skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nope.

Some people are parasites over the course of their lives.

Others are suckers over the course of their lives.

Very few make the transition from one to the other, except that as a general rule the young suckers get screwed even harder.
Investing in the S&P 500 delegates the "actual wealth creation" to others by providing them with the means.

And they, on average, would have done a little better than Trump did.
Good thing an hour and a half is well less than 30% of the day, then.
Does anyone have experience with this style of interview from the candidate side of the equation?

I want to move to this style of hiring; however, I fear that because it's against the grain I may miss out on good candidates. Is that unfounded?
Which part of the GOP now in control of the federal and most state governments wants to do that?
Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee.

In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
>That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama.

You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being judged. When they can speak freely they turn up the tone of the speech (which happened in Trump's rallies).

In Venezuela we had a similar situation when Chavez came to power, not with race but with economical status... At some point you could be yielded at the street just because the way you were dressed (didn't have to be fancy). All that was unheard before Chavez.

So yeah... A bad president can indeed reshape the view and behavior of people. Just wait until he has their own tv show as Chavez did.
> It's also a temporal issue -- Building housing lowers house prices in the future, restricting AirBnB lowers house prices today.

That's not necessarily true. You assume that apartments that are used as full-time AirBnB rentals would instead be rented out to full-time tenants as "normal" apartments.

The problem is that if those apartments would be subject to rent control, a lot of landlords would prefer to keep them vacant. It's estimated that over ten thousand units in San Francisco are intentionally left vacant by their owners, because having a rent-controlled tenant in the unit makes it a lot harder to sell the property. Landlords who purchased their apartments for their appreciation value, rather than monthly cashflow, are pretty likely to do this.

If those landlords choose to leave their properties vacant, that will be a short-term reduction in the housing supply rather than an increase.

If those landlords choose sell their properties immediately, there is no telling what will happen -- some may be rented out, some may be converted into luxury apartments with smaller numbers of units, and some may be converted into single-family homes (yes, this really happens). Some may be bought by other landlords who intend to leave them vacant and flip them in a few years for a quick profit. Some may be torn down and replaced with larger buildings, which would result in a short-term decrease in supply in exchange for a long-term increase.

Of course, some landlords will rent out the apartments, which will result in a short-term increase in supply. But they won't all do that. I expect the effect on rents to be fairly small, and the effect on lawyers' bank accounts to be large.
This is why I'm wary of posts about Elixir. I love the language a lot but the blog posts and articles on it are mostly hype by people without much experience.
>To everyone surprised by the news, just remember: you are not Apple's target audience anymore. The developers did an amazing job of advertising the Macbook to the general public and making it seem like the cool, sexy thing that professionals use, but it's no longer just for professionals.

Two things:

They were never "just for professionals" -- they were the "computer for the rest of us". Marketing wise at least.

They also were never about raw power. They were never the ultimate number crunching machines nor gaming laptops.

And the CEO of a company, executives, journalists, doctors, managers, etc -- people who don't need the latest Nvidia card or 32GB RAM -- are also professionals.

For videographers, musicians, illustrators, photographers, graphic designers, the MBPr 15" is one of the most popular, and well speced machines out there. Individual PC laptops can have this or that spec better, but rarely the all around package (weight, size, sturdiness, touchpad, screen quality, SSD speed, battery, etc) -- and in those rare cases, the price is very close.
I agree. And as someone who works with telemedicine, I can say that even video pales in comparison to in person.

Our body language reading machinery is weak and ignorable when a person is reduced to a small 2 dimensional image, let alone text. And it's the signals that this machinery produces that trigger empathy. Without it, and especially when talking to strangers, it's easy to slip into a mild kind of psychopathy.
Dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915148
The red herring is the slavery argument your political masters have fed you to keep you happily allowing massive power consolidation to an abusive apparatus.
There's also something to be said for having a build system that can correctly do incremental rebuilds and caching of outputs, which could massively ease the SSD write load.
Indeed. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need," doesn't work.
Wait, do you mean a few kb 4 times/minute (5760 times/day) which would be a few MB if you write kbs, or do you mean GBs per day? I don't understand...
OK just re-tested with the latest version (which is very different looking for sure) on the latest OSX on my top specced late 2015 iMac 5K 27''.

I mounted the latest CentOS 7 ISO image, completely standard and md5 summed, it boots to install and I have no keyboard or mouse control OR the VM is immediately frozen.

