skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No? Let's look how we got here.

He boxed himself into a stupid position by betting all on renegotiating UK's place then bringing home none of the things that mattered to their party policies, finishing by tellng the country what a great job he'd done. It was a play to diffuse UKIP and the EU sceptic segment of the party which has been a varying problem for decades. Certainly since Maastricht almost split the party. Referendum wasn't necessary, there was no new treaty, no change in our terms. That's when a referendum may make sense, like fter Lisbon or Maastricht perhaps.

Wilson gave us the 1975 referendum on the EEC (Britain's first referendum). That was called because euro sceptics were threatening to split the Labour party. Plus ça change.

The 75 campaign had nearly everyone for remain. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell were the main proponents of out - for remarkably similar reasons. Thatcher campaigned hard for remain! All long before anyone aside from Heath and a few FO wonks knew anything about ever closer union and so on, it's just the Common Market. As we've learned since, Heath knew full well what he signed up to.

Post Maastricht when realisation of union hit, UKIP and Tory Euro skeptics became more visible, and started to lead to some vote fragmentation. Some of the calls for referendum were actually audible now, and as we went through the Blair years we learned new government by pager and soundbite. This fed the rise of LibDems, Greens and UKIP (probably SNP too), as the electorate became disillusioned with media centric government.

Of course many were attracted to the various policies, but a time of plummeting turnouts, and politicians no one trusts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, especially with our electoral system. Remarkably we end up with our only coalition since the war.

In an age of government by ideology and Overton Windows, even on scientific and factual matters, the voters wanting a referendum was irrelevant, unless there's rioting in the streets. They sure as heck didn't listen.

After Brexit both Johnson and Gove looked ashen. Neither believed they'd win. They had no clue what next. A depressing amount of Brexit voters seemed to regret the morning after or just wanted to make an anti-govt protest.

A game good sir. Very badly played as it goes. Just another knee jerk idea so beloved of Cameron.

No wonder May made Boris Foreign Secretary - "you broke it, you bloody fix it".
I've already planned out some more advanced topics for stuff like using carbon-c-relays behind a keepalive VIP and using multiple caches etc. I've set things like this up at work and due to the nature of my work we have to have redundancy and backups of everything.
I feel like many books (especially non-fiction) have this predisposition of making their books much longer than it needs to be. In essence, unless it's highly technical/informational, their book is usually making some sort of an argument that they sometimes stretch out to a certain number of pages to make it seem to have more "depth". I feel like you can summarize a book down to it's essence making it something like 20-50 times shorter, which I do by highlighting and adding notes.
The House Intelligence Committee’s Terrible, Horrible, Very Bad Snowden Report
They should just pin this at the top of the site.
I wonder if the necessary prerequisites for a free market will ever become common knowledge. This approach of just not regulating markets in the hope that a free market magically appears seems insane to me. It is like hitting a screw with a hammer and hoping the screw turns into a nail before the hammer connects. It never happens and you'll always get a huge fucking mess everyone somehow is surprised about.

Health care is the best example. The only thing unexpected and worrisome about it is that the executives at pharma companies have just now realized that they can increase prices this way. Doesn't exactly speak well for their knowledge of economics.
There used to be a consideration of monopolies that tried to hold them back from "Restraint of Trade" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade). The wikipedia page hints that it has been subsumed into modern "competition law" but really it feels like it's dropped away completely as a consideration.

Once you sell a internet connection to a customer, it seems to feel like a restraint of trade if you start messing with the traffic of some companies but not others.

Though I suppose it's not clear how this applies between state governments and cities.
Yes, the random padding (which is optional) is to counter-measure possible side-channel privacy attacks that could infer the domain name from the packet sizes.

The Google documentation explains that (look for "random_padding") at https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns-over...
Introduction to Statistical Learning, the book
A wifi mac address is probably traceable for the vast majority of users. I'm aware you can change them, but most people aren't.
You can avoid this with a Vanguard account that you use to buy Vanguard index funds. There are no commissions or service fees in that case.[1]

[1]: https://investor.vanguard.com/etf/fees
Please god I hope you're not talking about a Spring application. They have horrible errors message and error handling.
"B-tree indexes have entries for each row in your table, duplicating the data in the indexed columns" -- not really
Secret Word Search
Few people know it but the horseshoe crab is the unsung hero when it comes to medical devices and pharmaceutical products. The blood of the crab has unique properties that make it ideal for giving an absolute guarantee that an injectable product or implantable medical device absolutely sterile.
Twitter is a boat taking on water in a rising tide. Yes, the boat may be rising, but the boat is also taking on enough water that soon it will sink entirely to the bottom.
So long as there are levers of control, people will attempt to exploit them. The government at every level, should have no power to prohibit entities, whether government or not, from providing internet service.

