skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Easy. I am from Portugal. My salary there was 10k year for a developer starting. We do not have any restrictions to move and work to the UK, so I did it. When I got here recruitment an agency offered 21k and some other company offered 30-35k, but if I accepted 25k it was done deal. And the average online was arround 25k, so I accepted 25k for me it was great anyway. Another British developer got in at the same time, for the same position, and some time after I asked his salary, it was 43k. TLDR So my conclusion is cheap EU labor.
The term legal tender is practically a meaningless term. It just means that the government forces you to accept it. You also forget that electronic money is basically counterfeit money which gets devalued when central banks print more money. After all if central banks "print" more electronic money are there any serial numbers on the "notes"?

Which is why I added the point after the notes being destroyed once they entered the Bitcoin type system. Of course an institution taking in the notes would have the ability to check if they are counterfeit or not, not to mention that some central banks are unable to detect counterfeits of their own currency. Lets be honest, how capable are the banks of detecting that old 1000 rupee notes being deposited with them are not counterfeit?

If anything the new currency created from old 1000 rupee notes would hold its value better in the long term compared to the rupee term as there is only a limited amount of them in circulation.
I've actually been involved in a collision with a vehicle while cycling where this happened. The vehicle turned right (without a turn signal), cutting me off, and I slammed into the side of it because I couldn't brake fast enough.

I biked away with nothing but a large, painful bruise (and the car was dented), but this is definitely one of the more likely causes of collisions between bikes and vehicles.
Drivers in general have an issue with cyclists. While I agree that we should strive for autonomous cars to be better than humans, being merely as good as humans is a really good start.

And if the cars are breaking the law, of course they should get a ticket like everyone else. But making a law that says self driving cars aren't allowed to break the law doesn't really make much sense. They're already not allowed to break the law. That's why it's called the law.
That's what is noteworthy. Google had really good PR for a long time about how great it was to work there. Well, it turns out they have feet of clay after all, and many of the attributes that used to make them a better place to work than other tech giants were really just consequences of not having grown quite as much yet.
For reference, 133,350,000 metric tons is 1.81x the mass capacity of the US strategic oil storage, another grand energy storage scheme.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(133,350,000+metric+ton...
It doesn't show on my computer either
Or Chicken.
IIRC the wording wasn't "let us display ads", it was cloaked in some deceptive language.
Ah, yes, I forgot about this! Thanks for the correction!
To be perfectly honest, as a HUMAN driver not from this city (I should say, STATE. Where I live the driving laws are different), the self driving cars are doing EXACTLY what I would do.

I would not enter a reserved lane, but would by necessity cross over the intersection portion of that lane in order to take a right hand turn.

It sounds like San Francisco needs to modernize roadways they've improperly added 'bike lanes' to to include dedicated right turn lanes on the OUTSIDE of the 'bike lane'.

A better solution would be to isolate different types of traffic to dedicated pathways that are not directly adjacent.
Content Security Policy Level 2 Is a W3C Recommendation
This is worse than Perl.
I know several people who speak English as a second language who are more articulate than Bush in English. I don't care, I refuse to believe that he is some secret genius. I am confident if he were born to a poor family, that he would have risen to the average or lower expectations of those around him.
>for how long ? I dont blame him for reading about C++ in 1989 and saying "hrmmmf! hogwash!". But in 1995 ? in 2000 ? It sounds like he got set in his ways, and how is that NOT an "age problem" ? I'm also 32, and I'm getting slightly more set in my ways as I get older.

Christmas of 2002.

>well, had he had an open mind and not shunned new things, he might be a Herb Sutter today. Or even in IBM, had he bet on a different "horse", and moved into As/400 or whatever other IBM technologies there are, he could be earning more than a C++ programmer, knowing some obscure proprietary IBM language and having 20+ years experience backing it up. I've heard of guys like that making $100+/hr because only a few people in the world can do it.

That's actually the big trap. He WAS making good money because of legacy systems and because not many people were familiar with the technology... right up until there were no jobs left. It makes changing fields earlier difficult even though it would have probably been the best long term strategy.

>I think his story is one of mismanagement of intellectual capital. Maybe it's naive of me, but I dont see how you could be in software engineering for 30 years and not be worth at least a million, especially from his era. Did he invest in IBM or any tech companies at all ? How could you not see everyone making money in the dot-com era and not be a part of it ?

I assume he's worth well over a million. It isn't enough to be worth a million when you are 50. When you and your wife will be living for (hopefully) another 30-40 years and social security doesn't kick in until 62-65, you gotta keep working unless you explicitly planned for an early retirement.

