skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Google still doesn't know what it's doing with YouTube. As a longtime consumer of YouTube videos, and somebody who is actually inside of the YouTube community, I understand that. The "Advertiser Friendly" policy was universally mocked for being absurd, and it is. Then there's the indication that it was behind the inexplicable monetization drops on major channels a few months back. The YouTube team has been seen to do some good stuff as well, like the Community tab, but if they want to keep the communities they've built, and the near monopoly on online video they have, they need to get out of their ivory tower, and actually understand that when they make decisions they have real effects on the monetary income of real people, and that when they change their algorithm or site design, people actually go out of business.

However, at least in this case, they're taking a step in the right direction, no matter how small.
Perhaps but humans document everything - even the stupid stuff.
The running example reminds me of https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/20...
They apply CNNs to label pixels. The result could be used to improve other computer vision tasks. Applied to maps they think it would be good to measure vegetation density or the availability and sidewalks.

Hmm... okay.? I dunno what I expected.
Witnessing the future, chill bumps!
The problems we take with us aren't the problem this project addresses---there is one problem we unequivocally leave behind if we successfully colonize Mars.

For all our accomplishments, the human species is one unavoidable planet-scale disaster away from total extinction. We know this class of disaster has happened in Earth's past, and we know we lack the capability to stop it. Colonizing Mars gives the species that much more chance to extend its survival past the terrestrial-impact threshold.

There are myriad other ways we could wipe ourselves out that myriad people are working on. None of them matter if something kills Earth's biosphere (much like this project doesn't matter if something like war kills us off before we succeed). They aren't mutually exclusive.
Spring Cloud Camden GA Adds Consumer Driven Contract Support
One of these things is not like the others

YouTube Creator Studio of course is a different app for managing your channel - which is great - I think it's a fantastic separation of concerns. One app for consuming, another for moderation/management.

But then yes, you've got:

* YouTube (proper)
* YouTube Kids
* YouTube Music
* YouTube Gaming
* YouTube GO

and I believe more are coming.
>Let me guess - in your world they're all assholes for not constantly inconveniencing themselves to cater specifically to what you want. Or you just literally have no social life,

It is probably this. It is not a hard concept to understand. I do not force my friends to use other services, and doing so would just be causing them an inconvenience and annoy them. Yes they are friends, but having to be a special butterfly doesn't mean they have to like that.
The amount of power is a few orders of magnitude too low to propel these kind of masses electrically.

Basically you need at least 10 kW per Newton.
This is what everybody thinks the first few years.
The problem in GC vs RC and decisions taken by companies, is that many times the decisions are political and not technical.

The outcome of Singularity and Midori is a proof of it, in spite of the outcomes prooven by their research, the projects were killed by management.

At least they allowed some of the tech to be repurposed for .NET Native.
> Even if you assume that all your expenses are linearly multiplied

Problem is, they aren't. Income taxes are regressive, so your percentage income to taxes goes up as you get paid more. Everything else should scale linearly.

> (hint: Amazon costs the same no matter where you live)

I spend maybe 3% of my annual salary on Amazon and similar websites. It's a non-factor.

> If you were living on $40k/yr in Kansas City, you could move to SF and suddenly be saving $80k/yr.

Only if your expenses go up by the same scaling factor as your salary. As soon as they get out-of-whack even a bit in favor of expenses the math starts to break down. It also breaks down if you are saving a small-ish portion of your salary to begin with.
Nobody's making you go, so it's not really "we." Lots of people do want to go, so you could ask them what they'd like to do there, but you'd get better answers if you ditched the condescending language.
It's more of a case that is a niche feature, so only pricier chips include it.
This is one of HP's top revenue generators, while the rest of the company is in a slow downward spiral (and has been for years). You better believe that they're going to do whatever {they can,it takes} to preserve that revenue.
So how long before 9 men can make a baby in a month?
> It required a lot of effort to build the first airplanes

This is a false equivalence. Birds fly; they do not live on Mars.

>the Earth was an inhospitable wasteland.

The Earth did not become hospitable through human effort, as is required if we are supposed to live on Mars.
> I recently found out that as of February 2016, an exempt employee working full-time in CA must be paid a minimum salary of $41,600/year. It's 2x the minimum wage.

The new federal minimum requirement that goes into effect Dec. 1 (for those in the special job-duties related exemptions; there's a higher one for pay alone) is $47,476/yr, anyway.

The California minimum for a salaried exempt employee under the exemption for computer-related professions is $87,185.14. [0]

The 2×minimum wage rule applies to professional [1], administrative [2], and executive [3] employees who have over 50% of their time in highly-responsible work of types defined in the law. It doesn't seem likely to apply to the entry level, and jr. dev positions you are talking about (and not "assistants", either, except for executive assistants to whom some portion of discretionary authority from the executive is delegated.)

