skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had an offer from Uber and was given sufficient time to decide and turn them down.

I had a whole host of reasons for turning them down many of which felt dirty/scammy/untrustworthy and nothing about this story surprises me but I didn't have the specific experience that you've described.
Yeah, I often say "in Massachusetts" when people ask where I go to school, when I'm back home. Everyone seems to think this is a mark of how snooty Harvardians are.

But often when I did just say "Harvard", it became a big deal. Not always, but often.

It can make social situations weird. I socialise with a lot of people who are in the trades. I've had more than a few conversations killed when the person I'm talking with finds out I go to Harvard. Suddenly (again sometimes, not always) the person feels embarrassed because they aren't an intellectual, or unrefined, or something, and the conversation gets awkward fast.

It can also make some people just overestimate or overcare for you. I used to volunteer for a political party. The local organiser was nice and treated me well, like he treated everybody, but once he found out I went to Harvard he decided to give me double the attention, plus the cushy assignments, I guess in hopes of retaining me-- when really I just wanted to do the door knocking and phone calling like everyone else.

I wish that the name of the place I go to school didn't have cultural cachet far beyond its worth and that I could always just say it. But it does, especially where I'm from, where not many people have been anywhere near an Ivy. So sometimes I decide to not risk triggering this weird overblown cultural image, because I just want to be myself and not "that guy who goes to HARVARD". Many of my friends feel similarly. I don't know how this desire counts as noblesse oblige.
That's true, let's just go with the principal value for now :).

(I hadn't studied complex analysis when I wrote that post, learning it now. The various possibilities for the multi-valued solution follow a pattern however.)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man...
There is no algorithm for trader's instincts;
A lot of people on Twitter don't associate their twitter handle with their real name. That anonymity provides them safe haven to say things they might not say in public.

Plus Twitter is just one social media platform. Reddit, 4Chan, Facebook, Hacker News, and so on are also considered social media. And once this becomes mandatory you risk getting in trouble for neglecting to provide some or all. Plus once they're tied to your real life identity they can use that information indefinitely.

As an aside, I find it ironic all the people posting from anonymous accounts "why is this a big deal?" Why do you have anonymous accounts if you feel that way? Hugely hypocritical.
I have no idea what's going on on this website.
If you didn't know you were 'upper class' then you were definitely not, although I grasp what you are saying.

'Upper class' means generational wealth and status, your grandfather was wealthy, a diplomat, and admiral, head of a large multinational, and you can trace your lineage back at least 8 generations, and likely back to before you were even Americans ... your family has had status for that long.

But yes - some people have 'high standards of behaviour', are genteel, polite, articulate, conscientious, well mannered etc. but don't have a lot of money. Many upper-middle class, even middle class types were like this just a generation and a half ago. I suggest fewer people are exactly that now, as the mores of society have shifted quite a lot in many ways.
Excellent! Now they can overfit their models to certain facial structures and claim they're doing "cutting edge security".

The "blah blah" MACHINE LEARNING strikes again....
Respectfully, it seems like you are using the wrong Docker image, and that's the source of your troubles. Others have commented similarly, and I think that you are too easily dismissing them.
Warning: Mute before visiting this cnet.com site.

I was treated to an autoplay video "This is CNET ... bla dee blaaaa!"
I am feeling like perhaps you didn't read the article? Many of these arguments are the exact lines of thinking that the author is trying to contextualize and add complexity to.

These are not bad arguments you are making, or hard ones to get behind. There are just added layers of complexity that the author would like us to think about. Things like how we could actually 'hard-code' a limit or a governor on certain types of motivation. Or what 'motivation' is even driven by at all.

I think you'll enjoy the originally linked article. It's got a lot to consider.
Sure they will search for runaway slaves.
hence the FWIW ;)
The lesson Uber has taught me at scale is that if you break the law make sure you break a law that has perceived benefit to the people. Uber has the hearts and minds of the population because it's perceived as de-fucking the Taxi industry regardless of how it's gotten to where it is.
A truly smart person will have a very impressive, convincing answer to this question.
World’s largest hedge fund to replace managers with artificial intelligence
In order to sort the bad apples you do need some sort of filter. You can do it either by (a) having sets of hierarchical filters with increasingly finer pores, or (b) with a single filter with the finest possible pores that everyone is put through.

Ironically, having a coarse filter that sorts people based on nationality/religion as one of the first level filters actually makes life easier for everyone else. The other option is to profile everyone and pass these profiles through an extremely fine filter - which is what the SM profile information in the article seems to be targeted for.

