skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
After having spent a ridiculous amount of time on a bike recently, I now believe the difference is perceptional. When you drive you are in a glassed in box. The glass has no anti-reflective coating so you see a lot of moving reflections. This makes peripheral vision mostly useless. You have blind spots that you have to move your head to overcome. Your line of sight is lower to the ground. You can't hear anything outside the car unless you have your window down and then probably not either. You can't talk to anyone, the best you can do is honk your horn in an slow speed possible collision situation.

So compared to a cyclist/pedestrian a driver is deaf, dumb and partially blind. So it makes perfect sense that cars have to stop and other transportation modes do not.

This disparity becomes quite poignant when someone in a car stops to let a cyclist/pedestrian cross the street when they actually have the right of way. They are expecting the cyclist/pedestrian to trust their life to the judgment of someone who is quite isolated from the environment.
I've had similar situations and my assumption is that the other person looked me up on facebook and that's how the connection was established. Still creepy but seems more probable than facebook infiltrating my other communication channels.
He probably shared his email contacts with fb.
If a monopoly keeps prices high, but has deep enough pockets to temporarily lower prices and put any competitor out of business, then no competitors will arise.
But humans are treated worse, how many drugs have killed people because the Company exploited a problem and underestimated the affects on larger popualtions (or just didnt care).
For starters, any machine learning system that relies on word embeddings learned from biased corpora to make predictions (or to make decisions!) will necessarily be biased in favor of certain groups of people and against others.

This is not true.

Here's an oversimplified example. Suppose your machine learning system wants to predict something, e.g. loan repayment probabilities. One input might be a written evaluation by a loan officer.

When trained on a corpora of group X, the predicted probability might be:

pred = a*written_evaluation + other_factors

(Using linear regression to make example simple.)

However, now lets suppose the written evaluation is biased to the tune of 25% against group Y. I.e., group Y has written scores that are 25% less than group X.

Then a new predictor which includes pairwise terms, trained on a corpora of group X and Y, will work out to be:

pred = a*written_evaluation + 0.33*written_evaluation*isY + other_factors

This predictor would be unbiased. In general, if you have a biased input and the biasing factor is also present in your input, your model should correct the bias. (Obvious caveats: your model needs to be sufficiently expressive, etc.)

Interestingly, everyone's favorite bogeyman, namely redundant encoding ( http://deliprao.com/archives/129 ) will actually help fix this problem *even if you don't include the biasing factors in the model.
Interactive Computer Science Professor Data Set
This is what I settled on -- at least in the hard cases. And if I understand his acronyms, it's also what @mythz is recommending.

Perhaps I should have done it for the easy cases as well (where the business objects are struct-like enough that it doesn't matter) and just lived with the boilerplate.

But I see little advantage in this over just having a dictionary that I can inspect to initialise my real business object. True that is not strongly-typed, but the stage between the message-object and the business object can have validation errors anyway, so why not treat typechecking as part of that?
Influencer Marketing and Company Culture Live Video AMA
Airbnb crowding out is a symptom, not a cause of housing shortages
to the control the market...
I don't see how it's safe to allow this for bikes, but it's not safe for cars? Why not just allowing everyone to "slow down and look for traffic" and then decide if it's safe to go through or not? That's basically what you do when there's no traffic lights and if people really slow down and look there will be rarely any problems with that. That's how roundabouts function, and they are generally very safe.
The difference is that what I said was actually correct.
There's a fine line between predatory pricing and "forward pricing." It's a very common, and valid, business practice to price a good or service at a level that will be profitable in the long term, rather than try to be marginally profitable on every single transaction. For example, on UberPOOL or LyftLine, the companies are betting that they can support the reduced pricing for shared rides when they get a large enough customer base. The only way to prove out that business model and grow the scale is to offer the discount pricing for those rides from Day 1.

In my mind, the situation is a little more suspect if they are subsidizing standard rides in the market. However, at this point, there are two major competitors in almost every US market, Lyft and Uber, so they are making the market between them. Whether or not either of them is losing money, if they raised their prices at this point, they would suffer a precipitous drop in market share. Sooner or later, they'll find an equilibrium. Taxi companies can choose to ante up and participate in the market, or fold and get out -- that's how it goes. From a competitive standpoint, it takes two to tango, it doesn't take three.
Set is just sort of weird in other languages, I've never looked at set in the STL. I'm sort of surprised at the implementation in STL. Almost every other language's library tends to implement sets as a special case of a hash map without values, just keys.

