skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Probably reaching out to minority college programs, graduates, and professional organizations. If your black, woman engineer, for example, you aren't necessarily reaching out to your old boys network for prospective jobs.

I'm assume you assume they sit in their chair all day and spin around in circles.
The other thing to consider is: what the heck are you going to do there?

On Mars, you can do a lot of things. You can mine, you can build underground habitats, you can try to grow stuff in the soil, you can explore the place and learn about the geology, etc. And you can do these things a lot faster and easier in some ways than with remote-control rovers.

On Venus, what are you going to do there? Sit around in your giant dirigible city and enjoy the scenery? You can't send people to the surface, and you can't even send probes there for very long. You can't mine (the equipment won't last long enough to make any progress), you can't do too much geology (again, the probes won't last long), you certainly can't dig and build underground habitats, and you sure as hell can't grow anything on the surface. You're limited to whatever you can do in your floating habitat. And I fail to see how you're really going to get that much more done on-site in a floating habitat than just using using automated probes sent from Earth.

According to everything I've read, floating habitats are perfectly feasible on Venus, but getting them there would be a huge and expensive challenge, and what's the point when you can't go to the surface? Yeah, it'd be kinda cool to hang out there in a giant dirigible for a little while, and supposedly you could even go outside with just a breathing mask on for a little while, and it is nice that the gravity is almost the same as Earth's, but that's a huge investment for not much return. The Moon, Mars, and even Mercury and Ceres all make more sense for sending humans for long-term missions.
There are exceptions where JS is needed. They are exceptions though. A vast majority of the sites I see now are web-pages that think they need to be SPAs. Sorry, sucks to be them, but if they didn't mis-design, I wouldn't mis-interpret their intentions.
I suspect this is a little confusing to any day care that doesn't also operate 9/80. I did 4/10s for my kids entire day care "career" and that was enough to really confuse them a couple times.

Another fun day care problem is some bill by week and make the employees watch the clock like hawks to make sure no one is getting more than their fair share, while others bill by the hour and don't care if you're late, in fact they enjoy the extra money. Both sides sometimes insist the other side doesn't exist and their way is the only correct way to run a day care. Obviously 9/80 or 4/40 or anything more exotic than 9-5 M-F is going to need some care in selecting the correct day care billing model

(Note strange, yet honestly serious possible startup topic: brokering parents with day cares WRT weird schedule constraints and location constraints)
They really were, though; astoundingly, System 7/8/9 didn't even support preemptive multitasking[1] which Windows 95 did have.

[1] http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/44121/wha...
At 1:04 [1], it stops for a few seconds before the intersection. Seems to be due to the white car that is parked in opposite direction as all other cars so it waited for ~20 seconds to confirm that the car is indeeded parked? Should a no-motion indicates it's not moving? Why wait for so long?

https://youtu.be/Vfgjemwc9NU?t=63
A case, or you had an app in background ... that recognize the voice and send data ... well it could be more near to reality than you maybe can imagine ... i'm impressed by the way, on how users install apps of any kind on their smartphone ... they really ignore how many data are transferred in background ... one day, or also right now, also the voice ... same users, often may are complaining that his phone credit get critical, and they do not know why! :)
Although I'm a SpaceX fan, I wouldn't hold my breath. They have been saying that for a while. (I would be happy if they prove me wrong though.)
From a comment I made elsewhere re: Mathematics: It's not just that -- introductory Calculus at even community colleges is designed to weed students out instead of emphasizing on teaching and comprehension. With tactics like curves, rushed test-taking, unrelated material on exams, poor lectures, teachers with obscenely varying grading tactics, and a "learn it yourself or die" attitude it's clear that many types of different learners are not given a fair shake.

That is to say, many bright students who may be good at Math someday (like Hadamard or Birman or Smale or Hubbard) are unceremoniously kicked out of Math fields because of the sink or swim nature of teaching today either through lack of confidence or simple inability to muster the proper grades that are based off the (often times) whimsy of the teacher/professor.

This makes you wonder: how many potential geniuses in Mathematics or other STEM fields are we losing due to darwinian teaching tactics? I suspect many more than we're willing to admit. Let's put it this way: why invest in the infrastructure of teaching core concepts in math, chemistry, biology, physics, etc. to raise everyone to mastery-levels of performance when you can just throw the students to the wolves and see who excels on their own?

And I don't believe math is a proxy for "general intelligence" any more than having a big vocabulary (another metric the SAT uses) does. When taught properly, anyone can go from illiterate in math to mastery. And this is just calculus, which is an introductory course in most 4-year institutions.

How are going to compete with the rest of the world like this when we're so bad at math when compared to say, Singapore? To put our rank in perspective: we beat Kazhakstan by a hair. Kazhakstan? Seriously, America?

