skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I don't have a problem with strong opinions and harsh words when warranted, with the understanding that we're all learning.

What I wrote wasn't entirely in response to the HN thread. Similar thoughts about the JS community have been brewing for a while and the discussion prompted me to speak my mind.
What do you do about all the people who cancel but don't return equipment?
I would rather someone only talk to me when he needs something, rather than sporadically wasting my time by engaging in useless platitudes, when neither of us actually want to.

If every acquaintance "touched base" with me "once-per-X", I would have a limited number of acquantainces.

Don't pretend to be friends with people by bothering them, unless you actually need something, and even then, preferably try to make it mutually beneficial.
This seems almost by definition of government working for corporations over its citizens. What a sad day.
My reading of the comment is that it was very much the latter.
You make a reasonable point, but can the current join-the-dots culture of software development and having fewer “developers” who can actually perform basic development tasks themselves really be entirely unrelated?
A one handed pushup is much harder than that because of the great difficulty in keeping your body stable. Somebody who can bench twice their bodyweight might still fail a one handed pushup if they haven't trained for it.
The middle ground sounds like it would be a pleasant way to spend some time, but I think I probably missed my chance for awhile, given that I've got a seven month old at home now :P
I gradually hot reload my way to perfection. And I'm dam proud of that.
>It's just odd that you can't even understand how someone could see a moral component to it.

I'd assume they tried and failed. It's the simplest explanation. On the other hand, attributing a moral component to it implies deliberate malfeasance (such as deceiving investors), which would require evidence.

So, in the absence of that evidence, attributing a moral component to it would seem hard to differentiate from conspiracy theory.
gwern points this out in his essay, Culture Is Not About Esthetics [1]. He points that even if he read only the books that won awards, there would still be far too many to finish in his lifetime. Given that, it is no crime to ignore recent books, and, in fact, it may be better for us to stop publishing new literary works and concentrate on better appreciating the old masters.

[1]: http://www.gwern.net/Culture%20is%20not%20about%20Esthetics
I'm all for the freedom of speech in the American sense of the phrase (probably in the extreme considering many of the comments here). However, I don't think that means we should always exercise that right; this is where I think norms shine. I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as you have (though I'd never want to try and legally prevent it; it's your choice).

I think some of us that have had the foresight to prevent such things as in the OP from ever possibly being an issue in our lives might forget the rational decisions made in ignorance or a moment of exuberance (i.e haste).

Still, the internet is global and laws are regional, so ineffective legislation is a waste of time.

[Not going to get into P2P tech that is still un-censorable]
Well the simple answer Twitter is judged harshly is because they're losing a lot of money and Facebook or Google isn't. Sometimes that is ok if the company grows but it apparently isn't.

I have always wondered why Twitter bothers with trying to make money with advertising rather than commercializing their value offered to press, PR, the rich and famous. There's pretty much no other platform now that's as uniquely suited to mass PR, why not commercialize that directly?

I also think that the user growth issue may have something to do with the platform's unique suitability to PR. Perhaps there's limited percentage of population that wants or has the ability to engage in witty one liner public discussion.
Earth is 8 light minutes from the sun, Mars is 12 light minutes from the sun. So when Earth and Mars are closest to each other, they're 4 light minutes away from each other, and when they're farthest from each other (on opposite sides of the sun), they're 20 light minutes away from each other.
It's surprising to me to see how popular this article is around all of my social media right now. I knew we were all stressed out but I didn't think we would be this fascinated.
True. Imho, sending men to space is needlessly costly especially considering how little science gets accomplished. We have learned far more about the cosmos from robotic orbiters and landers.
You must, at all costs, find a way to realize your actual ability level is independent of your own mind fucking with you to create anxiety and doubt.

The real question is do you have passion and innate motivation around it? If you can earn a CS degree and you have the passion then relax. You just need some time to get the interviewing figured out.
> And FDE also suggests you may be hiding something.

No one needs to bother trying to infer from FDE that I'm hiding something. I will tell them I am if they ask. Financial records, intimate correspondence, and employer trade secrets (I'm authorized to work at home on my personal computer) immediately come to mind and there is probably more.

I'm sure I'm not unusual in this regard. Most people have things they are hiding.
RMS: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg0005...
If it makes you feel better, I only very quickly read your OP and didn't notice it. Looking back more carefully I can see it though.
Watch Target Online Free Putlocker – Putlocker – Watch Movies Online Free
I did a tiny bit of research this evening, because this sounded so crazy.