This leads a lot of people down a weird alley where they think they're getting a list that prevents duplicates and then have all sorts of weird behavior when they iterate over it. However, 90% of the time they don't care about order and the set is nowhere near large enough to really show the overhead you're incurring over a normal linked list or array list.

Still, it's funny when they finally run into either of those issues and someone has to explain that the entire point of a set is really a data structure optimized around answering the question, "Do you contain x?" and not "Prevent duplicate entries."

I've actually used sets before, but for the purpose of having a sort of "memory" about nodes the code has seen before while looking for cycles in a graph. Even then, that was hardly production code and more a slow running data clean up operation.
Does she still have that number? If not, will the new owner get WhatsApp messages sent to her if they use WhatsApp?
This isn't JSON-driven development, it's just choosing to apply logic over loose-typed data structures instead of named constructs. It's more awkward in Python because it doesn't have sugar syntax to index an object like JavaScript has.

But using clean built-in data structures instead of named types has its benefits especially if you need to serialize for persistence of communication as it doesn't require any additional knowledge of Types in order to access serialized data, so you can happily consume data structures in separate processes without the additional dependency of an external type system that's coupled and needs to be carried along with your data.

This is why Redux uses vanilla data structures in its store or why JSON has become popular for data interchange, any valid JSON can be converted into a JavaScript object with just `JSON.parse()` which saves a tonne of ceremony and manual effort then the old school way of having to extract data from data formats with poor programatic fit like an XML document into concrete types.

If your data objects don't need to be serialized or accessed outside of the process boundary than there's little benefit to using loose-typed data structures, in which case my preference would be using classes in a static type system to benefit from the static analysis feedback of using Types.
The Mammoth Pirates: In Russia's Arctic north, a new gold rush is under way
> I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not.

I disagree with this counterpoint. In "Idaho Stops" the law is extremely clear - a red light is treated as a full stop, and a stop sign is treated as a yield. As yield and stop are both well understood on American roads this law would be clear to cyclist and driver alike.

Following your line of reasoning, yield signs should be replaced with stop signs as the harm caused by drivers blowing through them outweighs the benefits. Do you agree with this?
You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right
Actually, OOP, particularly statically-typed OOP, seems to be a major domain in which the distinction between "value types" which contain "values" which do not evolve over time and "object types" which contain "objects" which may evolve over time is used frequently [0].

There are some OOP languages that take an "everything is an object" approach and provide no clear object/value distinction (this seems to be more the case with dynamic OOP languages, and even there while there may be little ergonomic distinction beyond the lack of mutability, there often are immutable "objects" that are stored without indirection which are far all intents and purposes values. Though in some cases the distinction between these and simple immutable objects is obscured from the programmer.)

[0] Though in most such languages, the distinction between object and value involves more than just mutability, and is more deeply associated with indirection of storage, and its quite possible to have immutable objects which might be values from a technology-neutral conceptual perspective, but which are objects from an in-language implementation perspective.
"We're losing a dollar in every transaction, but we'll make it up on volume!"
I'd be interested to see how UberEATS turns out. Deliveroo has had a year on them, and at least where I am I think the latter is still the favourite.
My grad work was in system programming language design; I used to toy around with VM design, so that meant I was (poorly) designing a lot of ISAs and then writing a lot of assemblers for them. My professional work is unrelated to my grad work, but has still let me expand on that interest. Sorry I'm so vague. Think more along the lines of "python byte code assembler", or somesuch thing.
The article goes over stock options; but it doesn't address an alternate form of equity; issuing early employees restricted stock awards (instead of options).

From the receiver's point of view, Stock Options are a bad deal 99 times out of 100, let's review the cases in which owners of options get screwed:

- Company gets acquired, new terms are put into place.

- Company gets acquired, company isn't good fit.

- Company gets massive amounts of funding (those Unicorns), and due to the increasing funding at each round, those with options are left with a hefty tax bill and only 90 days to exercise if they leave

- If you have stock options and are an employee of a early stage startup, chances are you don't have the liquidity to exercise it. You're also not being paid market value (since you have stock options) If you did have the capital, you could have just invested in the seed round for a much better discount and return.

- If a company goes out of business

- if A company stays private and doesn't offer an internal market

There are only a very few cases where employees with options are taken care of:

- Company sells and ensures there are triggers in the options
- Company extends exercise period

- Company goes public and employees are able to exercise their options with the tax bill that goes along with that and still make money on their shares

We have a romanticized view of options because Google, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, Facebook, and a handful of other companies have hit the bigtime; but that's the huge exception, not the rule, and yet we allow companies to treat options as equal to salary, and they're not.

