skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Dear IT Consultancy Principle, you just do not get it. I am a business person, and yes, I do need a ballpark estimate. I do not know what I am asking for is 10 minutes of work or 10 years. Please help me narrow down my expectations. Is it 10 days, or 10 weeks, or 10 months? I really do not know. Your company has done some good work for me and I trust your judgement. Please give me a very estimate of what I am asking for is reasonably achievable. If yes, then awesome, let us proceed to the next stage. If no, then please help whittle down my request into something more simple, and easily achievable.

--I am an internal IT and Development Manager. I work with internal clients everyday who do not know what they are asking for is a simple content change, or a major architectural rethink. My internal clients need some help with the /business analysis/ of what they are asking for is a sensible thing. They do not know if a series of pages only accessible to their external client is something simple for us to achieve, or something that will take a decade. They really don't. Their job is to drive things forward for their clients, and my job is to look at what all their requests look like across our company and push forward the things that will help everyone.

Your job as a consultancy is to help us clients determine what is low hanging fruit and what is not. You might have something easy to ship as a client data access system, and it would take you 10 days or 10 weeks. Or it might take you 10 months. Or it might take you 10 years. The company I work for for could probably do A, B, or C, but definitely not D. If it is D, then how can we simplify the requirement? That is your job as a consultant.
Google bringing its Project Soli radar sensor to smartwatches and speakers
And when a viable solution to the constraints imposed by CAP theorem arises? I would think that will happen sooner rather than later.
Adding data and calling it a comment isn't really a comment.

And I find the whole "run minifiy/strip first" to be a hilarious suggestion from Douglas Crockford. It can be rephrased as "If you want comments in JSON, for a config file say, then don't use JSON."

That, and XML requiring the tag name in the closing tag, are some of the obvious, silly, mistakes. XML in particular. Without the named closing tags, just using, say, <>, would reduce the apparent bloat and annoyance by a very large factor.
This video was very cool. Are there any IC's that can perform analog computing for neural networks on the market now? I'm picturing something like an FPGA but with a bunch of op amps that you can connect into summers or amplifiers.

If not, how would one practically implement an analog computer for neural network programming (without several tables full of op-amps?)
If you have 20 minutes, this app has a novel for you
I've read that that transition has already occurred in British English.

In any case, I don't hesitate to put the comma outside the quotes if that makes sense to me, though it's not considered correct in American usage (and I'm in the US). This is one point on which I agree with the Brits; now if we could just get them to change -ise back to -ize :-)
I'm fairly green thumb when it comes to bitcoin's interworkings, so please inform me if something I say is terribly off.

I'm of the perspective that Ethereum is the next evolution of Bitcoin/Blockchain/RPOW. In my readings, I'm of the belief that it's not about currency/fiat (although that does play a big role). I think the techies, who helped create Bitcoin, realized that Bitcoin's value is much greater than a replacement currency for a nation (or the world for that matter).

Think of it today. Google, FB, hell Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc, they all have TROVES of data about US as individuals. What if you could create a layer on top of the internet that anonymizes your behavior and you could SELL your data, only when you CHOOSE to release it? I think this is what the 'Bitcoin experiment' has taught many of the developers and they are going to try to flesh out their idea, which, IMHO, is to allow software to improve, in an open data set, without infringing on our personal privacy.

I think this system could be breading ground for an AI birth. I'm not the only one (@aantonop has said something recently[1]) and I know AI has been speculated for a while but...this new model excites me. Mainly because Skepticism is at the root, the blockchain is a trustless system. If AI were to come about, shouldn't it think critically? Anywho, that's my current fantasy/theory/perspective. As for the 'value of Ethereum' I see it in the tech not a monetary value.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jxX84mzts
Exactly. There's a reason it's called a ballpark and that's because people are expecting it to be unreliable.

The question that a ballpark answers is simply this: can I afford to work with these people?

When I finally took a sales class the most insightful thing that I picked up was to ask the question "is that a lot or a little" because it truly reflects what ballpark estimates are about. There are some people who will be totally at their limit with $1,000 budget and others who won't take you seriously if you say $50,000 because it will be too low.

That's what a ballpark does and it's beneficial for both sides because it essentially allows you both to fail fast and not waste each others time. If you say $10,000 and a client balks at the cost, no amount of invested sales time is going to win you that client and it's not going to be worth it to you anyway. They either can't afford what they want or they need an off the shelf solution.