As for how to avoid the .com era - well, you miss it by seeing it as a bubble (and feel vindicated when it "pops" in 2001). You also miss it because you are committed to living in a certain geographic area without a significant presence of e-commerce companies.
I don't have any problem with self-driving cars as a concept, I want them on the road and believe they offer a ton of benefits to humanity.

What I do have a problem with is companies like Uber, Comma.ai, and to a certain extent Tesla who seem to not understand/appreciate how much work has to go into proving these things are safe before shipping them.
3265 words until you reach the part when the site is no longer mobile friendly, this is where i stopped.

Learned some new stuff hopes it got better.
I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "DLL hell" then.
Technology in Hostile States: Ten Principles for User Protection
> Back in 2011-ish I saw a poster for an animated sci-fi movie, I think aimed at kids, but sadly can't remember the name of it. A picture of a vaguely humanoid-looking alien, over-sized head, holding a stylised laser blaster, with the tag line 'This is the smartest creature in the universe'.

Megamind, perhaps? That was an animated comedy/superhero movie featuring a super-intelligent alien super villain, and is from the right timeframe (released late 2010).

Megamind is an excellent movie, but was overshadowed by Despicable Me, which came out a few months earlier, because they both had as their major theme the villain turning into the good guy.

> Obviously the film, and the poster, were not made by the smartest creatures in the universe, but the poverty of expectations inherent in the juxtaposition of the words and image were depressing.

If it was indeed Megamind, of course he has a blaster: he's a stereotypical alien super villain. The movie is a spoof/twist on the superhero/villain relationship, so starting with a stereotypical villain is quite reasonable.
From what you are saying I guess you have never been in an OO project but you just worked in the "cold hell" of procedOOral code, the worst mix of copy and paste, overblown inheritance and singletons.
I experienced a lot of it in my career, nowadays I am more oriented towards the functional world, but saying that OO is completely useless and even dangerous is an outright lie.
The most awful codebases on which I worked on would have been quite nice applying the OO best practices.
Sadly they where far too big to be changed by the concerted effort of a couple of people.
And they were full of anti-patterns.
Even loving the type safety of F# and Haskell I can't honestly say that OO is an anti-pattern per se.
What it matters is not the size of the hammer but how you use it.
But I can rightfully proclaim that the wrong tools used for something that they were never meant for are the worst possible solution. EVER.
What's the best source/method to get the frequency distribution to build an Arithmetic coding model [0] for English (multilingual ideally) with emoticons?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#Defining_a_m...
I disagree, and I think a jury would as well.

Drivers have personal liability. Self-driving cars have corporate liability. I'd expect a big judgment if someone is killed because of a known issue.
What the writer of this article is forgetting is that the self driving cars has all kinds of 360 degree sensors to let it know whether it is safe to take that turn or not. It's not going to turn right if it has been tracking a cyclist on a collision course due to that turn.
GPU drawing can still be faster than on the CPU, and you can do that with Wayland, by directly opening the DRM device (/dev/dri/render*) and sending the rendering commands directly to the GPU. This is how Mesa implements OpenGL on both X and Wayland. The X way requires you to send XRender commands to the X server first, and then it sends them to the GPU. This was already too slow (hence the already existing bypass for OpenGL) and Wayland just extends that idea to all rendering.
I asked which part is religious. Bambax quoted some non-religious things. Why would it be on me to prove everything he/she says is not something it obviously isn't?

Also, which attack is personal? I'm attacking an interpretation. Nothing personal about it.
I am just going to leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

Linux might not be the most trustworthy but it would be hard to sneak in something like that.
I'm not sure I can stand listening to another one of Harris' podcasts, but I'd be intrigued if you could explain what an economist+mathematician with some 'alternative' ToEs could teach us about ADHD. (I'm not dismissing it outright, but this definitely smells of woo, so please convince me to listen to that.)
A common idiom is "not know whether to laugh or cry", which usually means a situation is extremely bad. I don't really know how that applies to having a birthday party a week after you announce you're quitting, though.
Data crunching on GPUs is a LISP strength. It runs code orders of magnitude faster than say python or c++. https://youtu.be/bEOOYbscyTs?t=2151
Well, the nearest competitor requires full copyright transfer, so there's that.

And CS publishing usually happens only within STEM, not as a standalone, within this circle of Universities.

No, not in America. There is far less interest locally in CS, and so a sort of mild tyranny rules in academia.
Any psychometric test designed to measure achievement--or explicitly critical thinking--that can be administered pre and post college to an experimental sample. You might have to do factor analysis on the college/setting and/or program studied.
Huawei is an OEM like cisco.

The ODMs that actually make most of the networking gear are Quanta, Accton, Celstica, Alpha Networks, and Delta Networks.