And, in either the federal or state case, if they are paid less than that amount, they are not exempt from wage and hour (e.g., overtime) rules.

> I support raising the minimum wage in itself, but if that goes up anymore, I simply will not hire certain positions (entry level positions, assistants, maybe even jr devs) because it doesn't make sense at 2x for their skill level and/or role.

I don't understand this. Other than the fact that basically none of the positions you identify are likely to be covered by the double minimum wage threshold that you are complaining about (devs for sure would be covered by the much higher computer-related threshold, and generic entry level employees and assistants aren't likely to qualify under any exemption in the first place, regardless of salary), even if they were you absolutely can hire them for lower salaries, they just aren't exempt from wage and hour laws (e.g., overtime requirements, etc.) if you do. You seem to fail to understand either the applicability or the meaning of California's law here.

[0] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/LC515-5.pdf

[1] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=P#profession...

[2] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=A#administra...

[3] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=E#executive%...
Besides, it wouldn't exclude the possibility of an extinction level event that disables the earth-moon system. Moon seems more suited for the role of an outpost, re-fuelling station and the final flight to Mars/elsewhere.
I prefer the Big Friendly Rocket interpretation. :)
Yeah, I don't understand that approach to interviewing. Technical questions are great, but IMO the point isn't to get the right answer. The best technical questions have many "right" answers, depending on the context. And the best interviewees know how to find that "right" answer by analyzing the use cases, customers, clients, etc. to find the best tradeoff. THAT is what I care most about in a technical interview--the ability to handle ambiguity and make the right tradeoffs.

Technical chops are a prerequisite, of course, but they're useless if the candidate doesn't make the right tradeoffs and technical decisions.
From the other article linked elsewhere in this thread:

"Today, all that remains of the recording session is a 12-inch single-sided acetate disc, cut by the BBC's technician while the computer played. The computer itself was scrapped long ago, so the archived recording is our only window on that historic soundscape. What a disappointment it was, therefore, to discover that the pitches were not accurate: the recording gave at best only a rough impression of how the computer sounded."
Better yet, why not asteroids first? If we really want to be living in space, don't switch one gravity well for a much shittier one.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THE REPLIES! This has been very enlightening. I've been learning the last couple of days that opening up to people is not so bad. Ultimately, I think I'll give more details if my gut deems it necessary and the gap comes up. Otherwise, I'll just state that I was burned out and that I had to take some time off for some medical reasons. Cheers everyone!
The Mars colonial fleet would depart en-masse - about 1000 ships
Cultivating Friendgineers
I have begun doing this. The RoI just isn't there for me.

I've been looking for full time employment for over 6 months now, doing contracting to make ends meet and to stay involved in the industry. I started out doing the tests, putting lots of effort into the insipid take home exams, and so on. It amounted to absolutely nothing. I'd get invited on site, get tortured with a whiteboard for 6 hours, and get no offer.

Meanwhile, contract "interviews" have been "What have you done at your previous jobs?", "How can you help us do $THING", and finally "What's your rate?". They have, unlike FT interviewers, understood that I am telling the truth about what I have done, what I can do, and how I do it, and so didn't require a college test to prove it.
Earlier in my career I would give white board coding questions. I would get excited when someone did come up with the same solution as me, but often get even more excited when they came up with a better solution, or made me think about changing how I posed the question. That's a good way to know if you want to work with someone - if you or they or both, get excited.
All of this is true.

Going to Mars fixes none of these problems however and wastes a lot of energy in the process.
But we should remember that when the cards are dealt, we are not alone. Some of us may have better cards than others, but a combination could be further stronger still.
OMG; he says is going to build it, exactly like his demo. As a youth I received a brand new Matt Mason for birthday; it has been a very, very long time.
The people who would be OK with a one-way trip are not the people you want to be sending to space.
I didn't know Tolfino was ended already. I'm curious as whether the experiment ran it's course or if it was resources issue.
Yes and when you are successful and you keep the heritable traits close to the family... you end up with royal inbreds.
This is really misguided. As a programmer you should be able to write a few lines of code in a Google Document.

On the other hand it would be idiotic to expect people to be able to code in IDE XYZ (whether it has vi and emacs mode or not).
> How do you design a process that is consistent, measurable and efficient at that scale?

None of these are strict requirements. Individual groups who are hiring can decide best what kind of person will make a good team member, and should be largely charged with hiring one (with some cross-team supervision to remove obvious biases).

It's humans you are hiring, not AWS instances –– a process that easily scales to large numbers (like HackerRank) should be viewed with some skepticism.
the same proof is discussed on math.stackexchange

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61482/proving-the-id...
Thanks! Let us know if you have any feedback/thoughts, we'd love to make this as accessible as possible to beginners.
Fuel is cheap, and the parachutes you'd need to soft-land a rocket like this would be gigantic. The weight and cost of the two systems are more similar than you might realize. Propulsive landing gives you much more control over where you end up.
I wonder if such a scheme would fly in other disciplines of Engineering? Would they hire a person at a Thermal power station, who can dazzle people with fancy Laplace transforms on a white-board?