If you say $10,000-$20,000 and the conversation continues then you're good to continue.
There are plenty of docters who treat a C diff infection with PRObiotics, i.e. let good bacteries kill the bad bacteries. So do not worry and go to a doctor that practises functional medicine.
So all of that drama, name calling, sam altman posts, etc. ended with them agreeing that he was indeed a co-founder? Honestly the only people who really know what happens between two people, are those two people.
For what an anecdote is worth: yes, I only use 2.x because the Mac system default is 2.x.

Relying on the Mac default Python keeps my binary sizes small, and Python 2.7 is good enough. While I have at least done the __future__ imports to adopt features of 3.x such as print(), a full switch to 3.x will be more trouble than it’s worth until Apple decides to install it.
That's fair. I think the vague approach of "they were clearly lacking skills" was what triggered my response.

Understandable. My comment was already getting to long, and I didn't have space to explain every detail.

BTW, if you feel members on your development team aren't capable of self-managing, this book is really good to help you develop those skills: http://www.amazon.com/Clean-Coder-Conduct-Professional-Progr...

Self-management is something every programmer should have in their skill-set.
Also the fact that credit cards aren't your money you are spending.

If someone steals your credit card, you can say "Not my money! That's your problem" while a debit card is the opposite. Plus banks employ people to fix fraud while you (probably) don't.

Sure a bank will eventually rectify debit fraud but in the mean time, why would they care? It isn't their money.
When I came to the US I couldn't figure what "minimum payment" means. It took a while to realize that it's a totally arbitrary amount and really has no meaning for any kind of financial planning. I bet a lot of people think they are paying off their debt by making minimum payments.
I go the other way. I don't want to restrict too much land usage. Just open more commercial space.
> Spend your 10,000 hours learning a career in demand? Now we're talking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/too-many-law-stude...

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/robot-radiologists-are-going-to...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/g00//business/economy/new-mac...

http://www.businessinsider.com/ibms-watson-may-soon-be-the-b...
Outside of math, the only place where proofs exist, you're simply mistaken. In the real world, there's no such thing as proof, only evidence, and in the world of evidence only [1]positive and thus verifiable claims suffer the burden of proof. This isn't debatable, this is a fact that you either understand or you do not, it isn't a matter of opinion.

> I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative

Yes you can, but it doesn't make your challenge logical. If you challenge someone to prove a negative claim, you are logically wrong and are demanding the impossible. Yes, they may have made a negative claim, the correct response is to say the claim itself is invalid and rephrase it to a valid form and then determine where burden of proof lies.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

If you say "Fish definitely don't have dreams", I'll say that can't ever be proven, there may be one mutant fish somewhere that does dream and you can't examine them all and thus the claim is simply logically invalid. So the claim should be rephrased as "fish dream" and whoever is on that side suffers the burden of proof. However, just because it hasn't been proved that fish dream doesn't mean it's true that they don't, what it does mean is lacking evidence that they do, the answer is unknown.
The key problem with the finger print background searches is that they often take >30 days. Uber & Lyft have significant driver churn (due to it being temporary employment for many people) and the delay discourages drivers to sign up.
I think you are missing the point, it has nothing to do with installing the NVIDIA drivers through Docker.

What you are showing[1] is how to install NVIDIA drivers on CoreOS the hackish way (not persistent, no driver libs, no DKMS, no UVM, no KMS...)

Regarding rkt, it's not supported at the moment but a similar approach could be taken.
As for the Docker CLI wrapper, you can avoid it if you really need to.
Why? To protect yourself.
How is it "wrong, wrong, wrong"? The article gave many examples, several of them from actual studies and statistics.

You merely labelled the whole thing as "excuses" in an argument-free comment.

>At some point we'll exhaust all excuses for success in life other than grit, dedication, and plain old hard work. Chance is just another one down the line.

I can fathom how some people really believe they did more "grit, dedication and plain old hard work" than hundreds of millions of other working-to-the-bone poor that never get nowhere, from poor African Americans to third world sweatshop workers...

Inevitable link:

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

I can only excuse this mentality in "rags to riches" people, because, even though they are clearly outliers, their life's story and survivorship bias makes them to overlook the whole issue, and turn it into: "hey, If I've made it out from poverty into millionaire, everyone can, it just takes hard work", while forgetting the non-work-dependent chances they got that others didn't.

But they also forget the more important part: that what's important is not whether "everyone can do it" (period) but whether "everyone can do it with EQUAL effort".

