skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've encountered Requirements bugs due to the requirement being flat out wrong. Those are usually easy to find. Contradictory ones can hide until you try to implement them.

But one of my favorite tricky ones was an apparently very clearly written Requirement. It passed all the Requirements reviews, design passed design review, code passed, etc. Then the original writer of the requirement went to use the product and said "but that's not what I meant" Sure, I implemented exactly what he very clearly said (wrote) but that turned out to be very different from what he meant to say.
My comments are uncivil to uncivil discourse. I assume you've also measured this out to chris_wot, who has even stalked ancient posts of mine to drop their trolls.
The police are not your friends. They will leverage any slip up you make to squeeze you in to doing what they want. Thus the lawyer. SHe works for Tor. Could you imagine what they might squeeze her to do?

Also, they're not going to say anything over the phone that they aren't willing to say to the lawyer.. so no real point in calling.
It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no.
"I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)
Well, Europe is choke-full with concentration camps for immigrants to be detained and then approved or deported -- while few would call its leaders Nazis:

http://en.closethecamps.org/

And Roosevelt and Truman had Japanese Americans thrown in concentration camps and nobody called them a "Nazi" (the latter also had 250,000 men, women and children obliterated in a combined unneeded weapon test/show of power, but I digress).
You are missing the key point here.

The chains have no other way to go than to reduce the cost of their staff.

It's not a this time it will be different argument it's this is the only way they can survive in the market argument.
The grandchilden of millennials won't even understand what the fuss is about or why they have to learn to drive in the first place.
Because they want to deliver a good experience to every user and redirecting to the simple version is the easiest way to do that. If they served mobile.twitter.com to Firefox for Android users they would have to test the site in Firefox for Android and since only like 12 people use Firefox for Android it's not worth their time to do so.
Harassment might not be accurate, but the word "threat" certainly is. In the law enforcement force continuum, just showing up is recognized as a use of force.
Irrationality and denying reality annoys me.
> I still planned to continue moving, of course, but now things would need to go to different places, and by different means.

> I started having panic attacks, thinking that I’d need to get myself and literally every object, including electronics, that I cared about accross the border

> Every device I owned could be compromised, I’d lose all my data, my pictures of family and loved ones, fiction I’d wrote as a teenager, and Lisp I’d wrote as a child

> I’ll admit I actually cried, not knowing when I’d hug my mom again

> I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them

> I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them — some thug might show up at their mom’s door or make some threats to their lawyers — and I didn’t want to risk harming people I care about. It hurt to not tell my friends what was happening. I felt gagged and frightened.

> I wanted to read the number theory papers I’d just downloaded and play with a new pairing-based cryptography library I’d just been given the source to, but I couldn’t do those things either, simply because I was too stressed out to think straight.

None of this is the reaction of a healthy person. Panic attacks? Not talking to people for fear of endangering them? Crying herself to sleep? Not knowing when she'd hug her mom again???

It's also worth noting that the quotations of the FBI agents include all of their tics and stutters. This is often done in an effort to discredit the person being quoted.

This is not harassment.
Whenever someone decides to hire someone, all of their criteria are heavily biased towards what kind of skills the candidates posses.

I wonder if someone can come up with a reasonably accurate way to determine how well or easily can a candidate acquire particular skills.

I realize this line of thought might not be popular for most startups who would want someone to get going as soon as they start. But if you're having a tough time hiring a Machine Learning engineer and you get applications from a bunch of smart folks who want to gain experience in Machine Learning, would it be a good idea to give them a shot?

The traditional 'puzzle solving' in interviews was probably geared in this direction, but I'm wondering if there are better ways to gauge this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631418
I think it requires strong, perfectionist, top-down leadership. See for example Steve Jobs or James Cameron. They aren't the most popular bosses, but they create amazing things by working their people hard and watching everything very closely.
Every time somebody links to a screenshot of text, Sir Tim Berners-Lee loses a little bit of hair. Please don't make him go bald; we owe the man, after all.
Absolutely false, she can ask her attorney what they wanted. It's actually great to see someone following best practices even when it is not the easiest thing to do.
Former interviewee of Mark here. His modus operandi is subtle harassment. Isis' lawyer should file a complaint with Mark's boss.
> Worst case I can think of is the FBI asks a question with at least one potential answer that would incriminate her, she feels uncomfortable answering for whatever reason, and the FBI then interprets her ending the call there as suspicious

If there was any kind of criminal suspicion involved, they would absolutely do that. That's why talking to law enforcement is something you have a lawyer do.
So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license? Or do you leave them massively in debt, without the (relatively) lucrative profession they had assumed would allow them to pay off that debt?
Another sign that he lives in his own arrogant world. A separate arrogant world that affects other people.
Different areas of specialization or...

