skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thank you, this was very helpful.

"Second, you don't have to tackle everything at once. Don't touch SCSS until you have a good grasp on standard CSS. Don't worry about Flow until you have a _really_ good handle on Javascript. Don't try to pick up Redux until you've got a good understanding of React. And, with tools like Create-React-App, you can start up a React project without having to worry about Webpack or Babel until you're ready to look at how they're configured."

This is the plan but also the root of the issue. I was trying to learn things as needed but I feel like it was more confusing that way. I decided to get a more solid understanding of each thing but when I start to plan out my time it is way too long. The best case I learn everything around the same amount of time I was planning to finish the POC which also includes the API, DB, and embedded programming.

I going to stick with it for now. My main question is does elm have a smaller surface area of things to learn and if so is it a big enough difference to make up for the better react resources?
It was pretty bad around 2008. Now, 2017, it's not perfect but it's much, much better. They're on the right track.

Separately, I want to say: judging per capita they're not doing bad.
As far as I can tell IRC has stopped evolving; it has no provisions for people not always being connected, it has no answer to mobile, it has nothing for threaded conversations, it has nothing for video chat, it has no searchable scrollback.

IRC is legacy tech that kind of sucks, but all improvement has been done by startups rather than open source developers, so we have a fragmented mess. I mean, XMPP exists, but it's not that great either.

It turns out UX is more important than whether you need to convince people to install a new piece of software for the vast majority of people.
As an immigrant yourself do you feel that you are a net benefit or detriment to Singapore?
Ask HN: Is it ok that founders are taking to social media about politics?
Is it fair that technology company founders are taking to social media and claiming that their entire company is against Trump's executive order? This feels like the definition of entitlement and quite honestly hypocrisy. As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're an employee of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel. Vilified... Alienated. Causing a stressful work environment. Aren't these the sort of things that social justice warriors claim to be fighting against?

The founders absolutely have the right to say what they believe, but saying their entire company takes a stance on a political issue rubs me the wrong way.
You can read it here: http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/up.aspx
From where does it take 20 hours to get to Beijing? SFO to Beijing is just over half that.
Java and the Blockchain
Much like the US, complaints about immigrants who "refuse to integrate" into the pre-existing society, don't learn the language, are less welcome to people already there...

...ring very, very, very hollow given the history of how English-speaking peoples arrived in and gained control of the territory. If it was right for those English-speaking settlers to move in as they did, I don't see any grounds for you to condemn Chinese-speaking settlers, or settlers who speak any other language in preference to English.
> Does this really unlock additional content? Or is it just 76000 ways to organize their catalog?

The later. It is fun sorting by those categories, for a while, but wish had they had more choices. I understand not their fault as licensing contracts are screwy. Their original stuff has been ok lately, last thing I watched was Stranger Things. Really enjoyed that.
>> As a New Zealander ... Immigrants are bad for society ... I live in Singapore now.

Perhaps if you reflect on those contradictions, you may gain a more nuanced view.
I agree with you. I don't know why or how it came to be that diversity is the greatest virtue in Western society and every White Western country is being forced to take in so many that Whites will be a minority. Meanwhile an educated Chinese or Japanese citizen has an incredibly difficult challenge in legally migrating to America or Western Europe. What the fuck is going on here? I don't like bigotry, but this just doesn't seem right.
oomph. old geek jobs. now only 2 are specifically for old geeks, the rest are just culled from other job sites.

i've seen some really nice pallet and tarp houses around lately
> "or else I still end up writing special code for 'Internet Edge'"

I really haven't experienced this at all. Up until about a month ago when they pushed a big update, Safari has been my problem child browser. IE Edge has been really solid with conformance. Looking at compliance to the html5 spec, edge is neck and neck with firefox: https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html

Disclaimer: I used to work for ms, but not on edge.
I think you just need a pair of glasses, even if they are not prescription. I'm in the same position as you and I think glasses are what makes the difference. Almost hysterical to the point of tears, I know, but it seems more true the more I experiment.
Anyone have a vod of the stream?
I think you are mistaking me for someone who is anti-biotech, and your response is more about that than about what I actually wrote.

I'm not anti-biotech. I'm against using the spurious analogy with software as a way to establish risk levels. I do think that it's an anti-scientific argument, and frankly one that undermines your cause.

