skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why look for answers when they all are in THE BOOK?

That's hardly representative of most fundamentalist Christians, let alone religious people generally.
> I don't believe anyone thought Google Plus would've actually stood a chance

I know that I certainly did, and in fact for awhile my Facebook image was something along the lines of, 'I've left for G+!' Sadly, not many folks made the transition, and I'm back.

Funny timing on this story — I've recently been reading some of the Indie Web Camp stuff, and discovered that diaspora came out in 2010. It seems like just yesterday! Even back then we were worried about a Facebook monoculture, and hopeful in competitors.

Google's main assault couldn't break Facebook; diaspora couldn't either. I don't know what will, and that worries me.
Depends a little: essencial for what?

Also, "math" is a very, very broad term. What comes to your mind when you think of "math"? Arithmeric operations? Being good at mental calculations at the supermarket? High-school-level math? Calculus? Discrete math? Abstract algebra? The answer to this question alone may point out the fact that you struggle with a specific branch of math, not with math as a whole.

That being said, I don't think it's essential for most coding/software engineering work. There are some exceptions, though:

- Real Computer Science work. Think research-level position in the industry.

- Systems that rely on math properties to work (math is tangential). For a simple example, consider implementing the compare() method for a custom class. That may require some basic understanding of abstract-ish algebra to ensure that the semantic conditions (the ones your compiler can't check via static analysis), for example.

- Systems that are built around (or almost around) a math concept: machine learning, 3D graphics programming, Monoids for big data calculations, Monads for functional programming, etc.

Except for heavier research work, I don't think you absolutely need a prior "ability" with math to learn the concepts required to work even with mathematically-inclined systems. You may need to work harder on getting your head around certain concepts, though.
Having been on both sides of the hiring process many times, there's some useful tactical ideas in this podcast, but in my experience tactics should only play a small role.

As a candidate for a job, before you go to any interview (even a phone screen) you need to know what the local market salary range is for the type of job in you are applying for. If you don't know that, you're in a position of weakness and any amount of verbal judo isn't going to be useful.

A good hiring manager will not try to cheat you - they will make you a fair and reasonable offer. It might be at the low end of reasonable, but nevertheless it will be reasonable. If they give you a ridiculous lowball, they're not a good hiring manager, and at that point you should just walk away. Even if they come back with a reasonable offer. You don't want to work for a company or a boss that thinks that's ok to do to people.

A good hiring manager will not ask you your current salary. They might ask you early in the process: "what are your salary expectations?". It is acceptable to not name a number and just say something to the effect of "competitive market salary" which should signal to the hiring manager that you know what that range is, as does he, and you're good with that. If you need to give a number, just state range near the top of the local market salary range and move on. Yes, there's a theoretical risk that you've anchored yourself lower than they might pay, but you've anchored yourself at the top of the market range - not exactly a terrible outcome.

Caveat: this advice might not apply when dealing with a recruiter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access
Having been on both sides of the hiring process many times, I think there's some useful tactical ideas in this podcast, but I think they're missing the forest for the trees.

As a candidate for a job, before you go to any interview (even a phone screen) you need to know what the local market salary range is for the type of job in you are applying for. If you don't know that, you're in a position of weakness and any amount of verbal judo isn't going to be useful.

A good hiring manager will not try to cheat you - they will make you a fair and reasonable offer. It might be at the low end of reasonable, but nevertheless it will be reasonable. If they give you a ridiculous lowball, they're not a good hiring manager, and at that point you should just walk away. Even if they come back with a reasonable offer. You don't want to work for a company or a boss that thinks that's ok to do to people.

A good hiring manager will not ask you your current salary. They might ask you early in the process: "what are your salary expectations?". It is acceptable to not name a number and just say something to the effect of "competitive market salary" which should signal to the hiring manager that you know what that range is, as does he, and you're good with that. If you need to give a number, just state range near the top of the local market salary range and move on. Yes, there's a theoretical risk that you've anchored yourself lower than they might pay, but you've anchored yourself at the top of the market range - not exactly a terrible outcome.

Caveat: this advice might not apply when dealing with a recruiter.
This is a fantastic side-effect of transparent cultures and salary structure: people like you who, for reasons good or bad, do not want to work in this kind of environment, don't apply.

You may believe that sets you apart as an "A player" and means we only hire B players. I believe the concept of A players and B players is false, and have discussed this here: http://danieltenner.com/2014/09/11/there-are-no-b-players/ . That said it is your right to believe this dichotomy exists and that you are on the right side of it. I put it to you that if you insist on having an A/B player dichotomy your desire for an environment which makes you feel worthy through paying you more makes you inherently a B player in the environment at Buffer or GrantTree, where this kind of mindset will have all sorts of side-effects that will make it difficult to work with you.