I recently interviewed for a position at a small Amsterdam based company. They simply asked me to work with them and refactor a part of their code base. It was really interesting and frankly, we all had lots of fun during the 3-4 hour process.

Coming from the USA, it was eye opening to see the ingenuity of this simple way to determine candidates ability. It's such a shame that Stack ranking like HackerRank are being favoured instead of on-job evaluation.
We don't need the permission and cooperation of every major world power and polluting industry to go to Mars. I'd go so far as to say it's vastly more attainable than fixing our atmosphere.
I'm sure this will get downvoted into oblivion, but why should I or other engineers/entrepreneurs look at Sam Altman as a massive startup success story when his lone startup Loopt never really achieved product-market fit, and ended up in a firesale?

Across 5 funding rounds, Crunchbase lists Loopt as having raised $39 million and then was acquired (acqui-hired?) for $43 million. He didn't create any multiples of value for his investors. Loopt wasn't a breakout hit like so many other YC startups have been. It was certainly one of the first interesting location-based apps in the App Store, but soon was surrounded by other location-based apps and never really appeared to surface and gain traction.

Obviously Sam runs YC now and has dramatically improved it, but in the lens of being an entrepreneur, isn't he still essentially unproven, and not a success story in the startup world?
Can someone with expertise to compare Musk's plan vs. Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan proposed in the early 90s?
By striking out on your own, you mean launch a business? Highly suggest checking out The Personal MBA, Art of the Start, Fogcreek's Software Management Reading List and a book called SPRINT by Google Ventures! GOOD LUCK!
This is what I'm starting to think of as the "sympathetic customer fallacy".

Coming up with a scalable hiring filter mechanism that doesn't belittle or frustrate the kinds of engineers are you are trying to attract is fundamentally not the problem of your hirees.

Now, maybe the top engineers will suffer through the process, in which case fine, run the whiteboard interviews. But increasingly, it seems like the real cream of the crop are saying "companies that run these kinds of interviews are too rigid for me to be willing to work for them".

Complaining about it won't actually attract those engineers back, because _your_ hiring process is not _their_ problem. They don't care about your hardships, and why should they?

First impressions matter, and if their first impression of your company is that you make everyone you see jump through arbitrary hoops regardless of merit, it's not really surprising they might not want to work for you. Telling them that the hoops are needed to keep the riffraff out hardly improves your image.

Maybe you'll have to accept you'll have to hire some bad engineers in order to get the great ones, and do the filtering as a longer process.

Maybe it's not possible for a 50,000+ employee company to have a hiring process that isn't belittling.

Maybe there's a third technique others haven't worked out.

But whatever the answer, you can be damned sure that complaining the world is unfair won't actually solve the problem for you.
> It's worth noting that on HackerRank, candidates can see how they're performing against the test cases.

You can see how you do against test cases in aggregate. You are given a few examples, the rest are hidden from you. A completely arbitrary and vindictive restriction.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201005/make-your-ow...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=luck+studies&go=Submit&qs=n&for...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michakaufman/2015/01/30/embracin...

http://www.codusoperandi.com/posts/increasing-your-luck-surf...
Sorry old.lag@gmail.com
If it only saves 2 weeks that's still useful. Don't forget if your using solar power you have much less power the closer you get to mars. So, you effectively get a free surplus at the start of your journey.

The other option, is to have a pure transit vehicle from earth orbit to mars orbit and then a 3rd vehicle to land with. This, would work really well if we wanted to really colonize mars. But, if your only sending say 10 people the R&D is not worth the fuel savings.

PS: Let's say it's a 20,000 lbs craft or ~1/10th of the shuttle and your getting ~8.8 N or 1 lbs of thrust for 120 days. That's 9.8 m/s / 20,000 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 120 = 5k m/s. If you already need the panels while in mars orbit, that seems like a no brainier. Finally, If that's 200kw in mars orbit then the numbers seem even more reasonable as that's 460 kw near earth and the extra 260kw ~= 26 newtons which could add ~5km/s to a 60,000 lb spacecraft.
Features to combat low connectivity and the cricket gif in the images show that this change is made with Indian market in mind.
To me the moon would be the obvious place to start, especially as the NASA plans I've seen for Mars have been based on using a space station at a Earth-Lunar Lagrange point, and associated moonbase, as ideal staging post. That and I might one day afford a ticket.