If as you say, only experts in biotech are in a position to understand that the risk level is similar to the software case, this proves my point because it means that the analogy is just a way of conveying the opinions of those experts without being open it.
You got spunk
They'd never allow that, I'm sure. Unfortunately.
If we started talking about recruiters, I am pretty sure HN would crash due to the longest threads ever made! I don't know if this is just recruiters for software dev jobs that act this way but they make the whole process a lot more stressful than it needs to be.

Because of all the BS involved in building software, I am considering starting my own food truck. I used to enjoy writing code and solving problems...
It looks like a language that someone used to the APL family would have no problems with.
My one tip is this: get to know each other in real life, and make sure you know how to find and contact each other if Facebook, Twitter, Google or whatever big left-wing internet service decides to silence, shadow-ban, or delete your account.
七 侠
Tearing apart families and banning large groups of Muslims from entering or returning to the USA also rubs me the wrong way.
I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousands with drones.

Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."
Metropolis-Hastings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis%E2%80%93Hastings_al...

http://michaeljflynn.net/2015/06/01/my-favorite-algorithm-me...
About 25 (sigh) years ago, I worked alongside a former journalist. Listening to him type was awe-inspiring. I could type reasonably fast, but where I typed in words, he typed in complete sentences. Machine-gun.

I think there's something to the idea that typing faster could help you think faster when it comes to text, but not sure it applies to software development.
I don't disagree but that is not issue here. The issue is that for the purposes of discussing the mechanics of the tube like strength, seals, safety etc. the small amount of air left in the tube should not throw off simple calculations by too much.
Bullshit interviews are part of the system now. The only way to beat it is with interview-er accountability.

In interviews today, the expectation is that the candidate should be perfect, do this, that, don't forget to do this. But the interviewer has no such requirement. The interviewer can reject you because "They had a bad day".....seriously, this is what companies say. Look at some answers here: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-possible-reasons-of-being...

So the candidate has to be PERFECT but the interviewer can reject because they are just HUMANS? How the hell does this make sense?

Maybe we need yelp for interviewers. A rating system will weed out bad interviewers and bad company policies.
I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things.

Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends.

Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that.

Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none.

Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not.

Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.
You're assuming that silence on an issue is not taking a stance. But silence is a stance.
It was weird enough when Adams was doing his "I don't support him, but trump will win because he's so enchanting" bit.

When he flipped his support to Trump over Hillary's estate tax policy, because "it might one day" apply to him (it wouldn't have applied to him currently, had (Hillary, if she won|Trump) enacted that policy, by a long shot) I just stopped trying to understand his logic.

Edit: clarified about ET not applying to Adams.
Of course you're completely entitled to voice your opinion personally. However, these founders using their company as a political soapbox is the issue.
I want to say 8, but according to the family genealogist an ancestor of mine who's family name has stayed with us to the present day, may have been born on the way over here - no one is really sure and the records are super old and not exactly in one piece...
I abhor the notion of developing a private "brand" so strongly and resist-fully that it's hard to keep my cool commenting about it. That said, it would be cool to have a service that would take all the code you have and some of the stuff you've made, and make a decent portfolio for you. Like <pour years worth of work into wood chipper> -> out comes a shiny portfolio site
https://www.startpage.com/eng/protect-privacy.html#hmb

I've been using them for years, and switched to them full time when I gave up all things Google a few months ago. The results are better than DDG, though DDG in my opinion has a much better site design (especially under the hood; it's very clean).
> As long as you prescribe to the founders political beliefs all good. Think if you're an employe of any of these company's and support Trump how'd you feel.

I must be missing the part where people are being forced to work for founders they disagree with. "Free market" and all that...

Like it or not, companies operate within a policy framework. The decisions and actions that are being undertaken absolutely are affecting companies in material ways and it's entirely appropriate for leadership to publicly advocate for / against policies according to its interests--whether it relates to trade, recruitment, culture / morale. Hell, even for pure PR reasons as is surely the case at times.
Either way, it is NIGHTMARE MODE stupidity.

It will net only the most retarded entrapment arrests possible. It's tantamount to searching people's bags for postcards and magazines, because there might be terrorist postcards or terrorist magazines.

Yes, there may be terrorists who send postcards and read magazines (even newspapers!) but, ah... how does that prevent violent actions?
It's important to distinguish speaking officially on behalf of a corporate entity, as opposed to speaking individually or on behalf of a group of people. I don't think there's any problem with a corporate entity having an official stance on an issue; some issues directly impact the running of companies.

