skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Feeling ownership doesn't have to mean managers can't contribute at all, that's absurd.

Creative labor is unqiue - Depending on the employee, I know I have X changes I can suggest/propose per project before they start to get annoyed with me, for some it's more than others. Unsurprisingly when its promo time the guys who are easier to work with get brought up (even if the difficult divas work is marginally better) The big thing is trust and respect - earning that early on is key and once you do things are much easier going forward.
If your transactions take 20-30 seconds, something is badly wrong with the communications infrastructure in the shops you are using.

In Europe, from pressing "OK" after typing in a PIN, it takes about 2-5 seconds before the card can be withdrawn.
China imposes internet news reporting ban on major online companies
Prelude is good too. I mean, you can use Spacemacs in Holy mode, but it's not really the point. Prelude and Emacs Live are much better holy mode kits.

Spacemacs is, as the tagline says, FOCUSED ON EVIL.
(A + B + C) ≠ (A + C + B​)
It depends on the culture, but I prefer cultures where everyone, including management, gives input, and the creator picks-and-chooses. Management, even upper management, giving input shouldn't necessitate a change.

Management has a big picture individuals often lack. That's an important part of the process. On the other hand, it shouldn't dominate the process.
I plan to use the phrase "put that devil back in its bag" on a regular basis now :)
It isn't a "public" API, it's Facebook's API that they're making available to the public. They have the right to control access to their API, be it by password authentication or telling someone to stop using it.

Not that I necessarily agree with how this case turned out, but Facebook is under no obligation to support the business model of another company...
But to reach that conclusion they had to make assumptions, and yet their conclusion has washed away these assumptions so as to state a solid fact. Not very trustworthy IMO.
> though I'd be willing to bet accessibility is still better on Windows.

You honestly have no idea how much. Desktop accessibility in Linux, at least for me as a screen reader user, is a joke.
This is just the latest justification among security people to not having acknowledge their own incompetency in things like risk management. Since when was "doing what you feel" considered a reasoned solution? Many times these things aren't even weaknesses as such, just loose tolerances in the system and exposing them under great fanfare just making the system less flexible. Which is pretty ironic if you think about it.
I'm still fascinated how the world 'billion' can have two meanings, depending on language https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion
Humor aside, the real crimes are the systemic from the top, like the Libor clowns, which will erase public trust at some point, which will cause the public go back to keeping money in mattresses.

Fortunately there are some small wins, like these little fish going to jail: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36737666 but we need to keep it up and restore accountability.
Voices of Humanity – The World's Space Time Capsule
uugh .. that would be terrible.
Peer to Peer – video interviews with experts as they solve problems
> If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from?

I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while.

> Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting?

Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk:

> What will save the 5%?

What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation?

> There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job.

It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary.

If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.
Great advice, short but precise!
This...

I hate being slow rolled to idea or opinion..

If you have criticism about my work come out with it, I am not some delicate little snowflake, if there is better way I want to know.
Interesting to see this ! Any way to contact you?
Unfortunately that's only true until the next vulnerability that allows theft via NFC on a mobile device. There has already been one, there will almost certainly be another.

http://www.securityweek.com/contactless-visa-cards-vulnerabl...

> "With just a mobile phone we created a PoS terminal that could read a card through a wallet," said Martin Emms, lead researcher on the project. "All the checks are carried out on the card rather than the terminal so at the point of transaction, there is nothing to raise suspicions. By pre-setting the amount you want to transfer, you can bump your mobile against someone’s pocket or swipe your phone over a wallet left on a table and approve a transaction. In our tests, it took less than a second for the transaction to be approved."
> Which frankly sounds like a good idea, but doesn't seem like it has much to do with this blog post about managing members of your team.

The "safe space nonsense" grandparent was referring to is that when you attempt to stop people from being offended or thinking they don't own their work (or otherwise treating adults like children) by saying "just don't say this" results in a chilling effect that just makes everyone's lives worse. Nobody will come up with legitimate criticisms in fear of "being too mean" or "stealing your thunder", and people who need feedback will never get it as a result. I believe that's the effect that the grandparent was referring to. You get the exact same problem with univeristy campuses, where people wanted to be shielded from alternate views by claiming that you're offending them and that you're violating their safe space.
> If I submit I project for scrutiny, I want constructive criticism and advice

That's were you're misunderstanding the post: "2 cents" is unsolicited, minor advice that would be safely ignored from a co-worker, but with the cachet of a manager, its no longer just criticism or advice but an instruction. I suspect you assume that all teams are free to challenge their managers, but Derek's assumes the opposite (not all teams feel they are free to challenge their managers' opinions without repercussions).