My opinion: People on the edge of wilson county should petition to redraw the county line. Eroding the tax base might scare the legislature into being a tiny bit more sane.
I faced a similar question about 10 years ago. I had a bachelors in engineering (comp sci), I didn't want an MS or PhD, I had solid grades, and I wanted to move into "executive management" (whatever that meant). I ended up getting my MBA at a top 10 school, landed a business role at a large company, and a few years later, started my own company. Business school was right for me and I think it came down to the way I answered one question about myself...

Am I the type of person that embraces new opportunities and takes risks with my career?

At the time, I think the answer was no and as a result, business school worked out great. It introduced me to new career paths, brought in companies for me to interview with, and helped me engage with individuals with vastly different perspectives than my own. If the answer would have been yes, then business school would not have been the right choice. I was 26 when I started business school (pretty common age), and a person's late 20s is one of the best times to explore new directions and be creative with their career, since you already have some work experience and capital, but likely no children. The 2 years spent in business school (or 4 years if, god forbid, you go the consulting or banking route) is valuable time that could be spent taking bold risks.

If you believe that, then to answer your questions...

1. No, an eMBA does not make sense because you are both allocating your time to business school, which can help you identify new career opportunities, but you are also locked in to the company that is sponsoring you, so you aren't as free to explore elsewhere.

2. If you are already making $150k+, then there won't be much impact to your life until you make $1M+, so the salary difference shouldn't be factored in one way or another.

3. What do you mean by executive management? Different executive roles require pretty different career paths, and becoming an executive at a large company is probably 10+ years out, which is likely too far to really plan for.

Hope that helps. Good luck with your next steps.
Good question. Usually if you just make scheduling an uninstall part of the cancellation process you don't lose too much equipment. The most expensive stuff is on the roof, so sometimes you can schedule to pick it up even if they're not home. Or you can always try to ask for a deposit on the equipment.
I prefer ubiquiti over ruckus and Cambium over both. Ymmv.
> 2/ Revenue is $2bn+ a year, how is this not successful?

It's not successful because their expenses are $2.6 billion a year which exceeds the revenue of $2.2 billion collected.[1]

This means they lost $450 million. They have no profits. They've never had a profitable year. In short, if you spend more than you make, you're not financially successful.

Why do many people think companies like Twitter and Spotify (also $2 billion revenue and still losing money) are "successful" ?!? I'm guessing the confusion happens because observers don't understand the difference between revenue and profit.

[1]https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TWTR&fstype=ii
Whatever the data problem, I have found R to much more likely have a solution than Python or anything else.
>Series A is the new Series B, and they expect some commercializable prototype (MVP) and customer traction before they'll talk to you

No, that's not even good enough. Even if you have a product in the market, with traction, if it's not millions of MAU/DAU then welp you're SOL. Doesn't matter what technology you built or how good your team is.

The only caveat to that is if you, as a founder, are already a known entity to the venture funds with a previous exit or in the right social network.
Your private key should remain password protected, I don't think anyone here is recommending a passwordless login. Also usually with ssh you are more worried about the remote server being compromised than your local client machine.
I'm confused about this too. Maybe they believe systemd was adopted for performance, and JITing bash would mitigate performance concerns?

I really doubt that run-once startup scripts would benefit from JITing, though. And memory overhead might be a non-starter.
Part of it is terminological confusion, which is, to some extent, deliberate.

The original definition of "free market", as defined by Smith, was all about free competition. In other words, a market with monopolies, cartels, and other forms of collusion or regulation that inhibit competition are not free, and this applies to monopolies and barriers to entry that arise naturally. Other classical economists generally used that definition.

Smith also explicitly stated that an unregulated market will usually result in a monopoly, and that government intervening to prevent that is not a bad thing (while also calling against tariffs, government-protected monopolies etc).

At some later point, the laissez-faire crowd basically asserted that 1) Smith was wrong (in that unregulated markets can be monopolized), and on the contrary 2) any government regulation makes market less competitive, and therefore 3) the only free market is unregulated market, effectively conflating the two terms.

For those who don't subscribe to laissez-faire economic theories, it makes sense to continue using the traditional definition, and carefully distinguish the two.
The focus of a lot of engine dev is shifting away from AAA. For the AAA model, everything was about heavily optimizing the runtime performance of mostly-static scenes towards large teams delivering complex assets. The engineering team has skills and depth - enough to support every release with custom technology work. But new projects are often much smaller in scope, and that has a consequence for all the technology.

With smaller projects, pressure moves back towards development cost, ease of deployment and maintenance, which is a lot more like the model for small-site webdev. The necessary optimization for the runtime is more often at the level of just using correct algorithms, good-enough memory management, and feeding the GPU correctly. In turn, this is going to have a commodifying effect on engine runtimes - if your scene is already easily hitting its quality target at 144hz or whatever the high end is today, your concerns are just going to shift towards how fast you can iterate and debug, add and tune new assets, create one-off behaviors, and run off final builds for external use. You can hire for design rather than coding talent.