I feel it's crucial that if founders want to voice some form of political / social / religious / divisive opinion, they choose their language very carefully as to avoid misrepresenting others.
> alt-right

You mean white supremacist/racist/xenophobic right?

Just because they use a less specific term for themselves, doesn't mean we shouldn't call them what they are.
I guess what matters most is whether or not it's "ok" with you, or whoever you may be referring to. There's no single answer that applies to all situations, to all founders, to all employees.

If it's not okay with you, then use your available options to determine how to act. I think it was tptacek yesterday that suggested the idea that more important than founders speaking out with their beliefs, the workers should band together and make their voices known - in agreement, or in dissent, or in whatever they believe in the absence of founders taking a stand.

If it's going to negatively effect you personally, then evaluate it the same way as you would any other negative work situation - a bad manager, harrassment, or similar. I just do not think you will find an answer by means of surveying people in different, or even similar, situations.

People choose to stay with an employer for personal reasons, and leave employers for personal reasons. This is no different.
While I understand the content producers / owners stance on DRM, I've never once found a widevine or any other DRM'd show or movie that hasn't been available via piracy. All it seems to do is things like this - degrade the legal users' experience. Even though I have amazon prime and netflix accounts, I still download all of my shows. It's just a better experience.

One question I have is this: are there any examples of cases where DRM on widely distributed media has actually worked?
Is it migrants that refuse to learn the local language, or locals who refuse to learn the migrants' languages? I don't see that either group is in a position to demand what the other group learns or how they conduct their private activities. If you want to be part of their community then learn their language. If you prefer to isolate yourself with your fellow locals, then do that. Both ways are OK and you have nothing to complain about.

The native Maoris were pressured into learning the immigrant's English language 100+ years ago. Perhaps you would be happier if that never happened?

It's ironic that you're in Singapore, an openly multi-lingual country. Which groups are using the "wrong" language there?
Why do you think it make more sense?

It seems to me when a business switches to cryptocurrency they pay more and risk more but don't much back.
Agree, I could barely stomach the article myself. If I asked someone for help and they told me to go away, it would make me quite irate. It's a "holier than thou" mentality.
My post is about outrage combined with navel gazing, and perpetuation of human rights issues.

I have a serious question. While I am personally against a ban on immigration of the kind Trump is doing, 6 out of the 7 countries targeted - all except Somalia - have a permanent ban on Israelis. Not a 4 month ban "until they figure out" some aggressive vetting processes, and make themselves look like they kept a promise to their constituents. A permanent ban.

By the logic of "this is a ban on Muslims", that is a "ban on Jews".

My question is - where was the outrage all those years? Seriously think about it.

Chomsky (who I have met and later email-debated with extensively) says criticizing other countries is like criticizing the 19th century, and your duty is criticizing the crimes of your own, because you can do the most there. While I agree with that duty, I think it misses one crucial piece.

People from progressive and developed countries tend to "let things go" when other countries violate human rights because they are so far outside their local political reality. They end up navel gazing at their own sins, with dangerous consequences.

For example, feminists today in the USA spend much more energy on making sure default social network avatars are gender-neutral than they do on stopping human trafficking, honor killings and rape culture in patriarchal tribal / caste societies in other countries. That's what I mean by navel gazing.

Angel Merkel and EU bureaucrats let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe while not requiring Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states to even sign the UN convention on the rights of the refugee. These people speak Arabic but go to a country where their language and customs are out of place and retard their contributions to society. And why? Navel gazing.

Similarly Jews often help exacerbate criticism of Israel by failng to require people to apply the same standards to other countries. Care about the rights of refugees? Great. Let's have a solution that all the countries of the region implement: giving citizenship to those who were born in the country. Then after couple generations Palestinian refugees etc. would have long stopped being refugees. By having Israel alone give citizenship and a right of return, you practically force eg all Lebanese of Palestinian descent to try and flood Israel.

Instead, their pride in their country's achievements makes them acquiesce with those who use the words "Social Justice" to advocate a kind of double standard Marxist view that everything is a zero-sum game and there must be losers. Zionists must lose. White people must apologize and pay reparations. But these double standard Social Justice never lead to anything except perpetuation of misery for those that have to live without rights.