I know companies face reporting requirements if they have more than 50 shareholders; but the earliest employees should be compensated in a way that respects their sacrifice and risk; and options don't do that. At best, options are a placebo.
It takes at least a 1/2 hour to get back to base. Your cleaning staff can't be waiting around all day doing nothing, they need things to do. So the dirty car sits idle until the staff gets to it. Then it takes another 1/2 hour to get back to where the hoity-toity crowd likes to party.

If someone pukes in the car, it's out of service for the rest of the day.
From the official source: "JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format. "

http://json.org/

It's nothing about pressing into service. This is the authoritative source.
Is there any plan to have a Windows build?
Sure, I understand the gist of what you're saying (and what the parent comment was saying.) But the example doesn't work.

Programmers at a consultancy/agency are probably billing 20-40 hours no matter what. So if someone spends 80 hours on an 8 hour project, that just means they didn't work on other projects. This impacts cashflow. Additionally, an inflated bill may be challenged and marked down. So, there's no way for a programmer to be 10x more profitable unless they had nothing else to do otherwise.

Now, a company can be 10x more profitable if they hire enough programmers so that they have the capacity to inflate every project. ;)

To be a 10x programmer at a consultancy, you need a combination of a high billing rate and long hours, but the easiest way is to implement a productized service that is billed by value/fixed price instead of hourly.

For example, I know someone whose company was paid $81,000 for him to build an application, but he made a lot more for them charging about $40,000 to re-implement the same thing over and over for other customers. He didn't hit 10x, but he contributed mid six figure revenue in a year whereas the $81,000 was paid over 18 months. Obviously, he couldn't have done this if he was inflating his time.
It's currently pretty even, despite higher margins for AWS, and "already" is saying a lot despite how long AWS has been around. I covered this 64 days ago in [0], but here's the relevant part again.

Looking at Amazon's Q1 2016 Financial Results [1], page 8, we see that net sales of non-AWS amounts to ~$26B, and AWS is ~$2.5B. From the Segment Highlights section (same page), AWS sales is 9% of total sales.
AWS beats non-AWS income only because there were losses in international; ignoring international, it's a $16m difference.
Looking at page 14, Media sales in North America and International sum to $5.6B. Media sales alone is double AWS's sales of $2.5B (page 13). Profit margins are way higher for AWS, so there's still a lot of room for a larger income difference between the two segments.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11951577

[1] http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N...
Gawker writer on his last day and Peter Thiel’s ‘vindictiveness’
5-6 years ago enterprise guidelines preventing LINQ/lambda's were more common. Current C# practices for enterprise companies(familiar with 6+ fortune 500's, have not seen or heard of them being banned in the last 4 years) definitely allow lambdas and LINQ.

The "required brackets" is more common but I think it's a good rule :).
Readability is only slightly hindered by the extra brackets, but I've seen quite a few errors from

if(shibboleth)

DoSomething();

DoSomethingElse();
Cyclist commuter here. Red lights should be red lights to everybody.

However, Idaho stops are the way future. It's just doesn't make sense to apply the same "come to a complete stop" standard to cyclists. They're traveling at a much lower speed and have much less ability to accelerate. The extra time it takes to come to a complete stop (which means finding your balance at a stand still), and then remounting the bike accelerating through the intersection is not worth it, and makes the commute that much more of a slog.

I think characterizing the Idaho stop as "rolling through the intersection" might be a little bit misleading, since it conveys a really lax attitude. Idaho stops are generally quite safe.

Edit: In most cases, Idaho stops have very similar cadence to a car coming to a full stop. You slow down up to the line, look all around you, determine the right of way, and if you have it, you start peddling back up to cruising speed. The fact you don't come to a complete stop is pretty much a technicality because the timing is almost the same.

If you come to a complete stop, the timing is all off, and there's much more likely to be hesitation and ambiguity. Starting from a stop takes a lot more time, is much more likely to lead to false-starts, and puts you in a very vulnerable position.
I think this article is somewhat off-base. The problem isn't JSON, it's lack of respect for separation of duties. JSON is just a data exchange format.

Want to program in an OO way using JSON? Easy. Just build a factory to generate objects from JSON input. Put your validation and error handling right there. Now you can get a known valid object from the JSON, a class instance with all the encapsulation and business logic your heart desires. Need to share it with the outside world? Provide a JSON output method.