If you want to buy "white box" switches from those ODMs, you can do so through outfits like Edge-core, QCT, and others.
Its mentioned on the wiki page , and several trade magazines about servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnois,_Quebec It's on the dam's land and about 300 meters from the actual dam itself.
Not any more than "upgrade to Windows 7 Pro to access these features" that they've had for years.
Look https://youtu.be/bEOOYbscyTs?t=2151
TIL: The default value for the type attribute of button elements is “submit”
This isnt accurate. High-assurance established the requirements by mid-1980's in TCSEC. Wheeler, inventor of reproducible builds, also has the best page for SCM security which describes such methods. Here's what it takes:

1. Build system that only developers can access, review of their submissions, a trusted compiler that turns them into binary, and then signs both binary and source.

2. That source or binary is distributed with its signature over any medium. Add TLS for defense in depth if you want.

3. User checks their against signature to determine if trustworthy. Source they compile themselves if worried about substitution.

Now, maybe that repo is compromised. Decentralized checking approach says let them pull source signatures from many other repos that are all building from same source on diverse platforms and such. Go with what (strongest) majority says while reporting inconsistencies. Compile source yourself for sure.

Now, the user might not trust the compiler. If repo is trustworthy, then compiler source should be too with bootstrapping done by experts in diverse ways. However, if one really wants compiler verification, they have to both understand the source and turn it to machine code themselved for at least first run. Ive shown here before how to do that increnentally.

Looking at above, it boils down to a secure, signed distribution of source code for compiler and app. That's all you need. Reproducible builds can have benefits but arent good enough to stop subversion that will mostly be 0-days in source or attacks on endpoint. They're not necessary to stop MITM attacks given signed distribution of source handles that. They're not necessary to bootstrap major compilers as distros come with scripting or executable tools by default that can be trusted to do initial source. If you cant trust them, your distro should already be considered subverted.

There you go. That's about all of it if we're not talking about eliminating code injection from or formal verification of these components. So, strongest repo security they could build should be FOSS's plan. Repo appliances on microkernels or stripped OpenBSD with append-only storage. Signatures (incl key storage) in HSM's or carefully-done embedded boards. Transport node for Internet connection on its own machine with mediation against device-level attacks on host.

Old shit. Would work if they just put work into it. Oh yeah: paper backups hidden in various places. As fail-safe. :)
Why don't more physicists subscribe to pilot wave theory?
I'm okay with this assessment. College doesn't guarantee these skills, but it certainly provides a great deal of opportunity for the student to gain a significant advantage over non-college grads.
I've spent 10+ years of my career working in OO languages, I'm no stranger to it and I've seen it used well. But we'll tends to be a subset of OO, with minimal inheritance and encapsulation with data and logic in seperate places.
Airbnb Seeks to Increase Fundraising Round to $1B
Could whoever downvoted this explain why this is wrong? This seems like a great point.

From the main article "The report also notes that 37 percent of U.S. families have no retirement wealth at all." So I could claim "100 McDonald's employees have as much retirement savings as 104M Americans". That doesn't really say much.
For crying out loud, what is wrong with people today.
Interesting - I tend to see people in power believed far less than people without in the communities I'm in.

I bet you're talking about people on screens and in media, when you say "people in power." (Perhaps administrators in school, or people in charge of organizations?) I'm talking about the more powerful people in your community that you actually talk to and interact with regularly. Basically the people who are actually relevant in the context of your ape dominance hierarchy ladder. Talking crap about distant figureheads of power doesn't count.

EDIT: For example, when was the last time a poor white cis-hetero man tried to join in your group as a feminist, and how did it go for him?
I don't agree with the notion that Surface and the chincy touch enabled notebooks are mobile. A laptop with a touch screen is still a laptop.

In 2000 no one was talking about Dell or HP/Compaq as leading mobile. They were selling what they still are selling, laptop computers. When Mobile came along people recognized it for what it was, something different than general purpose computing of the past.

To say Metro, Windows Phone, Lumia, the write off and destruction of Nokia or touch enabled laptops were anything but failures of MSFT to figure out mobile is misguided.
Try going sideways to the "ops" side of devops. Lots of work for older sysadmins (I'm 50 in a coupla months), and you can often gently hint to your hotshot young devs the pitfalls of doing it not so well.

Also, as you get older: LEARN TO WEAR A SUIT. Not all the time - suits are going-out clothes, not things you waste on an office - but every now and then show that you can present well and be convincing. Your stock with the non-techies in the office will go through the roof.
Extremely cheap? Initially it was $6mm, now it costs almost as much as a Falcon 9 launch.

Part of that is due to its extremely low launch rate -- this was the first launch since 2013 -- but still.
One big reason it'll never happen: The square-cube law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
I credit Nadella for this, but none of this is due to some sort of newfound egalitarianism or philanthropy. It's just business.