Seemed to boot faster than Fusion which is an improvement from the last time I tried.

I'll next try a shudder Windows 10 shudder VM.
Sure, not ideal, but as long as there's nothing that says "you must spend as much or more energy to separate and sequester harmful by-products than you get from the reaction" we shouldn't mock people for at least entertaining the idea. 30% sounds like a reasonable number, interesting to know.

Whether that's a commercially viable amount or not, I have no idea. And your last point, I agree with. We should certainly make the coal industry include externalities in their price as much as feasible, making for a (more) fair energy market.
Wouldn't it be dramatically easier to just allow Americans to buy their drugs from other first world countries at the prices they pay? If American drug companies have to compete with extra-national pricing, I'm guessing they'll figure out a way to.

On top of that, you're not forcing anybody to do anything.
The Orange Pi Plus has SATA.

https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/NEW-orange-pi-plus-...
If they wanted to push that issue, there's a nice long email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing exactly how to dodge the Presidential Records Act.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

Use the "view original PDF" link.
No, those don't have any magic, but if something like this persists you can always email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
Having candidates work on small projects simulates the communication required to complete actual/mock work projects. This will definitely foster better rapport between people involved.

Personally, I'd rather be given a weekend to work on a smaller project rather than be tested on algorithms that are available by common libraries of most programming languages.
Are those 1.2 jobs all domestic? For each resident in the US, do we create 1.1 jobs in China and 0.1 jobs in the US? I honestly don't know this (and I don't want to look it up right now), so I'm not trying to make a counterargument. Just curious.
After I left my job I was making too little to receive a subsidy. You have to fall into the sweet spot to get a subsidy.
I think your observation that the "harder left" and "harder right" have a lot in common is a valid one, I suspect a lot of people who would have voted for Sanders voted for Trump.

In a way I think the values of "left" and "right" don't really apply like they did (if they ever did) anymore.

On some issues I hold views that the left would call me a right for and the right would call me a left for (e.g. Some things the the state runs should be private, some things that are private the state should run, not all defense spending is bad, fairer taxes can mean higher taxes on the rich, regressive taxes hit the poorer harder, religion has zero place in the bedroom or in reproductive rights, equal rights does not mean positive discrimination, the right to free speech doesn't mean the right to no consequences, single payer healthcare is not the devil (I'm British, the NHS is one of the better things we did), a social safety net is part of the social contract, immigration is broadly a good thing and rarely a very bad thing etc etc), corporations should pay their taxes and those found to be avoiding them should be punished in a way that actually makes it easier for them to just pay, we need to spend a lot on infrastructure (our national audit office found that there is between a 3 to 1 and 7 to 1 RoI on infrastructure spending).

I'm all over the spectrum when it comes to left/right, what I don't like (near universally) is the crop of politicians on either side of the old left/right.

What I'd really like is a party that addresses the tough issues with evidence led policy and the honesty to say "That's a tough problem, We don't have a total solution but we are going to try <foo> because we think it'll work better than <bar> because <fizz>".

There isn't enough nuance in politics anymore, everything is absolutist "This good, you bad", I want smart, articulate thinking politicians who are thinking about the big problems (where the problems aren't how do I benefit myself).
Yes when I worked at a large corp in TN. I suspect they didn't really want me to stick around long-term anyway and were looking for a way to get rid of me.
q.e.d.

You like the person who lies to you to exploit you more than the person who tells you the truth about your problems and cares for your well being.

Btw. a person can't change his skin color, his birth place, or with which physical organs (s)he's born with. But he can very well decide to accept that his shame comes from not educating himself, from hoping others would come and make his life Great Again, from not recognizing that only exploiters would promise him something unrealistic like that. And he can decide to do something about it.

And about recognizing cheaters vs people who really care about you:

Cheaters will say: Others f* you over. I will make you Great again.

Reliable people say: You f*ed yourself over. Let's learn, become strong and build a new Great Thing together.
So you're saying that it's perfectly normal for a non-racist person to support a candidate who openly argued for deporting huge swaths of honest workers and enforce by law racial and religious discrimination?
I can see how people might think of Trump supporters as misogynist racists. Some people have argued that it is taking things out of context, but every time I look the context is worst than I imagined.

He denies rape by saying the accuser is too ugly to rape. (Would he rape if she were cute?)