If a poor black person has to put 3x the effort to make it compared to a white guy who just had it easy because of rich parents, college funds, encouragement, etc -- then sure, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to do it. But it's hardly FAIR (level starting point), and it's far harder and thus rarer (plus, if it takes 3x the effort it might not even mean we'll have only 3 times less poor black successful persons as percentage. It might even get it to 1/10 or 1/20, because the breaking point that makes you fail or give up might not scale linearly with effort).
"And yet a Pareto distribution still has a mean, and the sampling distribution of that mean is approximately normally distributed."

This is often wrong. The central limit theorem requires finite variance and some (yet common) Pareto distributions have infinite variance.
True, right up until the internet stops working in which case they really will be idiots for not having better, read smarter, infrastructure.
I, for one, want google as far from me as is possible.
> If you care about privacy, you should not use Google Allo

"set the fox to guard the henhouse"

It is not that Google is evil, or anything. Quite the opposite, it is probably as good as a corporation can get in that respect.

But they do have a vested interested to learn as much as possible about the users, so they can sell ads, so they can still continue offer amazing products and drive innovation.

Having said that, I would, and do, trust them with all my private data. Things that I would trust only to good friends.

However, if I really wanted something to be absolutely private, Google would not be my first stop. A combination for GnuPG and TOR, maybe, but not Google for sure.
I've been running a consultancy for quite some time, and I see where the author is coming from. We used to do things like that, and still insist on paid discovery sessions before giving actual quotes.

Here's the thing though. If you've been doing this for long enough, you already know how much your business WANTS it to cost. Are you the kind of contractor who typically does $100k deals? Then you're not going to take a $2k project. And your client should know that.

All they need to know is, will it cost $5k, $50k, or $500k? And be honest, you know what kind of budgets you need to build products if you've been doing this for long enough. If your projects range from "$50k to $300k", just say that, and it will move the conversation right along.

You will thank yourself later that you didn't spend a month working with a disqualified client.
Thinking about robots is thinking about cheaper, smaller and more energy efficient devices. For example think about smart phones and communications, think about information storage and transformation. Those aspects are not a single extrapolation of the past, they are a revolution. I see many advances in nanotechnology, machine learning and miniaturization that could give rise to a new revolution, this is like the transistor, we are at the verge of a big change.
I went with Taleb's proposed definitions:
"Do you take every observation: square it, average the total, then take the square root? Or do you remove the sign and calculate the average?"

edit: apparently this is consistent with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_absolute_deviation I'm not sure what you referred to
Python2 supports Unicode, but it requires careful thought and deliberation to do it right - and at the same time makes it very easy to do it wrong (by assuming all bytes are strings etc). As a result, when such code is written by people with little awareness of the world beyond ASCII or Latin-1, it tends to be buggy with locales that need more than that.

And yes, it's not really a Python issue, it's a more generic issue with treating bytearrays as strings (what you refer to as POSIX text model). Until UTF-8 became the standard encoding everywhere, there were many Linux apps that couldn't handle non-Latin1 encodings properly, either. It was also the case on Windows in 9x days, for all the same reasons.
Settling != agreeing the other party was right. Lots of times it makes financial sense to settle even if the other person was completely wrong.

e.g. When you have a legal issue holding up the close of your $1bn deal and you have to choose between paying up so you can get your deal closed, or dragging it out over 1-3 years in a protracted legal battle that risks never getting the deal done.
I made a website for my uncle's tile business. Real, international business with an office in the UK. I made it with ~180 lines of CSS, ~30 lines of JS ~20 lines of GNU (1) m4, and 60 lines of make. Got positive impressions from everybody he works with and probably improved our sales. External JS included, the WHOLE website source weighs in at 150 kb without images, with multiple pages, a gallery with a lightbox and on a proper grid (github.com/ThisIsDallas/simplegrid), a custom Google Maps map via the API, a carousel, and a consistent colour scheme, all done in an afternoon. And once compiled, the product weighs less than the source.

I guess the problem is nowadays the designer folk gets to say too much on the development of websites and web standards. There is no prerequisite to become one. If you didn't study CS in depth, at the uni or by yourself, you can't do embedded, OS dev, etc., but mashing together some stuff from Github you become a web designer, no qualifications needed.

Here we have a website that talks about bloat and lists nine or ten tools that have well established, better, more generic counterparts. Generating a file from another via a filter program (minifier, m4, awk, coffeescript compiler...) is what make excells at. Replacing strings is what m4, awk and sed do since 1980's. We don't expect from the designer folk to know anything about the basics of computing. And they spend their time duplicating and triplicating and quadruplicating effort spent decades ago to end up doing the same thing, only worse, and when it comes to actual work, all they do is mix and match some libraries and add bloat after bloat, instead of looking to see what needs to be done, and doing it, using the tools already available and fit.