The upshot? Most of schooling in course subjects like calculus is sink or swim, with little emphasis on good pedagogy.
Drivers have a priority field 0-255. Vendor drivers can only use 128-255. System drivers start at 255 baseline. Highest priority (0 is highest) always wins, and ties are broken with version or date comparison or what-have-you.

Disclaimer: near zero forethought
People interested in this topic should read Johann Hari's fine book Chasing the Scream. (2015) http://www.worldcat.org/title/chasing-the-scream-the-first-a...

Hari digs in to the history of the demonization of addicts in the United States. This started about a century ago as a federal police initiative, in the predecessor to the DEA.

One of the things the US did in the middle of the 20th century was to coerce other countries into agreeing to treaties criminalizing drugs -- the Paris Convention of 1931 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_Limiting_the_Ma... and the 1961 Single Convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

If Hari's to be believed, the anti-addict stuff in the US was, at its core, racist. Cannabis was, he says, believed to cause violent insanity in black and brown people. The same was true of opium and similar drugs.

He doesn't make the argument that addiction is good, only that addicts are not evil or morally deficient. He does make the argument that prohibition causes addiction for several reasons:

(1) the iron law of prohibition: when a substance is prohibited, it drives out all but the most potent formulations of the substance from the market. Nobody smuggled lite beer during alcohol prohibition; they smuggled white lightning and 151-proof rum. The most potent formulations are most addictive.

(2) the various dealer effects.

a) Addicts to prohibited substances sell some to their friends to support their habits. This introduces more people to the substance. (This happened to me many years ago with cocaine. Fortunately for me I was broke at the time and my experience with the stuff seemed like dentist novocaine: boring).

b) Retail dealers cut the wholesale product with nasty adulterants to get more stuff to sell.

c) Dealer bigshots (guys with names like El Chapo) have an underworld kind of glamour to them.

d) Dealers outside the law have zero incentive to keep their products away from children.

(3) the unpredictability of dosage. Wildly swinging dosages cause higher highs, which in turn encourages dosage-seeking, which encourages, and is, addiction. One of the problems of Oxycontin is this. See the LA Times series on that formulation of an opiate and its marketing. http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/

(4) the lack of supervision of addicts getting their doses. Experiments in parts of England, Portugal, and Switzerland show that addicts who can safely get their doses in clinics lead productive lives and can, when ready, take on the task of curing their addictions.

It's counter-intuitive but true: decriminalizing drugs reduces addiction.

But, it will happen slowly. The narco-industrial complex is too powerful. Decriminalizing drugs means police layoffs. It means an end to most civil forfeiture property seizures, which will cut into government revenue. It eliminates a rich source of scare tactics for politicians. It takes a fat chunk out of gun and ammunition sales.

Just look at Massachusetts, where I live. Cannabis was decriminalized in November, and the law has been in effect for about a month. Police and politicians are wringing their hands about what to do.
>Games especially have a very long history of having a bottomless appetite for more and more powerful hardware every year as they push the limits of what's possible.

Sure, though the CPU has less to do with that. For reference, most modern games still perform just fine on first-gen i7s and second-gen i5s; the most recent of those was released 6 years ago. GPUs are a replaceable part where CPUs are not.

At least GPU technology is still advancing in big ways, though I think that's more a property of how they're built, what their functions are, and (especially for higher-end cards) what kind of power budget users are willing to accept. It's unusual for the newest mid-range card not to match the previous high-end card.

Intel, on the other hand, has never released a CPU with TDP over 150W (AMD had a couple at 220W), even though most in the overclocking community know that 5GHz is regularly attainable on modern CPUs. But that that's been mostly true since 2013.
I made three different algorithms dealing with spamming messages, spamming reports (repoting people unfairly), and when to ban someone depending on the reports gotten.

Contrary to most sites which do nothing (as to get the traffic from the trolls anyway), if someone is being intrusive, I ban him for a limited time, or the after two times, permanentely.
A case, or you had an app in background ... that recognize the voice and send data ... well it could be more near to reality than you maybe can imagine ... this can be SO real, but rue or not, i'm impressed by the way, on how users install apps of any kind on their smartphone ... they really ignore how many data are transferred in background ... one day, or also right now, also the voice ... same users, often may are complaining that his phone credit get critical, and they do not know why!
reddit.com takes 7.5 seconds to load on FIOS? I must be reading this table wrong.
Well, you see my point now :)
System 9 still lacked preemptive multitasking, due to a pragmatic decision from the very beginning of MacOS. (Perhaps even predating the Mac?) That alone would be enough to say that it was showing its age. As someone who was using System 9 at the time, I would say that this is indeed what knowledgeable users were thinking.
Except, presumably, the vendor-provided driver is a match specifically for the hardware ID, which would already put it as the #1 match and no one would ever care about the timestamp.