He seems to think that "grabbing women by the pussy" is a good thing. Most politicians I'd give a pass on an event like this - it happened a long time ago, and most politicians would disclaim such behavior (compare Clinton's response to her email server during the debates).

He accuses a judge of not being able to do his job because he is "from Mexico", even though said judge was born as an American.

He attacks (seemingly) muslims at Hillary's DNC speech - for reasons I'm not entirely certain why.

So I think that there are a few options: you are either saying Trumps sexism and racism is worth it for his other qualities, or blatantly ignoring it, or actively supporting it. To me it's not hard to see how people would come to the conclusion that people are actively supporting it, because for a lot of people that is an issue that would trump other issues (bad pun not intended but now that it's there I'm leaving it).
No, it really does not. The S&P 500 inclusion criteria[1] states:

> Treatment of IPOs. Initial public offerings should be seasoned for six to 12 months before being
considered for addition to an index.

So if the S&P 500 explicitly excludes equities to IPO into the index, then how is it that an investor in an S&P 500 index is delegating wealth creation? They're just trading the returns with other investors. And to be clear, this is totally great for the investor! But it shouldn't be confused with actual business.

[1]: https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...
Next up: truck drivers.
sounds plausible, yeah. Looking at wiki on demographics of yugoslavia, croatia, serbia and bosnia is a bit interesting; 81', which appears the peak, has yugoslavian as the ethnicity of 5.4% of yugoslavia total, 7.9% of bosnia and herzegovina (and there it was even higher, 8.4% in 61' which isn't even remotely the case in the other 2 countries - serbia and croatia have fractions of a % in 61'), 4.1% of serbia, and interestingly 8.2% in croatia. Today ofc its essentially 0% in all of them.

So by the end of yugoslavia, got relatively substantial but still by far the majority always identified with some specific ethnicity.

Now I presumed most people revised their identification in 90' for political reasons/safety, but could be emigration as you say played a significant role too, especially in bosnia.

And yeah, a fair proportion would prob be offended by an imputation of yugoslavian identity today, because of the ethnically divided politics.

But I think further than that, a significant chunk of the people not too happy that yugoslavia failed and disintegrated (such as myself and I believe many left-leaning people around) still can't see much sense in identifying as being ethnically yugoslavian. Yugoslavia is no more; yugoslavian identity was a composite one in its rather recent origin; people knew specific ethnicities of their parents and choose to think of themselves as yugoslavian first, or interpreted having parents of different ethnicities as being that identity. As a political project - and it was that - it died just by the time it was getting any substantial traction, so seems rather pointless today.
Be Unfailingly Kind (2015)
Sephiroth ‎- Draconian Poetry [Dark Ambient Experimental]
Wouldn't those lobbying regulations (blocking federal employees from lobbying) violate the first amendment? Wouldn't that deny an entire political class of people from being able to participate in the political process?
Not that Trump's gov't doesn't need watching, but I'd note that Clinton's pick for her transition team was a lobbyist for the oil industry. The root failure wasn't in the general election it was during the primaries.
Obama's quote from the article you posted: "We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so."

I agree with Obama's overall point about guns. But from what you've written, I'm under the impression you think he's wrong about terrorism.
Or I can have the candidate code with me for an hour during the interview, and save $100. They get to ask me questions about the problem directly, and I can see where they are struggling, and how they debug (trial and error? Google/SO?)
It remains true. 4TB now is like $100 too, and SSDs that size are around even if they're an order of magnitude more expensive. (And then there's Seagate's 60 TB SSD prototype, clearly the future is with SSDs.)
> Actually, the majority of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton

A plurality did, not a majority.

But still more than went with any individual alternative.

> Trump won on a technicality of our (antiquated and frankly awful) system, not on a mandate.

It's not so much antiquated as evil; it's designed specifically to magnify the power of voters in states with people counted for assigning representation that don't vote (primarily to secure slavery, but its continued to reward other forms of disenfranchisement since.)
I think, despite political affiliation, it's our obligation to hold him to the promises we believe in and galvanize his fired-up base to do so as well.

I voted for Clinton and volunteered for the campaign, but I'll gladly push him to keep his word on this promise and the others that I believe will benefit our country.
Can you find the source that they're using or are they getting it from other students? If you can find the source, just ask why they didn't give attribution, then how he's going to approach understanding the code that they copy in the future. This has been my approach for students (college professor).

