skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Replying to my own comment, as I found some more information in a Black Hat talk regarding technical assistance orders:

https://youtu.be/PX2RjJAfTYg?t=770
I can relate to this. I'm a web developer and Rust (mostly the ecosystem) is not ready for web dev (the future look bright though, tools like Diesel[1] or Rocket[2] looks incredibly promising).

I recently found a place where Rust really shine : CLI tools. Rust multi-platform story is great, and the clap[3] crate makes it really straightforward to create helpful CLI tools. The blog post «Using Rust for scripting»[4] is really insightful in this regard.
Now I use Rust any time I would have use Ruby to automate stuff with a little script. It's obviously more verbose, but the type system and error-handling story helps a lot.

[1]: http://diesel.rs
[2]: https://rocket.rs
[3]: https://clap.rs
[4]: http://www.chriskrycho.com/2016/using-rust-for-scripting.htm...
Comes on 33 disks, 28 of which are printer drivers.
They've already done it for dogs:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/FarsideDogTranslat...
Presumably you mean: "don't send requests [for new features] out of the blue"?

I would add: if you do, don't expect the maintainer to merge it. Once it's merged, it becomes their technical debt.

Nonetheless, as a maintainer I always appreciate a pull-request, and as a developer I might fork/apply non-merged patches for projects where I needed that feature as well. In some cases, since they saved me a lot of time, I might fix their abandoned/closed patch and re-submit it upstream.
I think the point here are folks taking MOOCs for enrichment, not as a gateway to get a job. So for instance someone taking the ML course just for knowledge, not to try to get in the door as a data scientist
Here's my take on the authentication vs authorization distinction. Authentication is the verification of identity. Authorization is the verification of permission (authority) to perform an action. The two are often related, but need not be.

For example, most phone manufacturers think that the owner of a phone should always have permission to perform any action on the phone, so as long as they can authenticate the person holding the phone, they can authorize them to do anything. In this case, authentication => authorization.

Contrast this with OAuth, which it seems most people don't understand well. OAuth is a mechanism for authorizing people other than yourself to perform actions on your behalf, e.g. a third party application to post on your Facebook wall. In this case, authorization !=> authentication.

However, sometimes third-party applications don't care about performing actions on your behalf. They work on the assumption that only the owner of the account could authorize an OAuth token to give back to them, so they use other OAuth providers as authentication, e.g. login via Facebook. So in this case, authorization => authentication.

Another example is accessing secret files at a company. A person might be authorized to view the files but only from a secure device. In this case, authentication is required but not sufficient for authorization. In this case, authentication !=> authorization.

In the case of payment via phone, you need authorization. Authentication can be one factor in the authorization process, but clearly its not sufficient because the authorizing party could be asleep and therefore unaware of the transaction. Phone manufacturers might want to look at risk-based escalation -- requiring more factors for some applications, or as the sum of money increases, or perhaps even based on time of day.
I get to program the robot. Therefore my job cannot be taken.
Hmm no. Rust always issues a compare instruction after a function call to verify if it was successful or not. In a function that can fail depending on runtime conditions, the compiler is unable to elide such a check.

Also I don't think my error handling method is nonsense as it seems to work for all the code I write. If I don't handle an error at local function scope, my intent is to handle it higher up the stack.
Wow, managing over 160 projects? I can imagine that he has to close quickly.

At GitLab we have a written down definition of done so people know what should be in their merge request, see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBU...

And our merge request coaches try to get people over the finish line instead of closing. But that are full time people on a single project. Maintaining 160 projects is a whole different ballgame.
Dental caries aren't caused by a single species of bacteria, but by multiple species working together. They form an extracellular matrix called a 'biofilm' that makes them resistant to immune system attack [1].

The link you cite is not a vaccine, but a supposed 'replacement' bacteria that outcompetes the native bacteria [2]. This can definitely work, but I'm doubtful it will be universally effective, for the same reasons that probiotics don't always work: every person has different existing populations of bacteria, and not every invading species will be successful at colonizing or dominating that environment.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630188

[2] http://www.oragenics.com/technology-pipeline/lbp/smart
Cool video. I guess while self driving cars may have inferior analysis to humans for a while they may outperform through better sensors like the radar here.
Submitted as a "Show HN": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13273248

My image set: https://twitter.com/vmorgulys/status/814239787116793860
The reason it still looks good now is because they created a timeless art style with clear, readable sprites which didn't need many colors. Compare that with 16-bit era attempts at photorealism which look muddy today.

The same is true of Metroid Prime on the gamecube, which looks better than some modern games despite hardware which was underpowered even at the time, due to masterful art direction.
This article completely missed the Russian attempts to use PSI mediums, ordinary clairvoyants to transmit messages to their submarines. It didn't work out :)
Exactly. This is the real reason why economists get it so wrong: their incentives.

