skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am one of those who feels the confusion around zero bounded indexes leads to countless issues because it is counter-intuitive to how we use numbers in real life.

What's counter-intuitive to me is that we habitually call the second floor in a building the "first floor"!
This was poorly reported. Wheeler was a cable industry shill over three decades ago when cable was an innovative underdog being oppressed by the broadcast establishment.
FWIW local demographics have a non-negligible effect on a hospital's specialty. The nearest hospital to a retirement community will get more practice at heart attacks and strokes and the one in the college town will be good at dealing with alcohol poisoning.
Nobody really understands transistors. We can build them and priding how they react, but our explanations are all based on other things we don't actually understand. Granted, this is not a great way of looking at the world as everything has the same limitation, but it's also completely accurate.

TLDR; We can model and predict things, but that does not mean we understand them.
You never step in the same river twice. If life gets too boring for you, remember the saying, cut down the tracks, not across the street. Might it be easier to cure boredom than decay? You need only become forgetful right? You wouldn't ask the restaurant to take items off the menu because you might not like them, would you?
>Are you suggesting that the 'something' it claims to be capable of doing is, explicitly, "driving 100% without human intervention

That's exactly what it's attempting to do at a given point in time. It's just disclaiming fitness and holding the human driver responsible for ensuring that it doesn't screw up.

>find the terms of some assistive device

You've been had. You're buying into the alternative terminology scheme that oscillates between disclaimer words like "assistive" and sexy PR words like "Autopilot". And, the reality is that the car is not "assisting". It is taking full control from the driver and completely operating the vehicle at significant intervals; leaving the driver only to monitor it. I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Beyond that, it's no secret that these companies are trying to achieve full autonomy, and they are already making claims that they are safer than humans, even denigrating human drivers in the process. But, they want those same fallible human drivers to be responsible for taking over when their tech fails. That's what's asinine.

>You, the responsible driver, would never believe a child

>you're not allowed to hand over responsibility to a piece of software

Huh? I'm not sure if you're completely missing the point on purpose, but there's really not much more I can add.
Fair enough, labor unions. Brain no longer working, thanks for leading me by the nose to it. So we need to get software engineers, who as a group tend to be openly hostile to the idea of unions, to embrace collective bargaining.
Its only a free market in ways that are convenient for them.
Can you link the paper?
Accidental death catches up with you in 1000-3000 years. Birth rates would have to slow. But not stop.
He was the opposite in the recent times. Unlike any of his predecessors, he pushed a tremendous amount of consumer friendly policies and curbed monopolistic abuses of incumbents. He failed to repeal anti-competitive local state laws which ban municipal Internet, but he managed to pass Net Neutrality rules.

It would be a pity if all that effort will be dismantled by corrupted commissioners backed by monopolists who hate competition and progress.
Hmm... CoreOS as a name seems all around more sleek.

Though the tech behind the name is the same, we are humans and we judge books by their covers - I imagine this carries into software as well.
A straw man would be more something like "since no one has ever seen how badly immortal societies have gone, no one can say they're bad."
My friend just wanted to understand if there was room to negotiate. She was going to take it anyways even if they said they couldn't go higher. So are you saying people should not negotiate at all then?
There is still the rest of the world...
Support the FSF Licensing Team
Thank you for the thorough reply!
in other news, water is liquid.
When I visit the link I get: "Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/lies-of-global-capital... on this server."
She did not reject it. Basically she said "it's lower than my current/other offer, and was wondering if this is something we could work together". It was all polite. She just wondered if there was room for negotiation, and was planning on taking it anyways. I think the employer is being really passive aggressive in that sense.
Surely, he's joking about Mr. Feynman. (context: https://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Cha...)
A decent rule of thumb is that the cost of residential electricity is half for transmission and distribution, half for generation. So save 50% on your home power bill if electricity became free to generate but still had to be delivered from centralized plants.

If household solar and small-scale storage get ridiculously cheap, grid defection may be cheaper than buying large-scale renewable output from the grid, but utility scale solar plants can generate more real output per nominal watt and cost less to build per nominal watt. Unless your local electricity system's history is weird (unneeded grid capacity built in Australia being paid for by households, Energiewende that shifted costs away from big industrial customers and toward individuals in Germany) then grid defection probably won't be the lowest-cost option in the next 5 years.
Agreed. To me it's a red flag about that company's culture.
Right -- I think this is a problem for many recent startups like Doordash, Postmates, and even Uber. Their pitch to investors that this was a land grab -- whoever conquers the two-sided marketplace first dominates it and extracts profits later on. And so they need mountains of money to build up both sides of the marketplace.