> The goal should to make the project as good as it can be

That's entirely dependent on whether the manager is always right, otherwise they are making the project worse by fiat from time to time
That's one of the issues HTTP/2 has. Because all the requests and responses are now multiplexed over a single TCP connection, losing a single packet is going to block everything. This makes HTTP/2 actually work on unreliable networks. This problem is also known as Head-Of-Line (HOL) blocking.

Google is aware of that issue, that's why they explored SCTP first and now QUIC as alternate layer 3 protocols to replace TCP in the future.
> Someone who wants to learn Smalltalk should try Pharo or Squeak, not GNU, GNU will just leave them with a bad taste of weirdness for no good reason.

As someone who has tried Pharo and Squeak, I was left with a bad taste of weirdness for no good reason. The colorful Playskool environment, while neat at first, was not only ugly and alien, but also quite minimal compared to Vim or Emacs. I still don't understand how anyone could possibly be productive in such an environment. What is it that's so attractive about it to Smalltalkers?
Well, I never said that it was not, although I think the mix is somewhat different between private and public. Speculation and failed products might be reduced with public funding, but procurement costs might be increased, for example.

Anyway, I was making the point that while the costs of those things might exist for both sectors—in the private sector they are split between multiple parties but they are invisible and unaccountable—in the end they are still borne by the consumer. On top of all that, you have lost opportunity costs ie.in a private funded system we end up paying for things we don't even need, rather than paying too much for something we do.

I just see this issue of public sector waste raised, and it seems to me more a shibboleth than an accurate portrayal of the situation. Which is not to say there are not very real issues around corruption and poor procurement with government. But these exist in the private sector also, we just call it business.
It's tough to be prescriptive about this sort of thing in a general way. Every situation is different. It really depends on who you're working with, sort sort of context you're working in, what sort of expectations you're working with, etc.

I would say, "make sure you set expectations in advance about how feedback is to be interpreted and acted upon". My boss gives me his 2 cents all the time, and I enjoy it. And vice versa. Sometimes I preface my suggestion with "you don't have to do change anything, but FYI...", and sometimes I say "I feel quite strongly about this: XYZ" – and even then we have an understanding about whether or not something should or should not be changed. It works the other way too. I've shipped things without incorporating feedback, and all was well.

So I think it boils down to culture. Everyone's understanding of what the norms are, what is expected, etc. (Just for fun: Can you imagine telling Elon Musk or Steve Jobs not to add their 2 cents?)
sysdig uses "tracepoints", a feature of the Linux Kernel documented here: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/trace/tracepoints.t...

The tracing capabilities are then tuned for monitoring and troubleshooting. So keeping the overhead as low as possible and making it usable on production environments.
My guess is that the reason why freedom of speech only protects you from being made to shut up by govt through prosecution, and not being made to shut up by a private company due to the space it occupies in the world's technology and information zeitgeist, is because when the freedom of speech laws were formulated, the govt threat to your speech is the only major threat that existed. A Google kind of threat to freedom of speech didn't exist.

The question then becomes, is Google stifling freedom of speech? Can their impact on your freedom of speech by deleting your blog or posts be compared to the govt's impact on your freedom of speech through prosecution?

I say yes. Freedom of speech and similar laws seek to give you an immunity against govt, not because govt is evil, but because govt is powerful, and you are not. Google is powerful, and they were alive to just how powerful they were going to be when they came out with that don't be evil admonition.

Whereas Google took it upon themselves to not be evil, the writers of freedom of speech and similar laws tool it upon themselves to tell govt to not be evil. Should our societies protect individuals against entities who have power beyond some kind of threshhold? I'd say yes.
As I understood, the WeChat payments is not what is used to pay for the meal. I assumed person A would pay for the meals of other people, then they would pay to a directly A via WeChat.

For the restaurants, admittedly I have not been in China. I live in Bangkok and here are loads of "street food" and "mom & pops" restaurants. I just assumed it was similar in China, the examples you have Beijing/Shanghai is also huge and quite modern iirc. What about other cities, outskirts or restaurants people eat for daily meals? (If that's a thing there).
I taught in a high school for 5 years. I learned one very important thing: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I only noticed after that experience that in my previous 25 years as a programmer the vast majority of people ignored my advice (even when they asked for it!)

Generally speaking, I've found that people have a preconceived notion of an answer when they solicit feedback for something. Then they go shopping around for the person who will answer with the feedback that they expect. When you give unsolicited feedback the effect is even stronger -- people simply do not want to believe that their expectations do not mesh with the real world.