Freedom of transaction is a basic human right (whether the Bill of Rights talks about it or not, read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and you'll see the Bill of Rights doesn't create rights, according to the Bill of Rights, it creates limitations on government from violating those rights.)

Even if you disagree with the above, the First Amendment is unquestionably part of the constitution and thus this is a violation of freedom of speech (internet is speech.)
And a very powerful one.

I'm actually a lazy fuck but that thought makes me run circles.
In the sciences, people in different fields are each reading from much smaller subsets of the available papers (which are much shorter to start with), and there's a system in place that means most reasonably competent papers will get read by at least a few people in the field.
If you've got time, I would be really interested in this ;-)
"top 3,000 earners pay more tax than bottom 9 million"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233...

There's also the basic observation that many big companies that provide valuable products and services pay rich people lots of money to run them or compensate them for their financial help. Would there be an Uber at all without anyone getting rich off it?

Another observation - when we need a doctor or a lawyer, we find their contributions to us to be worth so much we'll pay them more than we pay a cleaner. After all, we could do the cleaning ourselves if we had to but the barrier to start operating on ourselves or writing our own contracts is higher and those rich people have invested work in overcoming that barrier so they could provide those services to people who can't.
I can't edit my post anymore, but I couldn't find a source to back this up. According to the Tor Blog, it should be fine to have a reduced exit policy.

For reference: https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node
I usually lurk on HN but I just logged into say this because this gets me very worked up...

Mate, fuck what anyone here says, with enough dedication you can do anything you want.

With that out of the way, fuck the big 4s as well. Working there imo is overrated. However, what I would say is you should work on smaller companies and focus on your career path. If you aren't learning at a company then you should be leaving. You can always keep eyes on job posting at those big 4s and develop skills at work or at home that you need to get in.

Just to recap, fuck the big 4s and given enough dedication and hard work anyone can do anything they want. Its not rocket science. heck you can even learn rocket science, there are many resources online. Knowledge is everywhere.
People Who Play Sudoku Everyday Are More Focused at Work
Unionizing is definitely an option... but it's worth noting that the balance of power between programmers and employers isn't the same as factory workers. In particular the means of production are so cheap anyone can start a software company.
One thing to point out that I think people are missing is that the ruling was that a government could not operate a business in a different jurisdiction.

It has nothing to do with free market or net neutrality concerns.
>Apple disclosing how many units they have sold.

Apple does that selectively, and doesn't say how units they sell for many products. Including highly succesful ones. Besides, he have estimations, and are all big numbers for a watch, so?

>Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.

That doesn't make any sense. A watch is not something people buy every few years, like phones have been since forever (also thanks to subscription contracts people have to pay for phones anyway which subsidize part of the cost).

Not are they like laptops which people change every 4-6 years because new machines are much faster and come with new connections and stuff (SSDs over HDs, thunderbolt, retina displays, etc). Besides people have started updating laptops that much the last 5 years or so, as CPUs hit a plateu that's been good enough for most.

Even when there are some breakthroughs to show for it (like this model's more capable cpu/battery, the waterproofing, etc), people won't just buy another $300 or more smartwatch in 12 months, heck not even in 2-3 years.

This means Apple's best move is to put out new models at the pace when they have enough interesting tech/changes to add. A new release in 12 months wont have that, and even if it had them it would be too fast a cycle for repeat buyers.

>Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre-launch thinking that it's a success.

The markets shows it's a success.
Cheaper in Seattle too.

They are still losing billions a year.
Yes. More or less I agree with what you have said. The main point is that the complaint against the TV show is ridiculous as the show is created for the purpose of entertainment, not veracity.

It's interesting that some people think of TV as somehow "true." Maybe it is emotionally true, but it is not reality. Reality is having to commute 90 minutes to work on a TV show that portrays reality falsely as many of my colleagues do.
Ask for 10% equity. Accept no less than 5%.
I suspect the regulators who wrote the laws that are preventing this are wise to your idea and its the actual right of way that they are going after. The only advantage that a municipality has over a private company or not-for-profit, is a monopoly on the control of rights of ways in their geographic area. That's why municipality is can do this- private entities would have to get their permission to install a network. And it would come at high cost.
- Do you like to make software projects? Can you write software for your projects (slow or fast doesn't matter)?

If you answer one No, then you should move on.