"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law
And this, boys and girls, is why you should never join a second start-up. Join one early, see how it works & learn as much as you can. Do not expect $$$ - you will not make any. Then decide if you want to start your own, or want comfortable well-paid employment at GOOG/AAPL/FB/etc

Do not expect to make money from a start-up unless you started it. If you did not start it, you are the disposable labour. Sorry.
Having a lawyer makes you look guilty! /s
>Name-drop as many of the latest software frameworks and technologies as possible throughout your rant. Use words like big data, cloud, and scalability. Mention test-driven development at least three to four times.

If we don't immediately adopt agile scrum kanban test-driven development processes there is no way we can scale to harness the power of big data analytics using our cloud-based deep machine learning artificial intelligence neural networks for quantum computing the internet of things. Furthermore, I'm rewriting the whole architecture in Vanilla JS on the front end, ReactJS on the back end, and using Docker containers to achieve a more scalable continuous integration work flow optimization process for our test-driven development integrations in the cloud using the legacy waterfall methodology.

Any questions? No? Good, now get back to work.
"You get the cofounder that you deserve". Time to get to work.
Nope that is her lawyers job not hers.
Oh by the way, the entire time this page has been open in your browser we've been using you as a FlashProxy to connect Chinese people to Tor. Thanks!
If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.
Brodlist: Fantasy

Thank you! Our users agree.
My GP blew a diagnosis that should have resulted in my early demise. He took down my symptoms without doing an exam (duh) and then a year later decided, yeah, maybe that colon cancer isn't a hemorrhoid... Only reason I'm still here is pure luck and the grace of God.
One thing I beg of you:

Don't break links to old versions of documents!

(I realise this requires building a redirect forest. But we're talking 20 years of MS documentation.)
React Storybook is really similar thing. Although, it acts only for simple components - it seems that you can test presentational components.

Actually, Storybook is a lot simpler because Structor has convenient visual component composer. And of course, Structor uses source code generators with predefined boilerplates for Redux, Redux Saga.

Navigation between pages in Structor works with React Router. And you can export all pages with routes.

The main thing that is not liked by others is that Structor works with its own seed projects. But this is done only because Structor compile whole project.
>It was easy to give your customers the proper interface files (they were compilable), so they could code against your interfaces. They are much lighter than the object files (it was the time of the floppy disk and 2400 modems).

And how would they test/run their code, since the interfaces would at best link, but not run anything, being only stubs?

>It would probably be nicer to have two compilation artifacts, the extracted human-readable interface part and the object-file implementation part.

Yes, if interface-only coding was possible for the clients, and disk space was at a premium yes. Anything but having to manually write interface AND implementation.
Except that in any conceivable scheme in the future it doesn't, it just makes "worthy person" equal to "person with the decency to be born with the right passport" rather than "person who will be expected to contribute to our society in future if they can"
"Bro do u even use git?"
...also procrasturbation
I use IPS and VA panels, but I wouldn't be able to tell what panels it was when I had the bad experience. I'll try it again, but not every IPS or VA panel is good either.
If you trust your ability to say "no" to the police and have them respect that, your experience is not universal.
I disagree. The field has exploded. It's becoming more and more difficult to take vertical slices of every sub-field. What should we consider fundamental?

Programming languages, automata theory, set theory, compilers, assembly language programming, microprocessors and system architecture, algorithms, graph theory, category theory, artificial intelligence, machine learning, operating system, parallel and distributed programming, natural language processing, web design, network architecture, databases.

There are plenty of core fields that I've missed. Which are fundamental? Which do we teach? It simply isn't possible to adequately teach everyone the core fundamentals of all of these fields during the course of an undergraduate degree while also conveying the basic design fundamentals that a software developer needs to know. There is just too much in the field to expect every software developer to have a complete understanding of all of the fundamentals in every sub-field. Our field is getting a lot wider and a lot deeper, and with that, people's expertise is forced to narrow and deepen.
I wonder how this compares to airplanes -- when the first commercial airlines came into existence, did people complain that they weren't able to fly the plane? What about autopilot?
Too bad the original title sounds like click-bait and doesn't imply anything about Universal Basic Income.

I wonder if better titles (for the HN crowd) could be:

"Basic income is essentially an unavoidable Ponzi scheme"
or
"Basic income should be funded by printing money"
CookiesOK – automatically accept all cookie alerts
Nowhere in the communications with the FBI they have mentioned TOR or any connection with that. That's all made up by the author.
Finding someone to ask them a question is not harassment.