It does seem to me that, at least somewhere along the line, we'd probably prefer the generic Windows driver from 2017 over the specific vendor driver from late 2006, though...
Not the grandparent, but my first thought would be to use the signature. If the driver's signed by Microsoft, and another matching driver is signed by the hardware vendor (or is unsigned and the user has already gone through the relevant approval tomfoolery), then prefer the vendor's.
> All of this leads to my final big point: “drug problems” are really “society problems.” Consider the current opiate crisis. Do you know when authorities in Ohio, where I reside, became convinced that Ohio had an opiate problem? When opiate deaths began to approach, and then surpassed, the number of car crash deaths in a year. This raises an important question: why are we so tolerant of car-crash deaths, so much so that their frequency has become our baseline for unacceptable accidental death in America? Harry Levine back in the 70s encouraged us to consider a similar question when he asked if drunk driving was really a drinking problem, or if we might better think about it as a transportation problem. Given that we allow people to drive around in 4,000 pound heaps of steel equipped with maps that need to be programmed, and hookups so they can plug in their telephones, and so forth, this strikes me as a pretty good question. Our tolerance of car crash deaths tells us a lot about us: we are highly tolerant of those things that make our economy go, but many of those things create just the kind of conditions that make “bad” drug use outcomes more likely: stress, isolation, overwork, loneliness, endless change, dislocation, and insecurity. When stressed, isolated, lonely people are exposed to new, stronger drugs, you end up with a problem. Our current opiate crisis is a case in point.

One thing about cars is a higher proportion of people are ramming phone charging cables into them and scrolling around gps maps and mashing and spinning knobs and buttons of radios or texting or eating mcdonalds or falling asleep or whatever non driving activity you can think of that clearly jeopardizes everyone else's well-being than are driving under the influence of some drug. So really I think the penalty isn't proportional necessary to the harm but instead to likelihood it's some risk you are taking. If you are taking that risk then you don't want the penalty to involve being smashed in the face with a book large enough to massive impair your ability to lead a reasonable life on the first or second offense.
When I opened that page and emptied my cache, I got a lot more than 8MB...

http://imgur.com/a/qt0Zd (59.9MB)

I don't think JavaScript is really to blame for this though, the problem here is they're dumping a whole bunch of full sized images when they could have used thumbnails.
Backplane founder / CEO here. I started Backplane because I noticed after leaving Heroku as the first eng hire, then working with users while at CoreOS, that a lot could be done to fix many problems with service discovery, routing, traffic shaping, and network security. If you have any questions or comments, I'll keep an eye on the thread.
I say this so much that I should probably just copy/paste it in the future but...

I used to work at a place that had a <1mbps modem, and a ~7 year old destkop. If their software didn't work on that, it needed to be optimized. I wish more places would test this way. Your sight may work fine in downtown SF, but that doesn't mean it's going to work well anywhere else.
React, Universally
To all you nay-sayers, this is Raymon Chen's blog. He has nothing to do with Microsoft's marketing machine and is probably a better engineer than most of us.

He's not promoting anything, he's just writing about a tidbit people would be interested in.

If you don't believe me, go through his blog archives. You'll most likely learn a thing or a dozen.
Security wise? Doesn't matter. WireGuard does not add any meaningful attack surface, and you'd be pretty screwed anyway if your non-kernel-level VPN server got hacked.

Performance wise? If you want it to be usable it's pretty necessary.
The problem I see is that I'll be able to share my password, but somebody won't be able to log in. They'd come back and be confused. If I give them the 2 factor, the computer needs to be there, or they need to say it over radio, and even if they say it over radio, it would be a race before it expires.

And yes, presumably, they could work with facebook or the NSA for a portal that bypasses 2 factor, but then they don't need my password.
Let's do a small road trip around CA starting and ending in SF, avoiding the tolls and seeing some nice scenery.

Head north over the Golden Gate Bridge, immediately losing cell service. Decide at that time (no cell service) to make a stop at the Nike missile launch site, passing through the long single-lane tunnel w/o crashing into an oncoming car. Head back to 101, continue north, driving through 3 trees: Chandelier Tree, Shrine Tree, Klamath Tree. Yes, actually drive through each tree. Go back south to Redwood National Park, and then head east on Bald Hills Road, half of which is a gravel road. Pass through Hoopa. Make an unscheduled stop at the overlook to the original Hoopa campsite. Head to Weaverville, pass by the trailhead to Mount Lassen, then to Reno and on to Lee Vining. Stop at Mono Lake, in the dirt "parking lot", for one of the canoe trip tours. Head back north to Topaz Lake, then head west down US 4. Try not to get run off the 1.5-lane road by a logging truck. Head to San Jose and then north up to SF, neatly avoiding the bridge tolls.