If you can answer Yes/Yes, then you should continue. I suggest that you stop interviewing. Your negative experience is hurting your attitude.

Start with what you know.

- Does your current company write software? Go help them write their software.

- Do your friends work on software projects/companies? Go help them write their software.
Agreed on central banks, disagree on "There is no barrier to entry in ride sharing."

There are enormous costs to acquire customers and to enter new cities. The technical ease has nothing to do with the enormous soft costs.
Does this decision mean it's now required to have a captive portal on my open hotspot at home, or does this decision only pertain to commercial enterprises?

It sounds like the latter, but the idea that I might soon be required to set up a "Sign in to Facebook to use cryptarch's free Wi-Fi" portal is pretty frightening. (Because, of course, just any identifier won't do!)
Was Twitter ever part of that group? I thought it was Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.
Some points:

1. Skill at software interviews seems to have zero correlation with skill at being a software engineer.

2. Being rejected for 10 roles is nothing. I've probably been rejected at a rate 5X that. 10X if you count college recruiting.

3. Despite the "shortage of engineers" meme that constantly gets repeated, competition is fierce. There are a lot more engineers that need work than roles to fill.

4. I disagree with the commenters here dissuading you from interview prep. It's worth it to study up on interviewing and do lots of practice interviews.

Keep at it! I've been out of work for stretches up to 4-5 months. It's not unheard of. It's kind of a numbers game. Do 100 interviews, and if the accept rate is as low as 1% you've got the job!
Wow, I've been commuting past there for nearly a year and had no idea!
>The government at every level, should have no power to prohibit entities, whether government or not, from providing internet service.

Sure they should. You're being ridiculous.

The first amendment doesn't mean anyone can do anything because you can pretty easily cast a wide net and classify everything as speech.

I can't freely express myself with a firearm and shoot anybody I don't like.

Likewise, governments can regulate commerce. They're generally doing a pretty bad job when it comes to the Internet in many cases, but it's very much not a first amendment issue.
Solving the crypto-fq bug in ath9k
You can't improve closed systems. You just change who carries what cost and shout loudly that you've made things better.
Saw a great talk recently that explained there is no such thing as a free market.

Any market needs government oversight and laws to exist. It needs government (courts) to enforce contractual obligations. It needs infrastructure to deliver goods (roads) and to run businesses (power; water; garbage; police).

All successful markets have rules. The so called "free market" proponents simply lobby for the rules to be changed in such a way that those at the top make more money; they are almost never lobbying for extra actual net freedom, but just a different skew to the rules so that they can take home still more of the profits.
It should be noted that it's not like this ISP is shutting down, it's just being barred from serving customers outside its county. This action shuts off service for about 200 people, but the ISP will continue to serve over 7,000. Still pretty bad, but not as bad as the headline makes it seem.
Is Microsoft the biggest OSS contributor?
What stops Pinetops from forming a municipal broadband corp that simply subcontracts everything to Greenlight?
Of course not everyone can be anything they want.

Practicing basketball for 8 hours a day for 10 years doesn't guarantee you'll get drafted to the NBA.

If you enjoy it, recognize your limitations and try to figure out a way to make money doing it, but don't assume you're going to be a rockstar just because you put in the time.
> When we started working on our crowdfunding campaign, we took a look at a few of the most successful crowdfunded products:

And then he had Ubuntu Edge second on the list. If I recall correctly, Ubuntu Edge wasn't a successful campaign.
Ah, interesting side-question there: does the arrow point both ways? Disillusioned authors writing for a disillusioned public -> increased chance of public being disillusioned in the future if they grow up exposed primarily to media telling them everything is empty?
It's great to someone express this point. Though it's hard to beat the convenience of dropping someone else's library into your codebase, each new dependency adds more security surface area and bloat to your application. I wish people considered this balance more carefully.

In general I think a littlw NIH is a good thing. Even if there exists a library that does what you want, it might also include much more that you don't need, and perhaps the kernel of what you want fits into a small function you can write and vet yourself.
Did you use LaTeX for that?
Much of React-Routers problems can be traced to the fact that it uses React components as its API. Yes, there's an alternative API in v3, but it doesn't seem to be very well thought through and is hardly ever used in examples.

Another issue with React-Router is that fundamentally in a web-based system, the router is the core of your framework (middleware, hand-offs to controllers/views, etc. are all built around the abstraction that the router sets up). With React-Router embracign React Components as their API, it means that your entire application must be built to the same abstraction---entirely within the React system, with components nesting other components.

