineering.doximity.com/, Doximity: https://www.doximity.com/ - Internally we have it deployed to about 10 different applications.
False excuse. Where is their own content DRM-free?
I never worked for Steve, but do work with a lot of people who did. I never heard once heard someone say: Man, I sure wish Steve was still here instead of Tim.

Not that Steve isn't missed, of course. It's just that Tim is also great.
I've never seen a $100 internet bill that wasn't bundled with other kinds of services.

A more normal number, I think is $50.

If you couple that with the fact that people with out income most likely need to share housing and might as well share in internet connection too, you're already down to $17 per month for broadband.
a quarter of forever is still forever... hopefully this copyright term extension non-sense stops soon.
It actually is not that complicated, at least on the "everyone thinks they are intellectuals". The moment you think you are so right you should be suppressing other peoples right to speak on the matter, you are immediately not the intellectual, you are just a tyrant.
Answer me this: why does the opponent wait until 2 minutes left in the game to do an onsides kick and then they will do it even if I'm ahead by 6 touchdowns?
If I get an applicant who cannot or will not understand what a thought experiment is, they're not getting an interview - I don't care what college they went to.

And yes, I registered this account because your comment was so breathtakingly ill-informed.
Scientists paid by tax money need to be co-conspirators in formulating political messages by either self-censoring or being censored?

What other categories of people working for the government should lose their speech rights (I do realize this is Canada)? If a tax collector disagrees with $politician_of_the_month about tax policy, does that count? What about a park ranger on tax policy? Can a trash collector talk to the press about anything without asking Daddy Censor first?

In a different direction,

> The notion that the government wants to ensure the message is clear and coherent [...] seems entirely rational.

Sure, to someone whose goal is presenting a "governmental viewpoint". Which is going to inherently be a political message. In democratic places, we assume an electorate capable of deciding between competing explanations of reality. And given the weight of decisions about things like climate change, don't we want to hear from more, rather than fewer experts? Especially ones paid for by the electorate's taxes?

Just my opinion, but I don't care what the government party line is. Politicizing science is wrong, and governments that attempt to manipulate our knowledge of the world is wrong. I mean both of those in the moral sense. In the practical sense, arguing with reality is not a long term strategy, and is bad for both governments and parties. (There's a certain party to Canada's south that seems to be learning that lesson as I type this.)

I would think that someone leaning libertarian would think something similar.
"Admits" seems a bit harsh, like he was doing his best to hide something from the world.

By all accounts, it looks like he had written out a reasonable explanation as to why he predicted solar would not become cost effective. At the end of the day, if something doesn't make financial sense, it won't last long without subsidies from the government.

The assumptions behind his predictions changed and therefore so did the conclusion. Seems pretty reasonable.

Like he says, solar power's intermittency is still an issue in non-sunny places, but in areas with lots of sunlight, the landscape of power generation is changing for the better.
It's not really that simple. Even if you do have a problem with premature disclosure and bad quality journalism, you really can't ethically run this through the PR branch of a sitting government.

The purpose of federally funded scientific research is not and cannot be to support the policy objectives of the currently sitting government.

So a real answer to the putative problem might be to have an arms length communications office review communication for accuracy, but one that does not directly answer to the PMs office or federal PR. What Harper did was far more draconian than that. At the same time he initiated other damaging actions to federal science, so you can hardly fault people for not trusting the motives. He could have solved this easily by making things arms length, and chose not to, as well as choosing to be very opaque about the whole process. If for no other reason than that, his government deserves all the criticism it has had on this account.
If I'm hearing via reporters, I'd rather hear from someone who knows how to avoid being misquoted / misunderstood by those reporters.
The oracle is just a circuit that negates one of the amplitudes. You specify it just like the rest of the circuit.

They use a trivial oracle circuit as an example. But Grover's algorithm works for any oracle circuit, so in principle it could be a circuit that verifies if its input is a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
This is a incredible video - thanks so much for sharing it.
I'm kind of skeptical we'll move off of silicon any time soon, but fortunately, I think there's still a lot we can do with silicon. We aren't nearly done optimizing hardware. Then there's the promise of 3D stacking, optical interconnects, more cores and more memory bandwidth.
Cash is a great thing, it's something you don't have to worry about and usually is FDIC insured. Personally, I'm holding onto quite a bit right now because I think much of the market might be overvalued. I think I was just trying to see if I could think out a case where you could in theory not worry about not having too much of it on hand.
The point wasn't to highlight the distinction between low-quality life and high-quality life per se. (That's a separate issue, as epoxyhockey said.) The point was only that the badness of an accidental death, and the cost we might be willing to imposed to reduce them, should probably reflect that counterfactual where no mistake occurs. QALYs lost are one way to measure the badness of a death, but he could have also just said "expected days of life lost".