The end result is that if you give good feedback and are saying things that the person knows already, it's not very effective because they already know it. If you give feedback and the person is surprised by it, they will disregard it unless forced to confront it. Forcing people to confront their incorrect understanding sometimes works, but rarely (Think... how many students shape up after failing a test? Some do, but the vast majority simply fall into a pattern of failure).

My most successful pattern of "feedback" is to simply provide support. If someone requires feedback, I rather ask them what they think of the situation. If it matches my opinion, then I encourage them to continue. If it doesn't, I do nothing until the situation reaches a head -- then I offer my assistance to help. Usually if the person is desperate they will also be open to new ideas.

Allowing people to fail is the best way to help them learn. Sometimes it can be costly, though. If the cost gets to be too high, you might have to intervene, but that's not a "regular feedback" kind of thing.

Just to clarify, though, most people require a different kind of feedback -- "You are a nice person. I enjoy working with you. I like it when you do X." It makes them feel comfortable and able to do their work. That kind of encouragement is often lacking in the workplace (and in schools, unfortunately). It helps to make a point of saying nice things whenever you notice them. At school I literally made a chart with all my students on it and I checked off whenever I noticed something they did right (and commented on it). If someone was missing ticks I would dedicate myself to watching them all day to catch them doing something right (try not to be creepy about it ;-) )

Edit: If you are wanting to write software, I would love a chart that I could put all my colleagues on where I could write nice things when I saw them. It would be awesome if it had alarms to tell me when I wasn't encouraging certain people, etc. I'd pay money for that.
Slate finds it very hard to publish anything but negative pieces about white people.

It's basically become Huffington Post for people who can read.
The usual method for tipping with a Chip+PIN card at a restaurant in Europe is for the terminal, which the waiter hands to you, to display a message like "Add tip? Yes/No" or "Tip amount". You type the amount, press OK, then input your PIN.

This is what [1] terms "Table pay", but it also gives "Tip Allowance", which seem to be the system you've described.

At least in Britain, before Chip+PIN cards (12 years ago), paying by card in a restaurant was considered somewhat risky — waiters weren't trusted not to clone the card. Perhaps that's why customers were happy to use "Table pay".

[1] http://www.emv-connection.com/managing-card-based-tip-and-gr...
Tesco use offline processing in many stores.

It's visible to the customer as a much faster process -- you can remove your card around a second after you enter your PIN, instead of waiting 4-5 seconds for authorization.
For a long time now, entrepreneurs have been solving the 'convenience' problem, as they have found that it what makes them the most money.

It's not about solving important 'problems' for most - it's about how they can make the most money, and that is usually by providing more convenience to people.

This is, of course, how business works in a capitalist society - the issue is that the problems they solve are often marketed as being the most important, whereas they're just selling a dream.

I'm sure they would solve the major problems if they could and there was sufficient money in it - look at how the drugs companies operate - but this is (and has always been) about money.

Amazon are running their competition for better robot picking - are they also running competitions for how to help people whose jobs are replaced by robots ?

Silicon Valley has a single role - to make (more) money for those people investing into it. That's all. There's little to no philanthropy, and when there is it's generally from people who are already far wealthier than is required to live (an excessively comfortable) life.
I may be incorrect, but Pokemon Go was released with Nintendo's approval; meaning they've dipped a toe into smartphone games.
The following is a foo function that take a constant pointer:

void foo(int *const x);

If you point x to another adress inside foo function, it will not compiled.

The author seems think that

void foo(cont int *x);

is function that takes a constant pointer which is wrong, it is a function that takes pointer to constant object. In this case, it is legal if you point x to another address in memory inside foo function.
Absolutely - but that still flags a terminal for review and will get it blocked. There does not exist any vulnerability that would allow you to clone NFC cards, which has the biggest potential for abuse. And again, even then - contactless cannot be used to take out any cash, so it's not an attractive target for thieves. What are they going to buy with a cloned NFC card(if they could get one)? Lunch?
Nobody are saying managers shouldn't ever give subjective feedback.

The issue is when managers always give subjective suggestions for changes, because it implies that the work isn't good enough.

If the work is never good enough, why is that person presenting stuff to you? (Or why are they even working for you?)

Clearly, if the work is never good enough, they need someone more on their own level to bounce ideas of, or someone slightly more senior to mentor them until what they present to you is good enough a reasonable portion of the time.

In other words: If you constantly need to suggest changes, the team is badly managed to begin with. And if the changes you suggest are not needed, then don't suggest them, or at least not all the time. Not only does it negatively affect team morale if you always do it, but the extra time spent costs you money.