So, choose your poison. Do you want everyone to be intensively profiled at the cost of privacy, or do you want to be filtered using broad parameters such as religion and nationality?
Mostly: lack of libraries.

The Rust ecosystem is still very immature.

Give it a few years.
I never said I disagreed with their claims, I said I disagreed with the way Metallica handled it. It's the first approximation of the Streisand effect that I can recall.

But I do disagree with the constant extension of copyright duration, which is a legal monopoly originally granted for 14 years optionally renewable for another 14. Now it's life of the author plus 70 years. This is of course mostly done for intrenched interests that can afford to lobby congress for their benefit and the detriment to society as a whole.

As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of copyright is to grant temporary legal monopoly to incentivize and reward creation but to ultimately benefit the public by releasing it to public domain after 28 years. Now it can be 100+ years. All the benefit of monopoly, but no meaningful benefit to the public. If copyright laws were as they were originally intended, all Metallica from their founding to ...Justice would be public domain now. Finally, anything copyrighted after 1978 will probably never be public domain in our lifetimes. How is that beneficial to society? Monopolies are bad, especially life long ones granted by the government.

Furthermore, copyrights for software are very weak. I can clone Excel all day long as long as I don't copy their code. Software patents were designed as a copyright of sorts for software ideas, but look at what a disaster that turned into. So technically, as soon as you or your company releases a product, I can probably clone it to my heart's content, unless you have a patent that will hold up.

Why are you bringing up 15 year old talking points? It just goes to show much much Metallica is married to the idea of copyright rather than their music, again to their net detriment.
"It's entertaining how far we in the states go in denying we have classes."

America does have 'classes' but they are completely different from the type of class system you'll find in the 'old world'.

Many self-made Americans would consider themselves 'upper class', by virtue of wealth, status and behaviour. But classically, you really can't 'move' into class, you pretty much have to be born into it. Or possibly marry into it.
Paradox and the Origins of Civilisation
Arguably it doesn't matter whether you went to Stanford or your state university, the institution where you graduated matters little in the professional world once you have that first gig.
I feel like I am in a weird, interesting situation. I grew up as a complete redneck, rural, appalachian hillbilly, despite all efforts of my jumped-up grandmother to try to instill some European class. I proudly wore my Haines' T-shirts and Carharts pants, with steel-toed, kevlar-lined chainsaw boots for years... I graduated high school in such a Beverly Hillbullies environment, then got accepted, against my expectations, at Dartmouth (they must have been low on the rural white boy quota that year...) I showed up in Hanover, NH, my first day with my pickup, my chainsaw, my rifle & shotgun, and a full set or mechanic's tools.

It was a pretty impressive example of culture shock. I'm better for having escaped the Franklin County, Maine, bubble and experiencing it, but it took some adjusting.
There is, your bog standard package manager (in unix and unix-like systems).
Nymeria (https://www.nymeria.io) from inception to launch was one month. If you do any cold emailing for your own projects you may find it as useful as I have!
> China doesn't do that. The US makes China look free and friendly.

China does a lot more , a lot worse, that is in no way "optional" for citizens or travelers alike
There also this SSH management software named teleport[0].

[0]:https://github.com/gravitational/teleport
"Anyone who possesses an elite education will never suffer in their life"

This is not fair to say. Many, if not most ivy leagues go onto have relatively normal lives.

I have a friend in Vermont who went to Yale. She is a 'marketing manager'. I don't even think she could pay for her education unless her (doctor) father did.

I took a tour of Stanford, the girl went to Dartmouth. I don't think the people giving recruiting tours of Stanford earn all that much.

Surely, it opens a lot of doors, and there are probably industries in which it can give one a cosy path, but it's not the 'guarantee' of anything.
read away ~ https://github.com/peterrenshaw/pageglut
because people make videos and write stories that are fictional.

should Robert Downey JR be denied entry because he destroyed new york while fighting aliens?
The funny thing is, in general people tend to respond positively to you not being available every second of the day. Sometimes it backfires, but most of the time setting limits tends to 1) make you look busier, 2) signaling that your time is valuable to you.

Both tends to make people think you're more important and worth more, not usually make them strike you off their list and move on to the next person.

The exception would be really low level positions where they see people as interchangeable, but even then in most cases people have already mentally chosen you when they call, and not being available makes you more desirable, not less, so for them to move on they need to have cared very little to begin with.

... which is another reason to not be instantly available - I for one don't want to work for people who see little enough value in me to be prepared to drop me if I don't answer the phone 24/7 unless I've been contracted specifically to be available at any time (and you better believe they'll pay through the nose for that).