Brad DeLong in particular is a real piece of work: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/clinton-loyalist-autc...
It would be nice, but I think we'd be hard-pressed to ever agree on what intellectual curiosity even is. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. I could evaluate whether a person has it (to my standard) but would someone else accept my call, 5 years later, for their company?
I'll be honest, traversing a linked-list and implemented a B-tree (assuming someone reminds you what a B-tree is) are not particularly difficult problems. If you have trouble with those, I'm going to really wonder if your programming skills are really very good to begin with.
The ultra low power mode might not be able to do SMS or phone calls over cellular as it needs large bursts of power to TX, depending on connection quality and type (2g vs LTE, range to tower, etc).

A capacitor that can store enough charge to send/receive a SMS would allow this to work as the capacitor can be charged slowly, but it would take up valuable room inside the phone (a few mm^3). Some embedded cell/sat radios where size isn't very important already do this to reduce demands on the hosts electrical system (eg: solar powered parking meters that take credit cards).
The True Meaning of Focus
I really think its the insurance industry that will push AIs into the mainstream. The author makes a good point that humans would rather trust another human with a 1% error rate than a robot with a .01% error rate, because the robot error is somehow scarier. But actuarial science doesn't care about which is scarier, it cares about the 1% v the .01%.

Malpractice insurance will force doctors to consult AIs. Auto insurance will force us to install automated driving systems. Home insurance will force us to install sensor systems and Echo-like assistants. Insurance costs will rise for those that refuse AIs, and make ignoring them financially irresponsible.

Insurance requirements put all sorts of pressures on industries. Anecdata here, but I know a very successful gynecologist who was forced to sell HIS practice, because the malpractice insurance ate all his profits. The possibility of a sexual misconduct case basically made it impossible for him to be a male gynecologist and carry the requisite insurance, even though he never had a suit filed against him.
So quick to feel offended. I had nothing negative to say about her or her story, just that the story was hard for me to read. It's always nice when somebody writes in a language that isn't their native language, but that doesn't make it any less difficult for myself or others to read. Over the last few years I've come to realize that a native-born European speaking English isn't quite the accomplishment it once was. With the prevalence of English in the media and on the Internet, the teaching of English from grade school onward, and the opportunities to speak with English speakers on a regular basis makes it quite easy to pick up the language. While in Spain I was able to really improve my Spanish speaking skills, but upon returning to the United States those skills mostly deteriorated, unfortunately. Korean (I lived there for a year) is a much more difficult language to pick up. I'm very impressed if I meet someone who can speak Korean, Japanese, Mandarin, Arabic, or Persian Farsi and ALSO English, French, or Spanish.

I don't really think that the article, grammar mistakes or not, add to my horizon in any significant way. I've helped people in similar positions over the last few years, and understand well what goes in to it.

I hate to go on the defensive here, but snarky comments like this need to be rebuked. It seems to me that this is the type of comment that goes unchallenged because it feels good, but underneath the surface the assumptions are rather weak.

Thanks
Uhm.. Your reasoning doesnt make sense. You dont have to use vuex, and if you do, its not really that hard. And for sure React+Redux wont make your life more simple if thats what you are after
Omnius didn't say that this anyone will be good. The same applies to
welders, woodworkers, and all the rest of craftsmen.

Note that there are plenty of programming jobs and tasks that are boring,
repetitive, easy to do, and of little impact to the underlying system, that
really need to be done by human. Things along the lines of modifying a report,
extracting some data on a request from other departments, or adding a button
to an Android application.

Somebody still needs to do them, because they're often virtually impossible to
automate away, but you don't want to waste a really good programmer on
something like that, and a really good programmer usually will not want to do
them either.
> I don't think curiosity diminishes with age, even if the ability to explore that curiosity may

I think it definitely does, depending on the person. Many, many attributes of the person change over time. That's what growth and evolution is about!

Some people take a career path where they become expert at a narrow topic. As they master their field, I think they lose a lot of curiosity because there's simply less to be curious about unless they're on the forefront of research and not just a practitioner.

Other people simply develop other life priorities.

It's 100% an individual thing.
Many people (especially students from universities) keep asking me and my coworkers at YerevaNN about good educational resources. They have different levels of math background, some want to study theory and watch visualizations, others want to play with the code before reading formulas..

At some point we understood it's better to spend some time and build a guide that will cover most of these questions (and, as always, we spent a lot more time on this than we expected)
Ask HN: Where to look for torrents?
Hi,
Time goes by and it seems more and more difficult to find torrents. What's your trick?