They were probably testing to see if the attorney would invoke the right to remain silent.

edit: Really her attorney did a terrible job. If the attorney knew the client didn't want to talk to FBI, she should have handled it way differently.

edit2: Man even if the attorney didn't know the client wanted to stay silent, if you hear "we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter" you assert the 5th and wait for the subpoena--and then fight it.
For anyone that wants to see this in action:

- Open a website, let's say google.com

- Open a console and type in
`window.open("http://xkcd.com")`

- Disable your popup blocker and do it again.

- Open a console in the new xkcd window and type in
`window.opener.location = "https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Cpoll"`

Note that Google quietly turned into my profile page. Now, imagine that it instead turned into maliciousgoogle.com, which looks just like Google, and you can see the attack vector.
We've asked you before to stop posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. If you keep doing it, we'll ban your account, so it would be much better if you would stop doing it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
A while ago I was watching a great talk by Dr. Greger [1] where he listed the top 10 causes of death and how to prevent them. I remember being surprised when I saw "doctors" listed as a leading cause of death. I don't remember what his advice was on how to prevent doctors, so I'll have to watch it again.

[1] https://youtu.be/30gEiweaAVQ
Plus if it never failed in testing or real life, was it even a bug?

Yes. I have proven that we shipped software with a bug that can crash the system given a very likely set of inputs. The fact that we never saw that particular combination of inputs was sheer dumb luck due to how it was most commonly configured.

I still call that a bug: if a user does X, where X is a reasonable thing to do, I guarantee the system will crash. That no user has done X yet does not mean it's not a bug.
"There exists a young man with no legs who has a stellar collegiate wrestling record.

There also exists an athlete in the most prestigious wrestling program in the country who always loses because he never makes weight, and when he does make weight, he gets defeated in seconds.

Therefore I can confidently conclude that 'number of limbs' has no correlation whatsoever to wrestling ability."

Hmmm...
So I'll spin the title a different way: "Billions are being invested in a robot that will truly liberate an aging population, the injured and the disabled, and those that simply don't care to own an automobile."

The poor title notwithstanding, the trust issues cited in the article are good to be aware of. Nevertheless, I'll be shocked if self-driving vehicles aren't a technology that utterly reshapes transportation in the U.S.A. in very short order.
It might also be a pipe dream.

We might have a global maximum of tech we can achieve with our brain capacity that does not including building brain-level intelligence. Not because it's some special taboo/limit, maybe just because it's too high a barrier.

(Or e.g. at best we could replicate it with organic matter, e.g. grow brain cells, tissues etc, but then it won't be as potentially speedy/efficient as computer AI either).
Just a heads up that this is about thread-local storage, not transport layer security.
Joe Duffy will present Safe Systems Programming in C# at QCon New York
It's not the reaction of a healthy person, because the purpose of harassment is to damage your psyche. Just like bleeding when shot is not the reaction of a healthy person -- the purpose of shooting someone is to reduce their health. If you find someone bleeding, there are two reasonable conclusions: one is that they started out unhealthy, and the other is that they were attacked.
Even if your trustee doesn't know anything about medicine, frequent demands for hospital staff to "wash your hands before touching the patient" and "explain to me what you're doing now" still let the staff know that making a mistake with this particular patient could be costlier than with another patient.

I hypothesize that fewer avoidable mistakes will be made, due to care-providers exercising more caution while under the strict scrutiny of your trustee. If they know anything at all about medicine, the outcome is likely to be even better.
I don't want a self-driving car either. I enjoy driving. I like to be in control.

But for commercial purposes, self-driving cars are inevitable, of course.
Yes. Also, unlike "ordinary" police, in the US it's a crime to lie to a federal agent. In her place, I'd be worried that I might accidentally say something that would give them leverage.
Makes sense. People don't even want to give over control of their social media feeds. "The algorithm" is never designed for the end user's interests.
I don't see anything wrong with that comment.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627005 and marked it off-topic.
I think it has to be a vintage Model M to claim alpha status. Nice try though. Clickety.
They already said earlier that they would accept a call. They changed their story to saying they'd really prefer to meet in person, but since they already admitted they'd accept a call then that should still work.