A lot of younger employees could do with learning to set boundaries, be unavailable and say "no", and experience how that can often get them a lot more respect and better job conditions.
I found a good way to improve myself is to play against myself in my head.
"Peak Bitcoin." Plastered on conspiracy sites everywhere.
Microsoft Office 2017 with Product Key Full Version Download
Thank you very much! I've bookmarked it. I have to travel to the US again in three weeks, if the problem is still there I'll open a request.

Again, thanks!
Never head about AxiBase before.

Cool stuff.

http://axibase.com/
People don't exist to serve society.
Costco requires it as part of your membership agreement.
What were your dope gui ideas?
> My question is: Why does your online activity deserve special protections that activity offline does not?

You have it backwards. This is far more invasion than anything they ask for offline.

Your social media profiles (particularly private ones) may contain private conversations you have with friends, colleagues, and love interests. To use an offline analogy, it is like the US government asking you to tape record private conversations you have with friends at home, and then give them the recordings to gain access to the US.

Would you support the US Government asking people to tape record private conversations? Then why is it ok when it is on a technological platform? Why is voice more protected than text? Do you feel like people going to Disneyland should give up all privacy to do so?
I am half remembering an issue with feminism and hierarchies; groups would naturally form hierarchies anyway, but without any formalism or recognition of them, the effects were made far more insidious
Why don't they check for this particular phone in TSA security? The process is already ridiculous with shoe removal and toiletries in ziploc. Why not check the model number on my phone?
I have to point out that this question functions as a classical reference to the life of Thales (born 624 BC) - touted as the first philosopher. In the apocryphal story, he proved he could be wealthy if he wanted to and- according to one version - grew rich by predicting that the olive harvest would be good and investing accordingly. Having information others do not has always thus ruled the markets :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus
I honestly screenshotted the python comment and framed it on my wall. I love python, my entire startup's backend is coded in python, and getting zuck to give a direct shoutout to any language other than a PHP family framework made me elated.
Bandwidth is much less a problem for OLTP workloads than latency is. (If all you care about is bandwidth, S3 is your friend.)

With ClearSky, even for workloads that don't fit in the edge cache (which we believe are few), you'll still see single-digit millisecond random read (and write) latencies. This is made possible by our points of presence (PoPs) located in each metro area we serve. These PoPs house the lion's share of data in a private cloud, and are connected to each customer site with private lines with sub-millisecond latency.

In other words, the speed of light is very fast when it goes in a straight line with nothing in its way ;) While we do have some secret sauce in the data pipeline, it is because we own the network to the customer that we can provide the performance we do.

(Fancy PDF with a few more details here: http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/445689/2015_assets/ClearSky-Da...)
I thinks its taking place a bit everywhere, and often without noticing.

For example, How many time you call a coworker to help you out on a struggle, and just by explaining to him the process, you are finding out the problem.
Your coworker was a rubber duck for few minutes.

To answer to your questions, I had never personally seen a guy talking to a rubber duck(or any other object), but I have seen, many times, successful debugging just by explaining aloud the process without any input from the listener.
Lying to the federal government is a crime within itself. You could be denied entry and banned for ten years for lying (literally).

Better off refusing to provide them and risk simply being denied than actually mislead and getting a ban.
European class system is a hack around wealth in a society not always being distributed to the "right" people. Modern American class system simply assumes it has been distributed correctly and works around that.
> I'm beginning to think either these quotes are fake or James Hetfield doesn't actually hunt.

You can watch/listen to him speaking the quotes (and talking in depth about his hunting and farming life) on this week's Joe Rogan Experience podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O6QPTawR14

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/james-hetfield
I disagree that `aif` is semantically any narrower than `let-if`, or that `awhen` is narrower than `let-when`. I'd argue that they have very nearly the same semantics, or at least the same semantic structure, modulo alpha conversion. Furthermore, `it` is implicit, but that does not mean it gets to escape mental processing. It's an extra thing that must be learned and remembered, and a mental binding must be established whenever the form is read anyway.

I also feel confident that pg put the anaphoric macros into Arc primarily to reduce typing, given his introductory article about the design of Arc:

> It would not be far from the truth to say that a hacker about to write a program decides what language to use, at least subconsciously, based on the total number of characters he'll have to type. If this isn't precisely how hackers think, a language designer would do well to act as if it were.

However, I'd be silly to deny that less writing does not lead directly to less reading, and I'd be disingenuous not to also include a later passage:

> But the cost of a long name is not just the cost of typing it. There is also the cost of reading it, and the cost of the space it takes up on your screen.