But it turns out that there's no switching cost on either side of the marketplace: you or I happily switch between both depending on which drivers are closer, and an Uber driver can just open their Lyft app if Uber is slowing down. You'd happily switch from Doordash if Caviar had better photos, and a restaurant can delivery via both Doordash and Caviar.

I think Uber might be able to get out of this by saying "growth / users -> investment -> self driving cars", but I'm not sure what Doordash or Postmates plans to do about it.
The CEO's Second Wife (Fortune, 1989)
You completely missed my point. Drastically.

I never said they (we) are less qualified, I was referring to the action of hiring a less qualified person based on the fact that they are a minority or a woman. When this happens, it angers EVERY more qualified person in the position. I'll break it down.

Candidate A is a white male with all qualifications.
Candidate B is a black woman with far less, but is more "diverse".

When candidate B is hired, the others in the organization soon figure out they are less skilled or qualified. Then the white males in the marketplace have resentment towards them, BUT so does the black woman with great skills and qualifications who saw someone with less qualifications hired beside them, making the same wage as them.

Does that make sense?
Whoa with the common sense and basic math... Common core has neither of them and you might confuse the liberals.
They're certainly not alone. LLVM has a prohibition on exceptions as well, for performance and binary size.

http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or...
> I happen to believe the inverse of all of this.

I will say that I didn't provide an argument for not using std::exception, nor was I trying to convince someone else not to do so; I was simply stating that C++ does not require it and a lot of code doesn't use it: it sounded like the person I was responding to was claiming that in C++ you knew everything was eventually std::exception while that wasn't the case for Java, when the exact opposite is actually true (that in C++ you can and often do run into cases where an exception is just some random data type, and in Java all exceptions fundamentally must implement Throwable as an engine constraint). I only used the fact that I don't use it as an example of someone who doesn't. FWIW, I actually use a lot of my code in environments where I can't use the standard library, so even your paragraph of why you supposedly believe the opposite of some ancillary point I wasn't trying to make you have admitted why I do what I do is valid even to you.

> I sympathize with C-compatible API's to simplify an interface, though it's not my first choice.

It isn't about simplifying an interface: it is because in addition to the C++ ABI being itself fundamentally brittle (due to vtable ordering), you have to remember that some people use libstdc++ while others are now annoyingly using libc++ (I blame Apple, and I have absolutely no sympathy: they have ruined what little interoperability we used to have in this ecosystem they cared absolutely nothing for), and the ABIs between popular compilers is different; so when someone uses a C++ interface for their library I spend the next three days cursing their name and adding them to my "never let this person program anything ever again" list while I waste my time pulling crazy stunts to dynamically look up mangled symbol names and working around egregious incompatibilities in basic things like "when a C++ member function returns a structure, MinGW puts the hidden structure return pointer first while MSVC puts it after the hidden this pointer".

At this point I know the ABI of every major compiler on every major architecture, and I have been considering switching entirely to gcc and contributing a ton of patches that let me #pragma mark entire regions of code (due to header files) with specific calling conventions and layout ABIs, as this attitude that C++ is somehow appropriate for this purpose is creeping into more and more places as C++11 has caused more and more people to start using C++ without understanding its limits :/.
So the Watchdog RETALIATED against some one who brought wrongdoing to light...
Isn't this jokers Job Description pretty much the protection of exactly these whistle blowers ?

The cognitive dissonance here is almost too much to bear
This is great post and the observation is quite applicable in pretty much every subject that you want to learn and master, not just Python. In fact, "learning to learn" is perhaps the most important skill we develop as humans and a small improvement in this area translates to order of magnitude improvement in actual learning. In PhD programs they say that getting PhD is not actually about mastering specific subject but rather developing an ability to comb through vast amount of knowledge, assimilate it and synthesize new knowledge. The first two steps is where much of the effort lies which is "learning to learn". The first mistake that most people make in first step is trying to understand everything cover-to-cover of each paper before moving on to next. An experienced person would first try to get big picture (just look at the abstract and results :)) and move on to next one. So you do breadth-first-search followed by some selective depth-first-search and continue back and forth until you build "surface" that represents the usable approximation of state of the vast amount of knowledge. This is many order of magnitude efficient than try to build most of the "surface" from the get go.
Ironically she did not make any ask. Basically she laid out the facts about her current comp and a competing offer, but stated that she liked this company more, so she would like to see if they could work together on this or if there's room for negotiation.
I wonder how much of a social network it really is. What's the value you get out of other people having their OSS projects on GitHub? Yes, it's all on one site/domain but if Google Search is your entry point, does it matter if the OSS code lives on Bitbucket, GitHub or GitLab?

4 years ago I thought that my GitHub account will get more important, the identity will matter but is that really the case? I don't see the typical network effects and behavior of a social network.