Almost all the people who we interview are very keen to work in this kind of environment. The last job we had opened (admittedly a relatively low skilled job) we had 200 applicants, interviewed about 20, and almost all those 20 were really, really keen to work in this open environment (and none found it a turnoff, though some didn't really understand what it meant). I like to think we hired someone who will be able to do the role very well and be happy doing it in our company. What I love about your comment is that you are far from alone to have this reaction, but because we are very upfront about our culture, people with your reaction never seem to apply. That's a win on both sides: you don't waste your time interviewing with us, and we don't waste our time interviewing you.
I'm not sure why you'd use a hybrid app over a minimalist, mobile-friendly website, particularly for something like form-filling.

As a user, getting me to install your app is a huge barrier. If I don't need to do something every day, I'm probably not going to download and install your app. So wrapping a webpage in an app seems like a really poor decision.
They mostly don't.
Yup GDS is not the British Government. And do not represent all of gov.uk.

True they are responsible for the main chunks of the new gov.uk. But far from all of it.

I should know, as Im involved with the development of a non-GDS part of gov.uk whom do also have some native apps...

The use of responsive websites instead of native apps is a good rule though.
> You should be anchoring to a number that is high but realistic, and negotiating from a position of strength.

I very much agree with you and my other comments in this thread are very much advocating for this position. I'd just like to add an important caveat by saying anecdotally in multiple occasions I've seen friends (notably people who are just moving in to the Valley from elsewhere and/or right out of college) tend to widely underestimate the "realistic" estimation in your advice (they know in abstract that salaries are "high" but don't necessarily concretely know how high), and therefore following it can be dangerous and would mean lowballing themselves. Hence, not saying anything might result in a better net result end of the day.
" Liberals do not refer to property as a mere social construct."

Excellent point. Liberals are de facto capitalists.
Do you plan to apply to Google or Microsoft? There are literally thousands of companies that aren't Google or Microsoft. And most of those companies don't have every "programmer" and their brother applying to them. I don't think you should be too worried about math. Assuming you can count, add, divide, etc. Unless you are creating advanced algorithms that have never been created before (i.e. Cryptography).
There are some shortcuts available as well to improve the user experience a lot, see: http://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-user/passwordmanager.html#...
[Removed low quality comment.]
There's a great Stuff You Missed in History Class on this [1].

If I'm remembering correctly, one theory is that their canned food was tainted with a bacteria (not terribly uncommon for the time) that caused mental issues which triggered the bizarre chain of events of them leaving their shelter is various states of undress.

[1] http://www.missedinhistory.com/podcasts/the-dyatlov-pass-inc...
Wow. I would totally start biking to work if I had one of these. So cool
Can anything damage large companies' reputation irreversibly these days? Whether is Microsoft forcing "upgrades" on PCs or Apple forcing iOS updates with their constant popups (which BTW you can avoid by using a proxy file) or their planned OSX obsolescence. And Google being a web company is free to muck up the UI, tie unrelated products together or discontinue services without any recourse since they're not client applications. Most large software companies' practices seem abusive to me. "We take security seriously" - after they've just been hacked or "We take privacy very seriously" - after they've just handed over user data for some ad cash, etc.
Out of curiosity, how stealth is your setup? And when you get flak, are you running in pedal assist mode, or throttle only? In my case, I've got a smaller (geared) hub motor on the back, you wouldn't know it was there unless you were looking for it (hides nicely between the gear cluster and the disc brake). The only obvious ebike sign is the large battery (shaped like a water bottle, but sized more like a long 2-liter bottle)
Brilliant, gonna keep this one too!
700CE rather than BC.
GhostShell is back and leaked 36M records
I'm not trying to debate your view (we disagree on too much for that to be fruitful, subjective morality doesn't require one to disprove is/ought), I'm calling into question your tactics. You're saying one thing and doing another. It's dishonest.
And it is sometimes worth interviewing with a company that sounds interesting. One can't predict how an interview will go beforehand. I've been pleasantly surprised by some interviews that I had expected would be completely uninteresting.
What a wonderful piece of advice. "Never get in a bad situation!" - people don't intentionally get into bad situations, really, believe it or not.
E-bikes have become increasingly popular in the Netherlands, where they share the cycle paths just fine with conventional cyclists. (the mopeds and scooters that blast along the same paths recklessly are another story, however)
Björk partners with HTC to bring the world's first VR album to the Vive
No problem. I'm trying to remember when I first learned about it. I want to say it was a compilers (?) course in grad school. The professor was lamenting that C had survived and BLISS had disappeared, led me to research it originally. I particularly like that everything (or nearly everything) is an expression, probably due to my affinity for functional programming languages. Beyond that, I'm not sure that I like it's typeless nature for doing systems programming work. I guess it depends on how low-level you're talking about, though.