In any case, the point isn't to cooperate with the police. The point is to just find out what the heck the FBI actually wants. Finding out what they want doesn't mean actually giving them what it is they want. She could say upfront that she's not answering any questions and just wants to know what they want from her. If they won't tell her under those conditions, well, she's no worse off than she is today.
Exactly. This article is just as silly. Wide-spread adoption and integration of driverless cars is a long way off yet. I don't know how long, but I also don't care since it isn't my job to predict the curve. I have zero doubt that it will happen. Humans are horrible operators of machinery. At some point the machines will absolutely be better at operating themselves under our direction. So in the meantime, let's find some people who are unnerved by all the media conversation and get some click bait out of it.
A Walkthrough Guide to finding an engineering job at Slack
Code refactoring: helping your team help you
I am really fascinated by how this is going to play out. I am actually somewhat skeptical that fully autonomous (in the sense of arbitrary A to arbitrary B) is really going to happen anytime soon. I heard John Siracusa on his podcast outline convincing reasons why it wouldn't happen "in our lifetime". Conventional wisdom at this point seems to be that Siracusa is wrong, but his doubts resonated with me. I hope I'm wrong!
Can prejudice be renamed to "statistical assessments"? :)
Not much, compared to taxis and Uber already available.
So year after year it is becoming evident that solar is the future and yet very little seems to happen elsewhere to accommodate this. Solar cells produce DC. Batteries which can store the solar power uses DC. Our iPhones, laptops, flat screens, electric cars use DC. Yet the connection between this DC power production and DC power consumption happens with an AC line wasting power.

It is also a dumb line. Solar power production varies considerably and a lot of power consumption is flexible but we don't have any intelligence built into the power distribution network to be able to tell devices when to use power and when not to.

Imagine if smart cables went into our laptops so they could charge when power was abundant/cheap and use battery when it wasn't. Electric cars could automatically start charging when power was cheap and stop when it got expensive. Washing machines could have timer function which would start them as soon as power prices were low.
Judges don't do any deep analysis on million small claims, and can be replaced by automated rules.
Her post is a good illustration of the chilling effect created by minimal but specific attention from essentially all-powerful state agencies. That the potential events of which she was concerned haven't yet occurred still leaves them as effective inhibitors of legal conduct and a source of gratuitous distress.
Glass Cockpit != touch screen

eg: Garmin 1000, Avidyne
Because we are we, and it makes sense to root for the home team. DUH!

Why would you say should you not be killed by advanced robo-zombie AI?
I wish more companies would provide pre interview documentation like this.
Godwin's law doesn't talk about only ad hominem attacks though. It talks about comparing someone/something to nazis, most often it'll be related to the content the comments are on. Most of the content outside r/history is unlikely to be originally related to WWII. I would count a random mention of nazis under a trump article as Godwin's law.

Although, knowing reddit most of the comments are probably along the lines of "I did nazi that coming".

Source: I spend a lot of time on reddit
> Your worth to the company is reflective of your worth to the market.

Not necessarily. You could certainly be worth less or more to your company than what you're worth on the open market. If it's the former, you probably need a new job.
Are you planning to open source it?
In my other reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827) I pointed out that she could call them, tell them she's not answering any questions, and just wants to know what they want. If she tells them upfront she won't answer questions (and sticks to that), then when they tell her what they want, not answering their question isn't suspicious.
Dunno if this is still the case, but throughout my tenure there (2010-2014), mobile web and desktop were totally separate teams with separate codebases.
I met an engineer from Twitter at a conference and he said he was on a team (6+ people) that worked full-time on the Lists page for the Twitter.com desktop site. So anecdotally, they have (or at least had) very specific teams.
It would be a compelling article if humans didn't have such a dismal and fatal track record on the road.
I think it's debatable whether the government actually needs to classify everything it classifies in the name of national security. See this story for example:

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/25/how-the-cia-writes-histo...

That said, most folks would agree that there is some national security information that should remain classified.

But this science was not classified at all! It was just being forced through a political PR filter. It was public science done on the public's dime, which is just not analogous to nuclear weapons.
The cotton gin is what made a large-scale cotton industry viable at all. Picking seeds out by hand is so labor-intensive that cotton clothing was an absurdly expensive luxury before that.

But really, the growth of the South during the first half of the 19th century was largely due to immigration patterns. The plantation owner class was largely already-wealthy men from the British merchant class. Due to British class structure, they could never equal even the poorest, lowliest members of the aristocracy, despite their obvious superiority. Moving to America gave them a chance to treat business acumen and wealth itself as an elite class. Next down the list were the scots-irish indentured servants, mostly rebels and criminals and their families. England could either hang them, or sell them to the plantation owners to work off their fines and immigration costs. They provided supervision over the slaves. The slaves were brought over to meet growing labor demand. So it wasn't so much new tech as the colonization and working of large tracts of previously wild land. (Remember, slaves were brought from Africa around the same time to work the sugar plantations of the Caribbean as well - the economics were compelling)