I think all there's is the perception of GitHub being the default choice. That's powerful but far less powerful than truly increased value for me as an user because of the size of the network, you being an user too (eg. Twitter or Uber).
I first started getting into programming using flash and actionscript. I think having a self-contained environment is incredibly important for beginners. When I started trying to learn rails a few years later I got completely hung up on getting a dev environment up and running since I was new to unix-like environments, and I didn't come back to it for several more years. I can't imagine trying to get into front-end development as it is today with all its constantly shifting dependencies while also trying to learn how to code and how to stand up a server.
This isn't really news, more of a mere formality. The federal government department heads are all expected to resign or be fired when there's a regime shift in the Oval Office (party change).
That's the thing: people who don't understand this news may now think that this is an ongoing, regular thing with Yahoo. If they react by switching, Yahoo will only be left with people's spam-collecting accounts.
and for a point of reference, I am a mixed race female engineer. So don't assume I'm some "white male bigot" boogeyman and address the facts of the point I'm presenting here.
You have convinced me to stop using the misleading abbreviations "1st", "2nd", ...
Neuroscience: tool of war?
TIL: McAfee for Linux.
Kind of like how the NSA's job description is "Guard the security of communications technologies and encryption standards. Also, hack everyone."
You need two more price options. One for a little less and one for significantly more. Say $29, $35, and $99. Remove / add something to the other prices. People just want options. Give them some.

Oh, and provide a 10% discount of they buy the $99 version NOW. Offer ends soon. ;)
A thought experiment: what would a world look like where wealth caps exist instead of universal basic income? Say, total individual wealth is capped at say, 1000 times the national median per capita wealth? Anything higher and your income is taxed at a very high rate.
1. Be very careful around people who are charismatic; make sure their actions correlate with the things they say.

2. Your manager can make or break your career. If you have a bad manager, you need to get out or you will always be disappointed when it's time for promotions and raises.

3. Soft skills matter way more than the hard ones. You don't have to be a good public speaker, but you need to know how to navigate difficult situations.
> We need some more Telecom competition here in the US to improve their services

The US tried that and it didn't work. Specifically, The US Justice Dept broke up AT&T into a bunch of "Baby Bells", which spent hundreds of billions of dollars on takeovers to reassemble themselves into AT&T.

In brief: Southwestern Bell Corp (SBC) merged with Pacific Telesis, then SBC bought Ameritech, then it bought AT&T and renamed itself... AT&T. Then the new AT&T bought Cingular. Consumers paid heavily for this, and got no real benefits.

The obvious answer is to make broadband a "social good" like highways, schools, the judicial system and (in rational countries) healthcare, and build it out in the same way as Al Gore's dad built the US interstate highway system after WW2.

Unfortunately, that can't happen in the US, because politics.

Under the US healthcare system, Americans pay 2x to 3x more than the OECD average, suffer much higher rates of infant mortality, have far more sickness in the over 65s, and die younger.

Without the concept of a "social good", you'd expect the US telecoms/broadband industry to produce similar results.

Crappy broadband causes a massive loss in productivity and makes the US less competitive with many small countries, but I don't expect those costs are factored into anybody's calculations.
Ideally one could segment the market to charge one type of customer $35 and another type $200.
Not all unions are about salary and shop rules. Look at the history of Polish Solidarity!
...but isn't the most salient point of the fifth object that there are 4 objects preceding it? (there could be any number of object after it, and it would remain the fifth).
12 Solid Rules That Will Increase Your Trading Profits: Part 2
You misunderstand the EMH. It doesn't say that the average investor is rational. In its weak form it says that it's very, very hard to beat the market.

Imagine you are an average VC. You lose money. You lose money because the market means Sequoia and other top tier firms get first refusal on all the best deals. Also you are overwhelmingly likely to be a fairly useless investor. If you are a great investor you can set up a top tier VC fund based on your own investing history. See Andreesen Horowitz.

Likewise in the stock market, bond market, every market but the process happens faster the more open, transparent and liquid it is. If you can achieve a 30% year on year return people will happily lend you money or invest with you. Most people are just lucky or their advantage disappears at some point. But some people really are just that good and they either reach a size where they can't get above average returns any more because their strategy doesn't work at that scale, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway or they deliberately stay smaller than they could be to keep their money spigot working, Renaissance, Citadel.
> The next commissioner will be worse (for consumers).

The next commissioner will probably by worse for consumers based on the historical sentiment of previous commissioners, is what you probably meant.