EDIT: I recall reading more about BLISS back then, but that was a decade ago. This [0], linked in the Wikipedia article, is pretty interesting. I'm about 5 pages in and have to head out so I'll finish it later, but it seems like something you'd be interested in given your general interest in language history (from reading your posts in the past).

[0] http://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/ronald-brender/bli...
> Friedman and Hayek called themselves liberals, not conservatives.

True.

> The American progressive movement co-opted the word "liberalism".

No, they didn't. For quite some time, the American left [0] (called "liberal" dominantly for some decades, some adopted the moniker "progressive" when it was perceived that the right had created bad associations with "liberal" a few decades ago, but with very little in common, in terms of ideas, with the older progressive movement, either in terms of substantive ideology, policy preference, or contemporary relative left-right position), right (usually called "conservative"), and libertarian political camps have all been dominated by, or at least significantly shaped by, ideas that trace back, in different ways, to 18th century liberalism and its struggles against 18th century conservatives. And all three have adherents who claim that their group is the proper heir to classical liberalism.

[0] relatively speaking, before anyone makes the common argument that by international standards, the US has virtually no left, with the major parties ranging from center-right (Democrats) to far right (Republicans).
That looks like a scooter
No, and this isn't what Facebook did internally. "Lockdown" was more of a way of thinking about the problem and cover for working longer hours rather than literally locking the doors to prevent people from going home.
If "vaguely skilled" is what it takes to audit an Android app, then "borderline incompetent" is all you need to audit a web app. Other commenters are talking about relative ease, not absolute impossibility.
I asked you not to do this here, and you deleted the comment and reposted it. If you don't want to use HN in good faith, please don't post here.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11832322 and marked it off-topic.
> But I would still need a car for commuting to work.

And that sums up why the typical US mentality will continue to impede transportation progress. I can easily carry over a week's worth of groceries to cook three meals per day for two people in one trip on my motorcycle. I ride to work every day of the year in Seattle. It's kind of like, you know, living in pretty much any other country in the world where cars are correctly seen for the luxuries they are.

Having a scooter without saddlebags would be harder in that I'd probably need to get groceries twice a week, but the only things actually stopping such madness are snow and large families. I would doubt the need for a car to get work, though, if we could just use those forbidden things called school buses and public transportation.
There's also the concept of a negotiation anchor. In that it's better to name the first number and make it borderline ridiculous and in your favor. So that anything lower seems like a deal.

Hypothetical situation time. I'm a job seeker and my minimum acceptable salary is $100k. You're a recruiter and your range is $80-$120k. Neither of us know the others' number.

If I make you say a number first, you would start at the bottom of your range. (Why not?) Now I'm "negotiating up" to my minimum.

Alternatively, I go first and anchor at $150k. Now it's much more difficult to lowball me at $80k, and we'll probably "negotiate down" to your maximum.

The key with this technique is setting a good anchor. Too high (e.g., $200k) and you'll just walk away. Too low (e.g., $120k) and you'll whittle me down because you know you can negotiate.

-----

Bottom line is knowing what you're worth and quickly testing whether you're in the ballpark. If you go into interviews without having a sense of whether the company will give you a competitive offer, you're wasting everyone's time. (And you have a bad HR department.)

Don't use ranges: the employer will hear the lower number. Just say, "The market rate for this kind of role is $150k base. I'd look for a competitive overall comp package, and we can talk about salary, bonus, and equity. Is that what you had in mind?"

You'll get one of three answers:

1. "Yes, that's in range." (And you can probably negotiate up.)

2. "No, that's too high. We were thinking $x." (Now you know where you stand, and how far apart you are. <20% is negotiation. Note that if they don't give you $x, don't give another number: you're just negotiating against yourself.)

3. "Ehh, it's on the higher end, but I think we can make this work." (Might actually be #1, but otherwise means you're in the sweet spot.)
The regulations are not national, but enforced by individual park services. As far as I'm aware all national parks with bears require proper food storage. Many states have regulations as well. A quick search shows that parks in New York with bears require their use during the summer.
I was excited about Vivaldi until I had to get on IRC to ask how to pull tabs out of and back into a window. I've been loving Opera lately.
>Eh, they probably can't legally make you stay

I mean, they absolutely cannot. We have a term for that; it's called 'kidnapping'.
Fun fact: The US Digital Service works closely with the GDS to bring over proven strategies to the US government.
They're getting popular.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/03/electric-bikes...
Seems good. Just as a random note: I tried to submit this URL, and so just upvoted. But the reason I originally chose that URL over the one the story is now about was because it focused on the Rust bit, whereas linking to the general notes and only pointing out Rust felt wrong. So good call, but just thought I'd mention that...
Does anybody know of a good, complete, ebike conversion kit for an older trek mountain bike?