Currently limited to TPB...
Outside of research and for fields outside of compsci, how else can applicants demonstrate "intellectual curiosity", and can you just expand a bit on what that means?

Thank you, and thanks Aline!
This could be valid with any number of probability distributions.

Comparing two populations (in the statistical sense) is tricky, especially if you have a huge difference between them. Then you can make some really weird claims, especially by omission.

What does "women write better code" mean? It could mean any number of things. Some I thought of:

* On average, a woman will write better code than a man. This is saying the mean of the "woman code quality" distribution is higher than that of the "man code quality" distribution. But again this metric is problematic without standard deviation. Because if there are simply more men than women who code, you still have a better chance at hiring a man who codes better than average if you can exclude the lower part through some bound (e.g. basic aptitude tests or interview), especially for long-tail distributions.

* Woman as a whole group write better code. I don't even know what this might mean, but maybe they aren't so obsessed about writing shitty javascript frameworks. Could be interesting for a psychologist. I just made a few things up for the sake of an example explanation: E.g. that the "women" population prefers to code on an existing project vs alone (i.e. new project), that that population prefers projects with a more social structure and therefore pull requests so through smoother because everybody know everyone, etc.

So you really can't say anything for sure without the data, but you can make up click-bait-y articles. Note how there are conveniently no graphs in the article, just a picture of a redheaded women looking at a laptop.
Everyone says this until their job is taken, in this case by automated code generation directed by a product manager.
Science is prediction, not explanation - Fred Hoyle.

By that measure, economics hasn't qualified as a science yet. The prediction quality is terrible. That's embarrassing. There's plenty of data. There's plenty of compute power. By now, economics should have more predictive power that it demonstrates.
The Real Cost of Universal Basic Income
> I'd say it was as much practical as it is ideological.

The disagreement isn't practical (over what broad effect given policy will have), it's ideological (over what broad outcome is desirable).

That the ideology is often sslf-serving (if arguably only in fairly myopic perspective) for lawmakers who are also part of the economic elite doesn't make it any less ideological, it just explains the attraction of the ideology to those actors.
I believe it's first time I opened mobile wikipedia on desktop. Much more readable than desktop version. Thank you.
It seems tho insurance would shift from inidivudual/user to producer tho. Why would individuals need car insurance with a fully automated vehicle for example.
>Perhaps you should spend some time teaching people about what they are really working with.

Oh FFS.

Look, if you give the overwhelming majority of people this:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/5pcs-lot-ESP8266-Wifi-Chip-w...

They aren't going to make anything.

If you give them this: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1PCS-ESP-12F-ESP-12E-upgrade...

They are going to have a bad day because it doesn't have a programmer built onto it.

If you give somebody this:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/WEMOS-D1-mini-Pro-16M-bytes-...

They are going to install the arduino IDE, hook it to a USB cable, and make something.

Are you technically pedantically and absolutely pointlessly correct that the ESP8266 chip is the important part of this to SOME people? Yes. But the people who are taking a bare chip in a freaking QFN package and building something around it, who have the equipment to mount it to a board, are not reading "$20 DIY cat feeder" articles, nor would they be in any way confused by somebody telling somebody to buy a prototyping board in an arduino-form-factor.

Your "point" here is one that is completely irrelevant to anybody who would be reading it.
The author kinda glosses over the fact that he himself didn't immediately recognize the wrong medication.
I recognize that we disagree and I respect your opinion, I would just like to add a bit more:

> "have been disproven by history."

I guess that's my point. I don't think we've had enough history to be conclusive yet. I keep hearing this, over and over, and it's the equivalent of "heavier than air objects can't fly -- it's been proven in attempt after attempt."

In my opinion, the reason why there are thousands of programming languages, for example, and is not because we can't agree on them; it's because it hasn't been solved yet. No language is good enough, so we keep trying. In the late 1990's there were seemingly hundreds of search engines. Google/Page Rank came along and all the other search engines went away almost overnight.

> "revolutionary" ideas tend to just add to the pile

They do until they don't. All those crazy attempts at flight were truly crazy, until they lead to flight.

We're at the beginning of history, not the end of it.
You're being too enthusiastic/wrong: there is a cost to Result and Option even in the good case. There still has to be a branch to check if there actually was no error. Result and Option are similar to error codes in C and have a similar cost/benefit trade-off, although of course with all the ADT/type-safety goodness.
It's basically a glorified trade job and everyone already has the tools in front of them.

That attitude certainly explains a fair few 'legacy' systems I've seen.
> while human populations are fairly good at adjusting, individual humans often are not

(...)

> None of the solutions for this are easy, and history is full of examples of it.