This favors a "game creation system" model like Ren'Py or Puzzlescript, where the underlying formats and protocols still allow a substantial degree of customization, including the possibility of moving the data to a different runtime altogether, but the developer's interface works on abstractions all tuned around that particular type of game. This path follows what's happened to audio with the development of synthesizers; after the early modular synthesizers proved the concept, a commercial market arose for delivering "complete instruments" that are less flexible in abstract, but are more portable, and offer an easier mix of performance and programmability, through presets and limited customization parameters. And today, for every popular genre, you can get started by "buying the sound" in the form of sample loops and synth presets, and then build out your own work by hanging off customizations. New genres appear simultaneously with the successful commercialization of new technologies - e.g. drum machines, or Autotune. There's no reason why games won't go in the same direction, given enough time.
I agree. I don't necessarily want my routes to be declared in react. I'm currently looking into using router5 (https://github.com/router5/router5). The library also has integration plugins for react and redux.

Also, check out https://medium.com/@mweststrate/how-to-decouple-state-and-ui.... Michael Westrate talks about using your state container to control routing, instead of letting the components do it then syncing current route to state container. He is the author of mobx and uses it in his example, but I imagine it would work for redux scenarios too.
But it makes ordinary safe investments like bonds return unappetizing, even negative rates. So you can't put your billions in bonds. You look for high yield on something like Uber.
i think one way could be if you have a coworker or someone who is able to get root on the machine you are trying to log into. if you have the same password on your own machines sshd he might even easily get back to it and read credentials stored in your browser or use your credentials to damage some part of the comapny in your name etc...

Might be somewhat far stretched but it is definitely something one should be aware of.
TLDR: It's an advertisement for a non-profit that mentions their website's name about a million times. The money is going to people in very poor places like Kenya. Almost all of it is spent on education fees, housing, food, and healthcare. About 3% on vices like tobacco.
i think it's a good idea. It makes bans more permanent.
A slightly more narrower statement of Freedom of transaction would be "if you can do it for free, you may do it for money".

Assassination is illegal by itself, paid or not, so using it as an example just confuses the issue. It's like saying Freedom of Speech is not a basic human right because you can use speech to order someone to be killed.
Once you start looking at trenching fiber you're looking at 10ks to 100ks. Not really my specialty, I would be looking at doing it wirelessly but yeah if you need 10gbps there's not a good wireless option right now. You can get up to 2gbps reliably on licensed wireless links, but in that area (lots of rain?) You'll need short links (3-4 miles tops) and big dishes.
If I say that a piece of software has a fault, am I implying a moral failing?
If twitter have raised $2.8billion but show no signs of giving a return on that investment, then there is a fault somewhere, either in the valuation, the execution, the business model.

As many pointed out in this thread, if twitter had raised 50 million or so, and where operating with the efficiency of a Snapchat, they would be considered successful and profitable (though probably bought by a bigger company a long time ago). Whether there ever was scope to deliver on their actual valuation is a much harder question to answer.
Anyone can call themselves a unicorn
I am a bit surprised to hear the view that NN would make it impossible for ISPs to differentiate. Many companies sell the same product and manage to differentiate themselves. If you took away the customer service aspect of Dell, what reason have they to exist?

Price and customer service is a good starting point for differentiate companies. Latency is an other point, since no ISP can have zero hops to every other ISP in the world, regardless of NN. The Internet is designed with routers in mind, and each router adds to the latency. Sadly there is currently little competition on latency, except of the world of stock trading.

For companies, there is the world of BGP. High reliability, anycast, and so on. Not something I see much competition on either. Providing network solutions for companies is something that ISP's don't tend to do (here in Sweden at least), yet much at the network edge could be provided by an ISP if they wanted to offer it.
I've given my phone number to microsoft and google but that's about it.
It all depends on your definition of "successfully". They are successful in a sense that they exist, and that money continues to flow. It doesn't mean that the social effects of such a market are beneficial. Many illegal markets are highly monopolized, often coercively (e.g. "if you try to sell here, we'll shoot you").
If anyone's targeting your specific laptop for theft they already think that you're hiding something.