(Somewhat tangentially, I agree that names in Lisp can sometimes get comically long, but I think there's a happy medium between 20+ character names and 3- character names.)

I personally find the more explicit variable names offered by `let-if` (and the more descriptive macro name itself) to aid in reading. I also disagree that `aif` has a "single, simple organizing principle to the form" whereas `let-if` does not. `let-if` is, as its name implies, a composition of `let` and `if` (just as `mapcar` is a composition of `map` and `car`, and `cadr` is a composition, etc.), and it is structured that way. In fact, even if `aif` &co. are individually fine, they add weight (albeit quite light) to the mental burden of the overall language simply by being extra, whereas `let-if`, as a composition of existing constructs, is not extra.

I'm willing to agree to disagree and chalk it up to preference. In fact, I'm starting to feel a little silly elaborating such a small thing :D I'm just hoping I managed to adequately explain my point of view, and that it at least seems like a sensical place to stand, even if you think it's a worse place to be standing.

And thank you for taking the time to elaborate on your thoughts. A friend of mine with whom I periodically debate religious topics is fond of saying "an unexamined faith is not worth having", and I think the same holds true for any belief, opinion, ideology, etc. At the very least, I had a chance to really think about this stuff in more depth :)
Depends how you define "bad".

This isn't about guys with bombs causing real harm.

This is about people with different political views than the current establishment doesn't want spreading their message.
sounds to me like racial profiling. I am really curious how much this is helping in terms of false positives, and false negatives. I believe in data, and i am just curious about the numbers, so i could be convinced about its usefulness.

As coming from somewhat chaotic part of the world to have some peaceful life, the hoops I had to jump through (visas, immigration, airport checks, constant secondary inspections etc), it really bothers me. Mind you, I am a white male with very good educational background in my own country, and in the US. Hard to imagine what it is like for some other people who may not be as lucky as I am.

Either way, as much as I dislike US immigration and so on, I cannot complain. This country provides me the opportunities that I have been working for, and I am grateful.
Document Registration Lawyer in Chennai,Family Lawyer in Chennai
The website is fine I guess. What's more distracting is the lisp-like language. The parentheses are just too much. I guess I'm not one naturally inclined to functional languages.
The ability to not be rich strikes me as the position of someone who is very privileged to start with. Po' folk don't have to opportunity to choose to not be rich, they just have to do the best they can with the hand they are dealt.
That's a great list of positive benefits. Is there a corresponding list of negatives?
It is best to take the pessimistic view whenever it comes to how policies are applied and how technical solutions are used. Sure, it can be used constructively, but there will always be a few assholes using it to oppress their enemies and exploit it for material gain. Much like you can predict the success of a spam filter by thinking about how it will be exploited by the worst 1%, it is instructive to think about what this tool will do in the hands of ignorant, uncaring and corrupt assholes, because that's probably how it'll turn out.

And that's why we can't have nice things, which is the common thread between telemetry in win10, trigger warnings in colleges and censorship on social media.
That does not make much difference to CIA or NSA to my knowledge. There are many ways to correlate pseudonymous with your real identity: IP address, usage pattern, speech pattern, or even patterns in the photos that you posted.

That's way I never used pseudonyms, they are practically useless in hiding your real identity. Additionally they give you a false sense of anonymity.
I think you will find that, in general, it does not. Often it actually detracts from your ability to pursue other goals. People think, "I need money" to do X. They put off X until they "have money". All along the way they intend to do X, but the prerequisite of getting money consumes their time and energy. The funny thing about money is that it's a bit like computer memory. No matter how much you have, you can always find use for more. I'm not going to tell you that nobody needs more than $640, but there is a point at which you have "enough money" and "enough" is usually a lot less than people imagine. Probably you have "enough money" to start now. In that way money is not a short cut -- it's a long cut.

I think for a lot of people, they don't want to compromise. So if you are thinking "I need X so I can live in the wilderness and write books without having to worry about a job", then they put off writing books until they are rich. And by the time it happens (if it ever does -- which is rare), they find that they don't like writing books, and their spouse, who was attracted to them because they are rich, refuses to live in the wilderness.

Compromise is the true short cut. It allows you to start now, with less resources than you would like. It then allows you to build your life so that the thing you wanted is part of it. Even if you need a lot of money to achieve your ultimate goal, remember that it needn't be your money that you spend.

P.S. Even if your dream is to sit on the beach every day and get drunk, I assure you that this is very common amongst the poor ;-)
There is a difference between healthiness and life expectancy.
i can't wait for the day when a border agent asks why I forked the mirai botnet repo.