This is demonstrably true in the past, but it doesn't have to be that way in the future. But if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

Solutions are all about the next generation. If a human did adapt to a change, it was because of training, mindset, and education they received before the change. Humanity has to get ahead of these things, and be prepared for changes, rather than trying to figure out what to do when they happen, when options are already drastically limited.

Probably the cheapest, best, most flexible way to do this is to educate them better in the first place. It's probably also the most efficient, since even if the world doesn't change, the education demonstrably improves their outcomes and has positive return.
Um, did you actually look at the article? There was no data shown between interview performance and MS degree status. The graph you saw was interview performance vs. years of experience. This isn't surprising since a person with 20 years experience will generally interview for a much more challenging job than someone with 0 years.
This site appears to be a mens rights site, pretending it's "egalitarian" when it's anything but. Just skimming both this article and the About page, it's pretty strongly insulting feminism and dismissing their complaints, while at the same time complaining about misandry and '"genuine" discrimination'.
> Its a shitty post that does not even really take into account the current state of AI, how robots are prone to errors as well as humans due to faulty hardware, and well, the fact that some jobs are only trusted to humans. Even if the margin of error may be higher.

Agreed. The author seems to be doing fairly irresponsible things with statistics, too: maybe "the statistical likelihood of dying from a self-driving car is like falling off a building and being struck by lightning on the way down" because there are so very few self-driving cars on the road, and they're all currently monitored by human operators? I think they'll eventually be safer than humans, but implying that we're already there is just wrong.
I'm so happy to hear that. I'll reach out to you and let you know what's coming next for Kayia.
You can get a "race face" front sprocket that has alternating thick-thin teeth. This holds the chain more tightly and makes it much more difficult to fall off.
Thank you very much for your kind words nick! A bit of bragging, I am also quite proud to have a black belt in karate (Shotokan, 1st Dan). Currently I am doing native development (iOS with Swift) at work and I really love it! As a JavaScript developer Swift feels very familiar (and you don't suffer from the current JavaScript fatigue ;-)
The problem is its possible to run a B-tree implementation and see if the unit tests pass or non-technical interviewers can compare the official solution to what the candidate is talking about fairly easily.

I've never used Go, don't really plan to unless I have to, nothing wrong with it just not my area of expertise and I'm busy with other toys although I'm sure its a very nice language, and if I went up against a non-technical or technically weak interviewer (aka almost all of them) I could probably BS my way thru based on what I do know about concurrency in general. Although after decades of experience, the reason why I'm not still programming in 6502/Z80 assembler is I'm good at that whole "BS my way thru till I'm an actual expert" thing, so maybe I'm talking myself into agreeing for non obvious reason!

BSing skill is under-rated. If you can't BS your way thru something that you don't entirely understand (because you're lazy), then when you're at the cutting edge developing or debugging you'll have trouble BSing about stuff that no one on the planet understands. Not all the worlds problems have a stack overflow question or a script reader at a support hotline, and how you deal with that gut check says a lot.
You should report this to the blog author; not to HN readers.
This

>>>No surprises here. I’ve ranted quite a bit about the disutility of master’s degrees, so I won’t belabor the point.

is literally all she says about MS degrees. Wow the bias of this site is incredible..
We're already there. Productivity has increased manyfold since then. The dividends primarily go to those with the capital, not the ones producing the labor. What gains do go to the labor force are spent buying bigger nicer houses and things rather than working fewer hours.

If you want to work less, you can do it now, but it requires sacrifice in the sense that you'll lead a lifestyle closer to that of the 50's or 60's. Head over /r/financialindependence.
To be fair, the creator of a bit of software that is widely used may not necessarily be a good fit for Google.

For many reasons.

I find some creators put a lot of ego into their products, not that they are egoists so much, but doing something on your own can be emotionally challenging. I don't mean 'ego' in a negative way - just that when you are on your own you have to make so, so many decisions. APIs, compatibility, etc. etc. you're often a little overwhelmed, you often have to 'just do it' and 'go with your gut' in many areas. Which may or may not be a good practice/attitude for a Google employee.

They might have a stronger sense of the 'outcome' (i.e. what it does) than the capacity for the underlying code. Maybe it 'does the job' but is poorly written? Which again, might not work in Google environment.

... and working on a very large team is night-and-day from working on your own.

I think we all want to 'feel it is unfair' that such an important contributor somehow 'can't get a job at Google' ... maybe he's worthy, maybe not, but I can totally grasp someone mighn't be a good contributor at Google.

Maybe it's easier to see it from a non-technical standpoint: it's often very difficult for founders of their own companies to get along in a place like Google. I think that's easier for us grasp. The same thing can apply in the technical domain.
There were plenty of economists that warned of the bubble well before it popped but they were routinely ridiculed and dismissed since explaining themselves took longer than a 15 second slot between questions on a news show.