If some rando steals your laptop they probably have no clue what SSH even stands for.
If all non- or low-taxpayers removed themselves from society, you'd quickly find out who is contributing and who isn't.
Perhaps, because he wants to make more than $10,000 a month?
My point is that they should either have real, relevant photos or no photos at all. Not just filler garbage that has nothing to do with the article.
Does the 24 copies all get bundled into the final JS file in the case of a browser app?
Judging from my own experience, none of this is true or correct. In particular, programming is by far the easiest way to make a (good) living. The apparent fact that programming is not for everybody does not change that a bit. A lot of people who work as software engineers hate it and/or are not good at what they do, but if coding were taught in K-12, I am sure many more people would have liked it - simply because coding would have been a second nature, just like reading, writing, and counting.
It would be an advertisement if the writer was directly compensated or connected to GiveDirectly. That doesn't seem to be the case, and surely people who are operating in the philanthropy market would also follow FTC sponsorship disclosure laws?

As stated:

This is an unsolicited Op-Ed by an individual who is not being compensated by GiveDirectly, it’s patrons, benefactors, affiliates, or partners.

Calling it an advertisement detracts (and by definition, it isn't) from the essential: that there's good being done.
5-15k is within the negotiation margin in the markets google hires in. So im not sure it means too much (though from people I know who work there, I have felt that they underpaid a bit, because of all their perks that adds up and some people are ok with that).
> What am I not getting here? If the cluster in that image is 3K+ miles wide, then those are city sized dots, not building sized. I'm guessing the long tail is not actually in the image?

It's probably two things. I think you're probably correct that the entirety of the tail is not in the image. Also, the size of the dots in the image probably reflects the resolution limit of Hubble, rather than the true angular size on the sky of the chunks.
Could you make a simplified cost of expenses for getting started? What would you say the risk level is of spending all that money and not at least making it back? What is the likelihood of actually getting to hundreds of customers, and what would you say is the net annual profit in those situations?
Grace Vanderwaal Singing Reaction
For those interested, here's a link to the associated preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04452
If someone has remote access to your computer then either way you are screwed. Using password or key file won't change anything.

If your laptop get stolen, then just remove the corresponding line in your authorized_keys file.
Samsung is being sued over a Note 7 that allegedly burned a man – The Verge
My friend did this in the mid-90's. He had a T1 to his house (this was circa 95-97) and ran an ISP from his actual garage. It was all modem based at the time of course. Didn't think anyone could compete with the big TelCos but I'd gladly switch if I could. I'm in NYC and it seems to me that the major players here have a stronghold on the business. I could be wrong though. I have verizon fios now and it's just ok. Better than TimeWarner that I had for years until I moved.
This sounds alarmingly like something written at Peak Bubble.
If it's put up for sale there'd be nothing stopping the big players from buying it up.
Black Hole Hidden Within Its Own Exhaust
Well, my point was that while, yes, it's easier (cheaper, faster) to build and market a product than it was 20 years ago, the criteria for an investment has moved right along with it. I mean - gosh - Sun was funded based on a napkin drawing. (It was already developed paid-for Stanford-developed technology, though, so declaring it to have been funded simply off just a napkin is unfair)

Currently I have a thing that is kinda/sorta like a B2B SaaS play, with bottom-up engagement directly with the employees of the target enterprise -- and I've had to shut the doors to (unnecessary) investor interest w/ only about 3K active users.

But, underneath it all the distracting details, I agree. I think the general consensus in this thread is: it's hard.
>Always be invested in the market.

Yes, I've heard that a million times, but that kind of advice presupposes a bull market. What if it's 1967, and you're about to go into a 15 year period of up and down markets, with no real growth in stock prices? And that's before inflation; the market fell substantially during the horrible 70s if measured in real dollars. All kinds of stock enthusiasts (like most folks here) got eaten alive. Pessimism reigned by the early 80s. Most people said "I'll never buy stocks again.".

Ironically, when investors finally capitulated, the great bull market of the 80s and 90s started.

My point is that most people here are mesmerized by that bull market, and by recent gains. But historically the indexes have had huge, long term swings that probably exceed most people's investment horizon.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results" is not just a legal disclaimer. It's a bitter truth. Our current optimism is strongly colored by recent gains.

What if you had retired in 1929? You would have received nary a return for 25 years.

Sure, indexes average 8 percent or so, over the very long term, but it can be an intolerably long averaging interval.
For a professional service where I can give the number of my employer, I might, but I'd be reluctant, as a few companies will start calling every day in an attempt to sell you the service.
If you posit that all a robo-advisor does is "decides which funds to invest in" for you, how are you putting too much trust into a computer? A target-date fund from Vanguard also makes allocation choices for you across US/international stocks/bonds; is the conclusion that you should always invest in the underlying asset class directly instead of trusting a fund/advisor/company to do it for you?