Of course, epoxyhockey's would likely still disagree.
To suggest that scientists would never misrepresent their work because "science!" is naive at best.

Scientists are human. They are not above human motivations - both good and bad - related to their work, their stature, and their jobs. Funding can be based on certain results. Getting published can be based on certain results.

This is why making experiments and studies that are reproducible is so important.
> It's like a Microsoft employee wrote about vulnerabilities in Windows on their private blog, offering to sell solutions.

A company controlling its employees' contact with the media in order to serve its business interests is not the same as publicly-funded government employees being gagged to serve some specific political party's interest and disserve the public interest.
FreeBSD blocks until the generator is seeded. I think Linux urandom should do the same thing. But once it's seeded, there is no reason for the generator ever to block again.
I've been given the "not looking for a portfolio" one before, but it was explained in more detail to me as - to put work up online opens yourself up to criticism, and given the sexism in our industry, this criticism can more easily become abuse when targeted at women, and therefore there are a not-insignificant group of women who do not publish code on GitHub because of abuse - this issue affects men less, therefore, a 'portfolio' is a biased metric.

I think it's still a useful metric, but would now not take a lack of portfolio as an outright negative, without other factors considered.
Allow me to make a more general conjecture: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving word_x or word_y approaches 1.
I'm generally anti-DRM but I don't see what the issue is applying it to streaming media. Why should I care the Spotify uses DRM? I don't own that content, I pay for streaming access which I get. I'm not paying to be able to download the tracks, move them to different mediums, back them up etc. Could someone explain the issue? Because the article didn't.
I bet they could put a Hydrogen/Oxygen recovery system in it, though. So that, 2 years later, the arrive Mars-landers have fuel for a return trip.
Good to know medical licensing is there to ensure our well-being, in addition to streamlining the entire medical marketplace.

/s
I would rather society as a whole take on responsibility for caring for the permanently disabled, than try and place that entirely on the individual who disabled them (or on an insurance company that'll just fight it all the way).
No, the worry is that reporters will misrepresent what they hear from the scientist.

Cue relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/
Sci-Hub domain name shut down
May the fourth, telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl
For Star Wars fans.
telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl
I'm not sure that it's because no one understands the fundamentals any more. (Which, BTW, the latter part I agree with.) I think it's because everything's gotten too large. You need to use too many frameworks and too many libraries just to get anything done today, and there's simply too much code there (assuming you're even allowed to look at the source!) to comprehend it.

I don't like it, but I think it's an unavoidable consequence of computing's evolution into ubiquity.
Your stepfather apparently violated your mother's directive based on the desperate belief that his spouse could recover, and she did not. This is absolutely tragic.

Then your stepfather presumably refused kill his spouse (due to hope, moral beliefs, cowardice, etc.) by unplugging her from standard, non-extraordinary life-support. She eventually died a painless death.

For which of these does he deserve to suffer for, more than he has already?

A DNR is not an order to cease basic life-support post-resuscitation. For example, I don't want extraordinary measures, but I also absolutely do not want anyone to euthanize me if I somehow end up semi-vegetative.
Is working Full Time the best we can do?
http://www.ironbridgellc.net/PDF/hidden_risks_of_passive_inv... is an interesting countervailing read
The problem is, this doesn't happen in a vacuum: how do you prevent rent-seeking and COL inflation? Not universal basic income works in a free market, you may have to control prices directly in order to do it.
Woman who defied 300 neo-Nazis at Swedish rally speaks of anger
Nobody is wheelbarrowing carts of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. Race (and the idea of inherent superiority/inferiority) is viewed much differently

But that's almost never the specific argument of people who fall into the mistake of "Nazi" as analogy. In fact, many people use these overly-specific points as a fallacious straw-man rebuttal. Often, the specific, functional points are complaints of:

- stereotyping of a group
- quick and prejudicial characterization of a person as member of the group
- certain moral/ethical positions irrationally ascribed to the group
- said group being demonized with lurid, emotional language
- actions by a number of persons against a perceived member of the group
- use of exclusionary, inflammatory, and violent tactics against the same

MLK and Gandhi carefully and very specifically structured their movements to account for people falling into such patterns of behavior and besmirching their causes. We are all subject to such mental patterns, and they require specific mental effort to combat. In particular, they were aware that people engaged in activism are especially vulnerable to these phenomena. Society and rational thought would be greatly helped by a language and cognitive tools to calmly think and speak about such phenomena.
Shouldn't we be discussing ways to eliminate problems rather than increasing malpractice? What we want is for there to be a system where one person making a mistake is caught by enough redundancy. Maybe it's a cultural issue too? Remember the problem with pilots?

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/12/04/malcolm-gladwell-...
The Catch-22 there is that a majority of medical errors occur during shift changeover. (Google will reveal an abundance of commentary / articles). In my personal experience (Medical school) the shift change's amongst Doctors could occasionally be profoundly short, unprofessional, and unregulated (think Resident handing off to Intern, in a rush, late in the evening, using a some notes hastily written on a notepad).
It's not difficult to see how the concept of following strict procedures and double-checking your work might be adapted to medicine.

There's really no use in arguing about an analogy. Focus on the point.
Sorry for the late correction: in the last sentence I meant cogeneration plants, not combined cycle. (which would typically not be combined cycle, because the heat not captured for electricity is not wasted in cogeneration)
MIT Inclusive Innovation competition
Great app for bookmarking websites. I love the design and the sharing features.
But the risk of being held monetarily liable for damages might mean people stop doing work they shouldn't before damage is done.

Of course, this relies on people correctly assessing their likelihood of making a mistake.
The Mindtribe Approach to Rock
Private sector employees are not the same as public servants. The very nature of parliamentary democracies and republics requires a level of transparency from those in power that does not apply to private organizations, which can only operate with security, stability, and privacy because of the nature of the modern state. Governments require some level of secrecy in order to protect economic competitiveness, defend their borders, and conduct intelligence activities but that is not what we're talking about here. Not only is the published science a public service, but the scientists are public servants whose purpose is to inform the public and policy makers. Unless you expect the public to read and understand every scientific paper, reporters' access to the scientists is absolutely necessary for the public to understand the consequences and potential of the resarch. Making scientific papers available to the public is not sufficient without allowing experts unfettered ability to provide nuance and explanation to that research.

You argue that there haven't been any bombshells after the restrictions were lifed but TFA literally talks about how reporters lost interest within twenty four hours because of administrative delays. Do you really expect a sensationalist, profit-driven media to go over years of backlogged information, to talk to thousands of people, when a few days delay was enough to have a massive chilling effect?

Everything you describe is a problem with the Canadian media, not government scientists. Would you support a law that requires journalists to submit all of their articles to majority coalition PR flacks for editing or do they get a special pass because they're "private"? (Which due to the weird nature of the CBC, they're not)
On whose part? This wasn't a decision by the government.
such "gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against" behavior is natural to humans

That is precisely what I am saying.

It is in war that the greatest technological advances take place, and it is in solidarity that societies flourish.

It is a bad idea to put people into "war mode" when they should be rationally debating and voting.
This is exactly what I was looking for to organise my bookmarks! Thanks :)
Enabling free(er) competition into the medical marketplace for doctors would probably be the single most effective maneuver.

That and letting machines begin replacing human doctors...
I particularly liked his point about bringing processes with a high electricity demand to those areas and cutting down on cost across the board. He gives aluminum, ammonia, and desalination as examples, which could do a lot for reducing costs of production while still overall "greening" the process. If they can take advantage of the cycling in prices, I can see regions like the American Southwest selling this as a business incentive.
When my wife received an epidural, I noticed a warning label on the connector that said "Epidural, do not connect IV".

The only thing stopping such a horrible error is this label. IV and Epidural connectors are fully compatible even though they should never be used interchangeably.

I can only imagine how many other simple medical failsafes are missing.
That's fine and definitely up to you to decide. Although I don't really agree with your example, as your body manages the pain in biologically different ways when giving birth.

As an anecdote, my wife gave birth 3 times, never in a hospital or anesthesia. She doesn't remember the pain.
RhoMobile is now open source