While I absolutely agree, we have no idea what the future holds.
Absolutely, he pushed a lot of things forward, as well as cracking down on obvious things like bandwidth capped accounts advertised as "unlimited" etc.
Here's my take. If you're not willing to hire a lawyer to write it up, you're rather unlikely to lawyer up if someone violates whatever winds up in your terms and conditions for the same reason. Hiring an attorney now is much much cheaper.

That said, and I'm not a lawyer, I'd keep it simple. Any transfer of IP only occurs when the contract is paid in full and there are no outstanding claims related to the contract. Even better would be to not transfer ownership of IP.
This doesn't seem to be a submission by the author himself, and the project is only two hours and five commits old, so take my very early comments with a grain of salt -- they refer to the progress as of this commit [1].

I love Requests -- its API design is fantastic, and manages to distill down most of a complex problem domain to a clean, dare-I-say, elegant API.

So I can eagerly anticipate this design applied to datetimes. But the progress being shown so far is definitely not it.

>>> tomorrow = maya.when('tomorrow')

<MayaDT epoch=1481919067.23>

Why is "tomorrow" a precise-to-centisecond, infinitesimally small point on a giant cosmic timeline? I'm reasonably sure it's an abstract concept that describes the calendar day that starts after the current calendar day ends.

At least, Pendulum normalizes tomorrow() and its ilk to represent midnight on the given day [2], while Delorean's natural language methods [3] like next_day() advance the day while leaving the time-of-day unchanged, but the method name makes this fairly clear.

Even Arrow, which is heavily inspired by Moment.js to the point of conflating every single datetime idea into the same class, opts for mutators that are still more clear [4].

> Timezones fit in here somewhere...

Yeah, this needs more work.

Java 8 / Threeten, and its predecessor Joda-Time took the approach of clearly modeling each and every concept that humans actually use to describe time; even if you take issue with their API, the designers have clearly done their homework, and their data model is solid.

Formats like TOML wrestled with datetimes and realized [5] that datetimes aren't just woefully underspecified in most other specs and APIs, but that they're frequently mis-modeled, so they adopted large portions of Threeten's data model. Cases like this should merit strong consideration from anyone trying to propose new datetime APIs today.

[1] https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya/commit/ecd0166ba215c1a5... [2] https://pendulum.eustace.io/docs/#instantiation [3] http://delorean.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart.html#nat... [4] http://crsmithdev.com/arrow/#replace-shift [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364805
And they wouldn't be outright blocked. They'd just be throttled to 128kbps and limited to only one open TCP connection at a time from that customer.
A lot of gamers use wired mice to reduce latency and avoid the hassle of fiddling with batteries. I have trouble imaging this going over with hardcore gamers for the same reason. In fact, I feel like the latency could be a much bigger issue here.
I suspect that virtual immortality will cause less a problem with overpopulation and more a problem of deep resource inequity by those with significantly more time to acquire it.
Science journalist says go easy on Bigfoot, bash on mammograms instead
> These ratings are not great because they incentivize doctors not to take more complex cases.

This reminds me of a scene in the recent Dr. Strange movie where the main character -- a neurosurgeon -- turns down a case because it had a high risk of failure and he didn't want to tarnish his perfect record.

> They claim to be risk-adjusted, but in reality you cannot adjust for all possible risk factors. Lots of things in medicine are very unique. There's very little that's more complex than human disease.

Isn't it better to approach the problem by improving how we do these risk assessments so that the risk-adjusted ratings are fair, as opposed to leaving patients in the dark about where to get the best care?
President Obama signs nationwide ticket-bot ban into law
That's the Fordist school of thought, which is not universally accepted. Labor unions and employee protections have been weakened to the point that the working class has the choice to either work for subsistence wages or die of starvation/exposure.
First, this data is well out of date. Here are the EIA's latest calculations:
http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.p...

For plants entering production in 2018 (same cohort as in your old data above), Solar PV has fallen dramatically and is now right between combined-cycle and combustion natgas turbines.

Second, your argument that because of the EIA calculations "natural gas will always win" is demonstrably false; Solar PV has been the fastest-growing source of new energy in the world in 2015: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-08/solar-is-...

It is in fact rather silly to say that one source of energy will "win"; in general a mix of sources will always provide best grid flexibility.

Finally, I would also like to suggest that you avoid charts from dubious sources such as this marine current turbine startup and instead to search for up-to-date primary source data yourself.
Definitely not the "full video", since it's only three minutes long.
> Pretty much. The review process seems to be about the same across most journals. In fact, there's probably a niche for some journals that have an actual editorial process where an editor actually...edits the prose.

Some journals do this. I've had PhD student friends inform me that when they've published to some (well-regarded) journals, after being accepted, they spent months going back and forth with the editor polishing the article.
I like the idea of timing. Perhaps putting voting buttons at the end of a comment instead of the beginning?