I have a 4.4 mile round trip commute but I don't really want to spend $1000+ , plus I'm pretty diy.
"You can't proof the absence of defects" comes to mind. No matter what language you use, this will be a "problem". Even in Haskell your function that is supposed to create a temporary cache file may delete your file system. There are just limits to certainty.
I feel kind of uncomfortable with that regular expression for scrubbing data. It seems to be fail-open rather than fail-close and does clearly not cover the full lexical structure (e.g. hex numbers or MySQL's disgusting hex-encoded strings, including the numeric digits, are not caught by any of those cases, and thus would leak in ful. Or there's the possibility of string escaping with backslashes being turned off with a config setting, which would screw up the escape handling in the regular expression).

Am I missing some subtlety that makes it safe?
"For example, C programmers don't trust anything written since K&R."

That is an incredibly broad generalization. Perhaps you were implicitly assuming some qualifiers? :)

---

"..that's why we have linters, static analyzers, style guides, compiler options and warnings.."

But all those things are still just glorified retrofits on the job of the language. Are there any examples where a new library in a new domain adds inabilities that weren't originally enforced (or even conceived of) in the language?

One example I can think of is reading/writing files. The original C had simple numbers for file descriptors, which meant that in a large application you might try to read from a write-only fd, or vice versa. The C++ standard library solved that by creating separate types for istreams and ostreams. No reason we couldn't apply that idea to C as well.

On a tangent, I'm fascinated by the fact that Go hasn't bothered to steal that idea. For example, a goroutine can read or write any of the channels it has access to. If you try to juggle too many at once, that might cause the odd typo bug. It'll be interesting to see if source/sink channel types ever get retrofitted to Go in a decade or so.
Since this was thoroughly discussed yesterday, it's probably best to treat it as off-topic here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11831759.
Actually, its "false imprisonment". "Kidnapping" is different.
MACs are a unique hardware ID and there are various ways they can leak over L3, such as software that uses your MAC to compute its own ID that can be reversed.
A couple of opinions (while we're tossing opinions around):

I think we're still conflating link titles and headlines--they serve different functions. Link titles exist to get you to click through to the article. I'd argue that they should not have misleading information in it, but they should be enticing, and specifically, they should NOT summarize the contents of the article (otherwise why would anyone even click through?) Headlines are the first thing you see when you do click through to an article, and should nicely summarize the article so you don't have to stay long on the page to get the gist of what it's about.

Totally agree with you on not putting bullshit in a headline! As a reader I want a summary of the article so I don't need to stay long.
The doctrine of sola scriptura does not mean all the answers are in the Bible. It means that when it comes to issues of faith and morals, the Bible is authoritative above all else. The doctrine makes no claim that the Bible contains everything anyone would ever need to know.
Exactly. We know and recognise that pay scales are arbitrary. We are trying to get it right by neither underpaying nor overpaying. We are also trying to get it right by enabling a mature conversation on the topic, so instead of feeling undervalued and quitting after finding a better job, people within GrantTree can simply start some sort of process to get their pay adjusted to what they believe is a fair market value for their work. Alternatively, they might find out, through the process, that their work is not valued as much by others as they value it. This, if they are humble enough, is a signal that either they should be working on something else, or clarify to the rest of the company what the impact of their work is. Either way, this is an open process accessible to all, instead of something behind closed doors only available to those who are ballsy enough to ask for a pay raise.

It's far from perfect, and it's often difficult and demanding of people (particularly those who are on the various pay task forces that assemble and disband to make changes or evaluate people), but it's working alright so far for us. It's also a huge learning opportunity for everyone involved.

> But it assumes that the owner, is in fact, making more profit "off your back". This might be false. The owner might instead care about investing back into people and the working environment: an indirect "perk", if you will.

There is no good idea humanity has ever had that cannot be twisted into a trap to fool people... unfortunately every good thought ends up being used by someone somewhere to screw someone else over. I like to think we (my cofounder and I) are on the good side of that assumption, but it's important for us to remember that if we shift to the wrong side of it then the whole system becomes polluted by this desire - or rather, this fear of not having enough.
They're motorcycles, they are already forbidden.
I see a ton of these every time I'm out on my bike commuting here in the valley. My first reaction is "how the eff is that guy riding so fast" then I realize he MUST have an assist because it's a more casual looking rider on a more upright style bike, he's still pedaling but just FLYING.