Translating data formats is at the heart of day-to-day programming. It ain't rocket surgery. Fix the problem, not the blame.

(And if you think JSON sucks, believe me, you never dealt with data file formats from the pre-XML days!)
in addition, uber may be getting rid of one kind of competitor that has a hard time competing with it while laying the ground work for other low-end entrants to compete with it.
I really love seeing cars around town with both uber and lyft signs in the windows. ..I can imagine a sign with 8 of these.
Agreed. As a stick driver, I spend more energy stopping and starting at a stop sign than a bike rider does, no exaggeration.
I'm at a loss. Either I'm hopelessly confused (and I don't think I am), or you still have not even tried to address a single one of the points I have raised. That's too bad, because I think this could have been an interesting conversation.

I'll try one more time, this time coming from a slightly different angle: you say that the government should just give spectrum away to existing firms, but...

1. Which ones? You seem to take for granted that there are only a small number of firms interested in spectrum and that it will be easy to decide who gets what. But, in reality, there would be countless firms that would very much like access to the same spectrum, especially in the biggest markets. Our experience with spectrum auctions amply proves this. How does the government choose between these competing firms? How does a new competitor enter the market if the government always gives spectrum to the big four carriers?

2. Assuming that the government will not reliably select the firm that would use the spectrum best (history makes pretty clear that this is the case), wouldn't this gifted spectrum immediately come up for sale on the secondary market to be sold to an even more productive user? If so, wouldn't the secondary market price approximate the would-be auction price (plus the significant transaction costs that these secondary-market transactions entail)? If so, the cost of spectrum to the ultimate user would be the same (and maybe a little higher) than if the spectrum had been auctioned in the first place, plus a large windfall to the original licensee/seller.

3. More fundamentally, given that many other firms would also like to have received the gifted spectrum--and would have paid good money for it (as spectrum auctions prove)--shouldn't we regard this gift as a massive subsidy to the original licensee and not merely the absence of a tax?
So you want a long command line argument were you tag specific line numbers and have to get it all right at once? That sounds terrible to me.

Being able to add bits and pieces to your staging area and then once you've got it all ready commit is pretty useful.

I guess I just don't see the cognitive cost as being particularly high. It's a pretty simple model.
That means JSON is missing support for some kinds of data, that doesn't mean that it's not a serialization format at all. Just one with less descriptive power.
> Though in most such languages, the distinction between object and value involves more than just mutability, and is more deeply associated with indirection of storage

Values, unlike objects, don't reside on memory, but rather in the semantics of the language. Of course, representations of values reside in memory. But that's an implementation detail. What matters is the abstraction the programmer is exposed to.
That article is fundamentally dishonest. The author's own statistical analysis (see their R-script and my comments on the article) cannot reject the null hypothesis that the algorithm is unbiased.

I wrote a more detailed critique here: https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/propublica_is_lying....
Ask HN: How old is the average reader of HN?
I posted a question about what advice you would give your younger self the other day on HN and it got me thinking about what the average age of HN readers is. If you want to participate please post your age, I am 41. Thanks!

If you want to see the other post about advice for your younger self it's here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12337537
perhaps this http://www.programmableweb.com/api/capital-one
"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car."

By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.
yeah but you can be anti-bullshit and not be a jerk.
Well-written troll, a solid 6/10. I'd downvote you but I don't have the karma.
Choosing Your Lens
IP? really I would think that jabbing yourself with a needle and emptying a vial is pretty easy and probably could be done MUCH better than it is currently. Single use is wasteful why not make the system refillable and disabled after use.
C++ is broken anyway. Rust and/or D would be a better fit. C11 is enough. No nail in the coffin of gcc.
Actually, if you don't need the entries to be sorted, the sparse_hash_set from https://github.com/greg7mdp/sparsepp is much faster than std::set or a sorted vector (except for iteration) and barely uses more memory than the sorted vector.
It's correct only using your definitions and axioms. Other definitions and axioms can and do come to other conclusions. Your refusal to acknowledge that other definitions and axioms even exist is what is earning you the ire you are experiencing.
Have you tried Yodlee? They serve as the API for many banks.
A friend of mine will repeatedly text back and forth using voice recognition and then gets frustrated when responses come slower or dont answer the question than they would like.

I'm just like stop texting and call the person then!
Paxos and circularity in distributed consensus
Cisco NetFlow Monitoring and Analysis
This article starts with facts and then quickly becomes a rather vicious personal attack against Peter Thiel.
Site displays only a blank screen for me
Australia’s Dinosaur Laboratory