My point here is that pride in exceptionalism leads to complacency. We should have cared when these countries (and other Islamic countries) banned Israelis from entering. But we were focused too much on our Western world.
I'm 47, had plenty of shitty interviews. Forget about them, move on. I changed jobs twice last year because one of the companies went bankrupt. All beyond my control. I specialize in mobile app programming. If the interview strays much beyond that I remind the interviewer of the specific type of job I am looking for. If that does not work then I end the interview. If they did not read my resume then they are wasting my time. For the last shitty interview the interviewer was quizzing me about regex - apparently not being a regex expert means I was not worth moving forward with. A couple days later I had an offer from another company.
I was just thinking about this further, and it occurred to me, that if a few congressman were to simply start making noises about all the shady, gray-area aspects of Airbnb's business model, and how badly they need to be regulated to insure safety, peace and tranquility for all Americans and Especially For The Children, it could make multiple billions of dollars of their valuation evaporate in a puff of smoke.

The investors are probably mostly vehemently anti-Trump, like Brian Chevsky, so maybe they would take it in stride, and stand behind him, for the sake of their Sacred Principles.

Or maybe they wouldn't, it's hard to say.

It would be interesting to see how a scenario like that would play out.
At the end of the day, it's their company and they can do whatever they like with it, including using it as a political soap box. It may turn away some investors and VCs but I don't think these founders really care. The only exception is if they are a part of a corporation and that's all dependent on what sorts of limitations the corporation puts on their officers and directors.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it appears these founders are decrying Trump's heavy handed ban that has actual human cost.

I suggest anyone who does support such heavy handed actions with such dubious benefit to examine their views. It's easy to be lost in rhetoric, but there are people separated from families who have played by the rules. Who have done nothing provably wrong. People who are put in this situation ... why?

If you have a good answer to why, then you should totally muster up some backbone to tell your CEO they don't speak for you.

This is the United States of America, after all.

If people speak out against Trump, and you don't agree, you should speak up for yourself/Trump.
That is the result of their partnership[0]. IMO, partnering with already established services is much safer than what Uber did.

[0]http://take.lyft.com/global/
I can see what you're against. What are you for? What do you support? In particular now? For example, are you happy with the Executive Order regarding immigration?
As they are entitled to do :)
I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks.
Yes but all others weren't legitimized because of the popular vote. It was because of the electoral college. If ever there was a problem with the current system, you should have fixed it then and not complain now that Trump won.
I think this argument is nothing more than a dirty tactic to guilt people into supporting a cause. People are allowed to be ambivalent about things. People are allowed to recognize that they don't have enough information to form an opinion. People are even allowed not to care.
Used to have an iranian neighbor, he had two really smart kids with a sweet mexican lady. Great people. I still support these temporary bans. And I would like to see more people complain about Obama admin sending iran 400 million cash secretly and then lying about it. Obama also gave or attempted to give 221 million to palestine in the last hours of his presidency. So many things wrong with that, frankly Obama admin simply couldn't be trusted for the safety of the U.S.
You can post your opinion on social media to state you are not in line with your founder and he/she doesn't represent you.

If your company would fire you for this, then it means you and your company doesn't fit, in a mutual manner.
https://xkcd.com/1015/
I think it helps to imagine the opposite, a founder being radically pro-trump. I still think it's ok, but it seems like a poor representation of the company.
Sarkar 3 Movie Trailer Download on Tubemate
How is this a contradiction? He would be a hypocrite if he moved to Singapore and only stayed in a community of English speakers who didn't bother integrating, but there is no indication he does this.
>What the hell does "sufficient" look like?

Exactly what President Trump has done. Impose a ban until it can be figured out, what the hell is going on.
Microsoft Office Hash Extractor Beta 0.21
If I can touch type at around 80 WMP with 95% accuracy, but I'm not using the 'correct' finger arrangement, is it worth relearning?
I don't entirely agree with him, but I think we need to be careful about confirmation biases.

This situation about a police state may get out of hand, especially if Trump and local government authorities feel like they need to crack down on it.

What's more important (and more effective) will be lobbying directly to members of Congress to oppose Trump's (and Bannon's) directives.

We are already seeing a number of Republican senators condemning Trump's actions. This number needs to grow to have a chance of Congress being a check to Trump's powers. If Americans think Trump is unfit for the presidency and should be impeached, it needs to be done the right way and via legitimate channels.
This article comes across to me like someone with no social skills bitching about people who have social skills.