I feel the problem of making a large javascript application client-side is best dealt with by keeping React as the view only, and putting everything else (router, dispatcher, models, etc.) in the form of another abstraction and not defaulting to component based architecture because that's simply what React does.
For the most part of the last 5 years, the risks have been higher and the words have been significantly lower than investing in the USA[0]: +75% versus -11%.

[0] https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...
This story illustrates why that isn't true.

The Uber story is totally different.
I expect anyone to be compatible with war refugees, you paraphrased my words by taking them out of the original context to that of gender discrimination. Does it make sense to deny food or shelter to a family because of their country or religion?
Notes on High Output Management
That's really interesting that they publish that information.

The top of the list is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm; presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google.

What's more curious, to me, is that several of the BBC's list are references to a series of articles on 3 students, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3500850.stm.

Now if you Google any of those 3 students, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"nikki+ho... then that page, that BBC say is hidden in Google SERPs, appears?? Did someone mess up. Google does say "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.", however.

Similarly, this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4747988.stm is listed on that BBC page, but searching the main name and "BBC" brings up that same page as the first result; again the "Some results may have been removed [...]" text is given.

Bit weird?
Windows containers – A walkthrough guide
Heh, I should have checked a bit closer.
> I don't think people who support net neutrality will be able to bring arguments in support of free market policies for ISPs

Au contraire. Net neutrality supports market efficiency, the same way that building a national highway system did. Incumbents want to raise their margins by decommodifying their services to confuse the market.

Now, creating regulations itself is inherently anti free market (just as collecting taxes to build highways was). Perhaps in the future we'll have ISP startups competitively bonded with prospective subscribers, and private covenants assuring what types of traffic will pass (although why would subscribers choose anything other than "all", given the majority expense of a last-mile ISP is the fanout). But until that prospect is even on the horizon, it's a moot point. Any proponent of free markets, even a dedicated ancap, should support the approach that results in markets actually functioning freer.
The only Pynchon I couldn't read was "Mason and Dixon". I'd have to learn to reach 18th century writing at length.

Maybe I'd just had enough.

What hooked me on GR was the similarity to Richard Farina's book, which is not a slog at all and one of my favorites that I'd read when younger. When I found this was probably intentional, it was a very cool thing to find out.
These companies are doing their job perfectly. Extracting as much money out of their assets as possible.

It would be ridiculous for them to waste any money by investing into their infrastructure unless it enables them to compete better, increasing revenue and profits.

They are acting in exactly the way you'd expect given how the economy is designed. The problem are the rules politicians have setup which are designed for a free market not for monopoly/duopoly situations. The only option you have here is realistically is letting local government provide internet.

This way internet becomes part of the services municipalities provide and they compete with each other in being an attractive location for businesses and citizens, so they're incentivized to provide good and cheap internet. At least as cheap and good internet as other places anyway.
Brownie – a canvas toolkit in coffeescript
An idea of open source is that it's very likely that your own implementation is buggier, slower, and more poorly specified than the existing state of the art open source implementation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I'll take a young developer who understands where they are over someone who can solve tricky algorithm problems any day. You've got a good attitude and it will serve you well.

Here is my litmus test for developers. Writing software is a boring job that requires you to obsess about details and to concentrate heavily on minutia far beyond the tolerances of most people. It is also a thankless job. Users will hate you for the bugs. Management will hate your for how slow you are. Nobody will appreciate the effort you put in, all believing that what you do is trivial. Even your own team mates will view your work and universally declare it to be crap. Every time you try something new, someone else will tell you that you are doing it wrong and imply that you are an idiot. Every time you discover something truly complex that requires years of experimentation to even come close to getting good at it, someone will laugh at you and direct you to an ill considered blog post or framework that purports (and fails) to solve your problem. To be blunt, you will be criticised for virtually every keystroke you make for the next 45 years.

There are easier ways to make a living. But if programming still seems awesome after you have read the above, welcome to the club. Never give up.
From personal experience, before you put all your spare money in the stock market, make sure you have the basics covered. Ask yourself, "What would happen if my partner or I couldn't work for a few years?"

Money: Set up life insurance, income protection insurance, and decent medical coverage.

Accommodation: You don't need to own your own home, but have some money available to cover rent or mortgage if needed.

Social: Don't let your social life revolve exclusively around work colleagues. Invest time in family and broader groups. Find a way to have achievements outside of work.

So this happened to me. My wife and I went from a very comfortable double income to countless hospital visits and no time or energy for anything else. And this is just after we had kids.

I'll be forever grateful that my wife set up the safeguards above. I was 100% invested in work, financially and socially, so it has been a huge shock and could have been much worse.