(1) Otherwise I'd have to implement a foreach macro, which would take some 10 lines more.
A bash alias for new aliases
It might be nice if votes could be weighted by some sort of basic competence test.
probably the people with buying power for the project rushing to make some personal profit out of this?
>What about the people who start companies making a technology that other companies are willing to pay for?

You do know that, whatever the hard work of the founder and the demand of their field in general, most startups just die, right?
I strongly belive the universe is for all intent and purposes casual [1], I reject dualism and accept that free will objectively doesn't exist (in fact I don't even think you can rigourously define it without invoking supernatural entities).

Still I have no problem to accept free will as a subjective experience, the same way I accept love, fear, hope, despair, and other states of mind, including consciousness. They are just the way our mind work, byproducts in a way. That doesn't mean that in principle one couldn't imagine mind without them, but it would be alien to us an we would probably not even recognise as intelligence.

I guess that makes me a compatibilist.

[1] modulo quantum indeterminism which seems to have surprisingly little effect to the macro world.
It's not entirely arbitrary. It has to cover the interest for the payment period and some portion of the principle balance.

Only paying the minimum will certainly result in paying a large amount of interest.
This is the next generation of shell code right there.

Why try to obfuscate programs in base64-encoded strings when you have it invisibly lying around in plain light.
Wealthier people are the ones who have unsecured credit cards. Banks apparently have no problem giving me a limit of $50k without any sort of collateral, but my dad can't get a credit card without depositing his entire limit.
Bad designers.
FTA: "If I charge you $10,000 to build a web app that saves or generate $50,000 of revenue, that project effectively cost you $0. But when you ask about cost up front, any answer I give you will just boil down to whether or not you feel like spending $10,000 today"

You are under the mistaken impression that as a software developer you are the only one in a this conversation that knows how much money a a particular task is worth automating. Here's a hint - not only do I know what it's worth to my business, but you probably don't. If you can't tell me if a job is in (a fairly wide) range of viability, then you're not likely to be a good partner for my business.
Congratulations Patrick, very impressive!
I've been thinking along similar lines for many years, though with the language of externalities. For example, here's a comment of mine from 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4361596

I haven't thought about safety like you have, but my bias is to wonder if part of the reason regulations get lax is that they first get complicated due to the influence of people motivated by their own selfish interest. Perhaps over time people add crap to regulations, which makes it hard to sift wheat from chaff, and this leads to backlash? With the final sin being to forget Chesterton's Fence? That would fit with my experience.

One thought-experiment idea I had was a society governed not by rules but by unit tests for rules. That would allow any cop or citizen to globally change a rule if he found an exception that didn't violate existing tests. See the final section of http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/04/09/the-legibility-tradeoff. Of course then the problem is that people would start gaming the tests rather than the rules. That's as far as I got.. :) These days I try not to think about the hard instance of this problem, and instead focus on an easier problem: avoiding externalities in software projects using more thorough tests. That's going a bit better.
And sometimes Stettling == agreeing the other party was right. In the recent GoldiBlox suing the Beastie Boys which resulted in a swift counter-suit, the settlement to drop the lawsuits included a public statement by GoldiBlox. That statement accounted to an admission of guilt and explained that GoldiBlox was in the wrong. Sometimes financial sense can be dictated by legal standing as well.
This seems just about as absurd as zoning the computers in those buildings for Excel and Powerpoint use only.
Depends on what you do with it
Is projected to cost just as much and is projected to have a 215 mile electric range. If I'm supposed to use it tomorrow, the choice is really easy.
What does insightful mean to you? Pipedrive just upgraded their reporting a major way last month. It was not bad before, but now it is pretty slick.
Yep. this is it.
https://rt.perl.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=128159 was filed by the author of this piece. The take-home to me is that supporting Unicode to a great depth in a language is really hard.
Great question, and I won't do it justice in this attempt. I think at the point where people are more or less extricated from decision-making, small they may be. When people are essentially just organs plugged into a network, like cows to a milking station.

All you have to do is be, you no longer have to think, slowly things are done for you and decided for you -- with best intentions, of course.

We're not there yet. But we're getting there.
I was given an unreasonable amount of unsecured credit when I turned 18, by virtue, apparently, of the fact that I was now 18. It certainly wasn't because I had any stable income or assets.
So you are saying, without in-depth knowledge about the situation, that even though they settled and publicly agreed that he was indeed a cofounder, that he is lying and Cruise is wrong? I choose to believe the court record.
For now. Switching proof of stake with casper.