If you are a visionary that people are clamouring to work for, then, sure, you have more latitude in the amount of suggestions you make. But most of us are not in that position.
We know Haskell variants or maybe scalaz. I don't get why these now represent pure functional programming. Scala isn't even close to pure. This is just jargon for languages that can represent very abstract mathematical concepts.

I am happy to see these ideas work their way into any language. I just question the utility here. So there are potentially abstract things going on in my code? Great. So what? I can maybe notice it and get back to work.

Haskell gives me more. It says I can define some of the abstractions and write code against them. More realistically, it allows someone smarter than me to define the abstractions which I can then code against. For better or worse, this is expected now of even beginner Haskell programmers, where "monad" rears its head as an inbuilt type class, in inbuilt functions and some of the earliest type errors.

In Haskell, a monad isn't just an abstract concept that you can see if you squint hard enough at your code. A monad is code. It has an implementation as a typeclass, in Ocaml as a module type. How is it implemented in JS?

I am also sceptical that these abstractions are useful outside statically typed languages. Haskellers habitually ride towers of these constructs and I for one couldn't do it without a type inferencer. I already find scalaz too painful for me personally.
Show HN: Use plain English to create reports in Google analytics
I would up vote this about fifty-leven times.

The NY Times doesn't even remotely approach this with any skepticism. Just a lot of "golly gee willikers, they sure do some crazy stuff at the googles, a yuk yuk yuk."
> there is no virtual memory translation happening, which in theory, will significantly cut latency (and hence boost performance and efficiency). This means that there is one cycle to address the SRAM, so “this saves half the power right off the bat just by getting rid of address translation from virtual memory.”

In protected mode (i.e., what the kernel is using), will an Intel processor not also disable virtual memory lookup? Couldn't we just recompile scientific software to a protected mode environment to get those same benefits?

Also, I think it is more useful and fair to compare against a GPU than a general purpose CPU.

(As an aside, I don't see where the reduced latency gives such a big advantage. There will be latency anyway, so in any case your software has to deal with waiting in an efficient way (doing useful stuff in the mean time). Shaving off some latency will only help if your software design was bad to begin with.)
Where in the US were you that was still imprinting in 2001?
It's mostly CS related. Most of their big data systems were initiated by the Research group.
Mozilla will start blocking Flash in Firefox this August
Sounds like an interesting app. However, how come “full network access” and ”receive data from Internet” aren't the only permissions this app require? Why the need for “read phone status and identity”, “modify or delete the contents of your USB storage”, “read the contents of your USB storage”, “read phone status and identity” and “view network connections”?
”?
Obligatory Laine: Serial Experiments reference

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj6ADC8ezxk

* https://youtu.be/l1yI7un5NyQ?t=1023
That depends on the meditation - it's never quite the same, really varies a lot. Now, I've taken to doing a lunch time meditation in the tinted back seat of my car (secure carpark) and some times I've actually nodded off for a fraction of second or two - or who knows how long.

At any rate if I was disturbed between the 10 and 20 minute mark when I typically start to settle into it I'd feel a bit rattled. You're meant to spend a minute or two getting back, slowly stretching out and opening the eyes. Always feel a bit sleepy, but then also strangely refreshed.

As a programmer I do find slowing the "mind storm" rather beneficial. Definitely feeling less frazzled.
Tech Giants Boast an Edge in Music Streaming
It depends entirely on the use-case of course. Back in the J2ME days we multiplexed multiple connections over a single TCP stream because certain shitty phones coughnokiacough would pop up a permission dialog for every. single. connection. On startup our app would need to connect to several services and the user would be spammed with permission dialogs. Multiplexing the TCP streams solved that issue.
What if the wheel turns faster in Go?
Seems obvious, really. The people who have the money to pay others to solve problems for them are likely to have already had all their basic problems taken care of.

Tangentially reminds me of Dave Rossum, founder of synthesizer company E-mu systems, who jokes that the problem with building a business on selling to musicians is that your customers are always broke.
Sure, the social graph is not enough on its own. There's something different about China or its stage of development.

But the specific points you raised mostly don't help us understand what's going on. (1) is incorrect, (2) applies even more in the US than in China, (3) is just wrong, (4) is irrelevant as people have bank cards.

I say (3) is just wrong because: (i) WeChat doesn't facilitate paying for each others' meals; it only helps when splitting the bill, and (ii) red envelopes weren't a daily thing before WeChat. They were only for special occasions.

Anyway, I think we can agree there are multiple factors that got WeChat payments to where it is. I'm not sure I have any additional insight :)