So, how does that make the outcome any worse? RedHat isn't contributing to the Linux kernel out of a sense of charity. IBM isn't contributing to OpenStack as a philanthropic endeavor. Facebook isn't improving PHP because it's a fun hobby project. They're all doing the things that they're doing because it's good for business. Why is it any worse when Microsoft does it?
Font rendering is ugly on linux with both Oracle JDK and unpatched OpenJDK, or at least that was the case last time I tried to solve this issue manually.
Why are you calling him a "current-genius computer scientist" for studying the foundational subjects of an undergrad CS degree?
Are you detecting an inability to shift gears quickly, or is it a reluctance to shift gears quickly based on hard-won experience where management-driven frequently-changing requirements led to project failures that were then blamed on the development team?

That is rather an impossible question to answer as the two causes ultimately have the same end outcome. I certainly never introduce change for changes sake - 95% of management change I have been responsible for have been due to outside factors out of my control. When the market tells you that you need to change you must change.

I can say on average I get more direct pushback on change from younger employees than older purely because many younger employees have not learned that arguing with your boss about something when you don’t have a full understanding of the situation is not that wise. I have found that my older employees have understood the need for change, they just find it hard.

I am certainly not immune to this effect myself - the thought of learning React or Angular (or the next JS framework de jour) does not fill me with joy.
So, my impression from popular articles is that physicists don't actually know what dark matter is, and have a fair number of candidate ideas. According to the theory that makes good predictions, what is dark matter made of?
You need to be on the right end of more successes than failures otherwise you learnings aren't worth much.
Just goes to show how damaging FUD actually is. Someone made up this fear and people still believe it even when the proof is literally everywhere. They just don't want to look, repeating a lie is easier.
How would you define risk free investments? Buying Walmart stock and holding it for a decade? Buying a house and renting it out? Lobbying for preferential treatment for a business/sector you have a large stake in?

The latter is obvious a problem, but if you can define that process legally then you could just outlaw it outright instead of trying to penalize it with taxes. Any investment I can imagine that is close to risk free is either already illegal or technically illegal but hard enough to define that people can skirt around the edges of the law.
And in 2004, the Democratic Party ran a billionaire for President. Whoopie-doo.
Crystal's implementation wouldn't work for something like C#, though, because C# supports dynamic assembly loading at runtime and must provide reflective facilities for operating on types loaded from them. (I once wrote an extensibility system[1] and on-the-fly compiler for a game engine that took advantage of this, it was neat.)

Macros don't help you here and limiting yourself to "I can compile the whole blob at once" cuts off a lot of avenues of extensibility.

[1] - https://github.com/eropple/exor
The site is called "web fundamentals" and looks to be educational. Unfortunately, it is severely flawed due to a bias. The site is immediately and inherently skewed towards interaction and programming. This mistake (though incredibly common) is really really bad.

At the core to have the web all you need is two things: an application protocol and a document structure format. The public web standardizes on HTTP and HTML for those two qualities. This site does not address these two most primary qualities explicitly. The implicit assumption is that these qualities are not themselves important and instead necessary trivialities who technical qualities can be indirectly surmised through study of more interesting derivative works. This is a big mistake that makes learning these technologies far hard than it really needs to be. Don't assume the technologies are simple or that people will just get it right, because they won't.

If I were teaching a class on web fundamentals I would start with XML Schema. Don't laugh, I am being serious, just hear me out. Learning XML Schema is important because it forces the student to learn the importance of structure and design in the crafting of human consumable information, which is really what the web is all about. It also teaches the student about node types and node relationships that is directly reflected in the standard DOM methods. Equally important it also teaches the student about application scope.

XML Schema (and thus XML and HTML) features lexical scope for its scope model in exactly the same way that JavaScript does. I cannot express enough just how important this single quality is to understanding JavaScript. For people coming from languages like C#/C++/Java this really seems to be the most challenging experience to wrap their heads around, but it is absolutely essential to understanding that language.

After XML Schema I would teach the DOM. I would teach this even before teaching anything about JavaScript. Understanding the DOM from a high level is a conversation of relationships and abstract modeling more than programming. Many web developers never get this and they forever suck as a result. This subject is so much easier to understand when separated from writing methods in a programming language and then so much easier to apply once the student gets to the programming part.

None of these principle standard technologies are hard to learn. They just need to be taught in the right order and expressed through practice. Security standards are hard, but web standards are easy. Yet, most developers I have ever known always fail on the easy stuff. If you, as a potential educator, aren't taking these technologies seriously then neither will your prospective students.
This is a good observation. If you zoom in the power law, it still remains power law :). Average american probably has more wealth than bottom million Americans combined.