The alternative is much harder. I've been mentoring a nephew who blames his teacher for how little he understands, but sends me code very clearly copied off of another student. My general approach has been to explicitly not help him with any actual source, and instead work on pseudocode. He might spend 8 hours trying to figure out how to compile the broken C++ that he's working with, but he can't honestly claim that I wasn't being helpful. As suggested by flukus, asking for code explanations isn't a bad way to go. Such explanations always find themselves companion to homework assignments that I craft, and it's what I've been trying to do in the pseudocode conversations with my nephew. However, another great way to go is to just find examples of any given problem (and attribute them!!) in another language entirely. Then the student has the opportunity to become a polyglot in a very natural way. Ultimately, I refuse to speak in the target language because I'm very aware that he wants me to hand him the answer.
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915148.
The problem isn't possession, it's intent to sell.
Being a distinguished engineer at Google is definitely elite. Only a tiny fraction of its 30k employees hold that title and it probably draws a salary in the 1-2% range.
If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders

No. How much wealth could those individuals create if they couldn't sell the companies on the market and invest that money, and had instead to accumulate dividends? The relationship is symbiotic.

Yes, Trump created wealth, but the point is that his peers would have created even more if he hadn't used that money himself. To make an analogy, I can swim a few laps, but you wouldn't want to have me replace Michael Phelps on your team.
I'm fairly certain this is a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of.

> But Trump's promise to ...... won't necessarily be fulfilled.
It's not about who will or won't it's about perception, for right or wrong.

Under Hillary, the perception is that the 1% would continue to get richer and the poor would continue to get poorer while lobbyists continue to control the Government fanning the flames of the perception of Government corruption that runs salt in the wounds of those left fighting tooth and nail for the scraps that are left.

Under the Donald, there is an offer of hope that this blusterous bigot who doesn't give a fuck what anyone but he wants himself cannot be bought by the establishment has offered a promise of bringing jobs they can do back home. The masses living in poverty don't give a flying fuck about the 1% who benefit from a lobby controlled Government who's only concern appears to be Wall St. - and nor should they when their primary concern is putting food in their kids mouths.

Whether these perceptions are valid or not, whether or not the Donald will make good on these apparently empty promises, these are the perceptions that make up a large part of the country's reality and that is what people voted to fix.

So the demographic that perceives they're going to benefit are the 99% that have been left behind by corporate America.
"A plurality did, not a majority."

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to look up the difference :)
What a total RESTful route to begin with ? I thought REST had nothing to do with "routes", url or resources but how the state of the application is communicated in an API ? It seems to me the Roy wrote something with a certain perspective, someone came up, read the paper and decided to apply his writings to something totally unrelated because he didn't like SOAP ... I personally stopped using that word so I don't have to confront and debate with "REST purists" and just went back to talking about web service, because that's what it is.
> therefore act out of interest for their constituents rather than themselves.

I don't see how that follows. Wouldn't the limit encourage a congressional rep to cravenly maximize whatever personal benefits they can once they're in their final term? They don't need to fear re-election.
It appears many people are embracing these unacceptable-isms. How is it then bad to call them our on it?
5 Problems That Every E-commerce Faces and Their Solutions – Tagove
Nobody agrees on thet, except in the very narrow definition of everyone knowing at least one regulation they'd personally abolish (the lefty choosing marijuana, the right "all of them")

I've investigated the same complaint for EU law and all you can find is bizarre propaganda making ridiculous claims in bad faith – they make the regs sound absurd, but you can find out the real purpose within half a minute of googling.

Famous example: requiring Cucumbers (bananas etc.) to conform to a certain shape, including curvature for different quality grades. Reasoning: the retail industry wanted it (they couldn't agree on a common standard), it helps trade by establishing standard grades. It's also been repealed as a result of the populist pressure, but by then everyone had been using it and they just continued.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I don't think it's stupid. We should trust our sniff tests on these types of studies more often, especially when there is a potentially not-too-distant political, economic, or social consequence attached to the conclusion.

I personally think this is a common tactic by academics -- put out something that has a clearly false-as-phrased conclusion and then get lost in a maze of dense data and opaque language, come out disoriented, and make some conclusion like this that's pretty clearly invalid if you're willing to step away. The authors somehow convince themselves that the obvious conclusion is incorrect (often by redefining words) and then accuse anyone who dares to point out that the conclusion is a sham of being a luddite and anti-intellectual.