I guess direct to Mars is sexier. :)

(I'm behind live too.)
If you're trying to escape climate change making a place uninhabitable for humans, you probably don't want to aim for Mars.
Microsoft and Bank of America collaborate with Azure Blockchain as a Service
I worked at a .edu for years and we had several of those old, early LaserJets that worked for years, spitting out hundreds of thousands -- even millions, in a few cases -- of printed pages, with nothing more than the occasional change of toner cartridge.
Simperium
telegram was sort of a bad choice: https://www.eff.org/node/82654

signal desktop (granted, stupid chrome plugin but official): signal.org/desktop
That's pretty much the best case scenario for having a kid, actually. Hybrid vigor works in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk Speaks About Colonizing Mars
Google recruiters tell candidates to buy this book to pass the interview. It drives the interviewers crazy. Clearly there is some friction between interviewers and recruiters at Google, incentives aren't quite aligned.
This is a very nice visual proof! I wonder if there are similar proofs in higher dimensions (or at least in 3 dimensions so that we have a hope of visualizing them)?
The other problem is that you need to slow down, with ION drives you'll have to start you slow down burn about mid way increasing the travel time considerably.

With traditional rockets you can accelerate, get a gravity assist boost and save enough fuel to slow down quickly when you are at the orbital insertion point.
Thanks, I had read that part before though.

When staying in normal journal mode the app sees the data just fine and the data is committed directly in that case. Updates/Deletes are all pretty much instant and any queries results are correct.
There might be an issue with the database drivers I depend on (FireDAC) in that layer I even go as far as closing the tables on each query/update after a commit.
The problem with normal journal mode is the lock error popping up.

When I switch to WAL journal mode the data no longer appears to be written directly even when turning autocommit back on.

So while WAL mode appears to fix the lock issue, the data only gets committed on closing the database connection.
As a result the GUI process can't interact with the daemon process anymore as it only sees old data.
Opening and closing the database on each insert/update/delete to force the data to be written simply isn't an option.
For the last few years, I've been telling people I believe I'd live forever, and they always ask me why I'd want to. I don't have a great reason (lets not make this about that). Point of story, entropy in our universe will eventually cause its end, and I don't want to die then either.

Ideally, before the cold death of the universe, I want to transition my body into a higher dimensional body. So I'm entirely in support of your argument.

However, digitizing our brains, or any other transition away from the status quo right now is not only not currently possible, it is currently unimaginable. There have been no prototypes, no significant research, not even any real theories on how to accomplish such a task. Even repairing/repurposing parts of our current bodies is a giant challenge. Hell, we can't even appropriately map our biology or understand how they actually work.

Transitioning away from biology will take time. However, until that day, we need to stay alive and we need more resources. Becoming multi-planetary is just one "safe"(predictable) step towards the future you would prefer.
thanks for posting this Omar!

One of the things I love about LH is how different our retro process is from the places I've worked before. It's in the middle of the day, and it's so open and friendly!

I'd love to hear what all of you do at your retros and what you like/dislike about them!
It is a thing. UTC-5:00, or Z-5, or the specific times 1830Z / 18:30UTC, for some examples.

Also, for the rest of the thread, central time zone is currently observing daylight saving time, so the correct abbreviation is CDT.

Sorry to jump in with such pedantry. Datetime math is hard! :)
Hi Elad,

First off I want to say that I appreciate the drive to work on problems like this. I personally think it's a much better use of money than funding yet another marketing tool to 'revolutionize push notification blah blah'.

I am wondering if you can answer a question (probably naive but curious nonetheless). Why not sequence the full genome on a 30x coverage? Why find just the mutations on these genes rather than across the board?

The reason I'm asking is that it feels somewhat limiting to focus on only the currently known relationships of mutations rather than collecting the full data set. There's other initiatives, such as SB Genomics, that are doing very interesting work on the Cancer Cloud by utilizing new graphing techniques in data science to understand large scale pattern interactions, but they typically are utilizing the full data set.
Some of the comments here make me think of crabs in a pot pulling down the ones who try to climb out.

Nobody's making you participate in this venture. If you don't like it, then you're free to go do whatever it is you do like.

You might think Musk could better direct his efforts and resources elsewhere, but most other billionaires don't do anything all that interesting, they just invest their money in mundane stuff, outsource jobs, build hotels, run for President, etc. So why are you upset with this one and not all those others?
I'm surprised Elon has not improved his public speaking abilities.
Well, the title of the post is "making humans a multiplanetary species". Not "asking humans if they want to be multiplanetary species". I was speaking of "we" in that sense, "we as humans". But I get your point.
Mathematical Consciousness
The worst is when the interviewer gets a question of stack-overflow, then modifies it slightly. The slight modifications mean that a completely different data structure should be used, but the interviewer doesn't realize that.
I don't believe that AGI and transhumanism is any easier (or better, but I accept your opinion) than making a spacecraft that can carry people to Mars. The task is well understood, unlike artifical intelligence.