For bonus points, do this when the state mandates snow chains for Lassen and/or US 4.
Many of Google's rear-endings occur at intersections where there's obstructed visibility to the side. The autonomous vehicle moves slightly forward into the intersection, detects cross traffic, and stops. Someone behind them then hits them at slow speed.[1][2]

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/4a39c1b9-ca1f-4184...
[2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/69feb1fa-ff90-4b7a...
Hmm makes me wonder what the result of running this fuzzing test on other regex libraries would be.
I definitely will agree with you about the existence of horrible flaws in the "two-party system" - I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you have it, then I share the belief that large improvements to our voting processes are possible. For my part, I'd like to see innovations like instant run-off voting, mathematically fair drawing procedures for the regional boundaries that determine the shape of geographic voting precincts, strict campaign finance regulations, and deployment of an automatic methodology to turn certain flavors of congressional deadlock into public referendum rather than the baroque set of tie-breaker rules/conventions dominating the strategy behind congressional procedures (in my opinion, the possibility of injecting a little bit of stochastic noise from the electorate into the law-making process would provide a much better incentive structure for how congress critters should think about their differences than the overly deterministic incentives currently in place).

But back to the point - I brought it up not to argue that this particular appointee was any better or worse than some standard, but to support the notion that it is correct to object to propaganda that attempts to discredit voices due to false accusations that those voices are only the voices of paid protesters with a corrupt financial agenda rather than the opinions of actual people who formed those opinions based on their real-life experiences. Deploying this strategy falsely to discredit legitimate opposition groups is inherently anti-democratic, corrupt, polarizing, and very dangerous (in my opinion).

You responded to this expression with a claim that I interpreted as expressing that the only possible disagreement about a particular appointee is a product of partisan media manipulation and therefore its fair game to insinuate that any opposition voices are entirely partisan in nature. Within the context of the thread, I understand you attempted to establish that point in order to suggest that it is 'OK' to spread false caricatures of the opposition voices to the portion of the electorate that is prepared to receive that message regardless of veracity.

I understand the desire to be jaded about politics -- I typically try to ignore as much of politics as I can and tend to think that's the best possible strategy for me. It appears to me though that you take your cynicism further by asserting that there is basically no role in the political process for decision making beyond the level of team sports. All disagreement between members of A and members of B is inherently only about media manipulation rather than the possibility that such disagreement could express something rational about the real world.

I think that world-view (as understood by me) is inherently anti-rational-discourse and is worth disagreeing with.
If there were one hundred things I could change about the political system, somewhere among them would be the insane idea of financing public services like schools/police/firefighting on the community level.

It can't be blamed exclusively here – for example I'd assume that the city of Chicago can somewhat freely allocate resources. Differences within Chicago must therefore have other causes.

But from what I've read about schools in particular, it appears that current rules were written/voted for by people who aren't just acting for purely selfish reasons. They also seem to have the time horizon of a chipmunk on speed or the CEO of a penny stock. Even if my children went to private school, and I have enough money to know their grandchildren eventually will, too, I'd consider it a good investment for my dynasty for everyone to be at least somewhat literate... That dynasty relies quite heavily on written laws, after all.
Waymo cars frequently drive the same routes several times a week. In fact if you go to certain intersections such as El Camino Real and San Antonio Rd, during the work week you only have to wait a few minutes to see one or more go by.
Agreed, finance gone mad. Especially in London.
Every time I install a game from Steam, it almost always re-installs the DX runtime for that specific game. Is there a reason for that?
Because a bad Wiki people use is better than a good Wiki people don't.
It's actually just a matter of "longest wins", so no magic :)
Atom 1.14
I can't get my head around docker, and LXC is so much easier to understand. It's a lightweight VM, administered traditionally. It's easy!
I wasn't thinking specifically of ML-family languages, though they could be included.

Rather, if you are in a problem domain like web-development or server-side microservices where a GC is fine, there are lots of decent options for programming languages. Python, Ruby, or PHP. Go. Any of the JVM languages - Java, Scala, Clojure, Kotlin. Swift or Objective-C. dot-NET. Many of these have had continuous attention over the last twenty years, they've got major corporate backers, and so a lot of the recent research in PL theory gets ported over to them.

If you are in a problem domain where you can't use GC - like computer graphics, games, databases, information retrieval, operating systems, or embedded - you have basically one option. C++. C++ has gotten a much-welcome facelift recently with C++11/14/17, but the core of the language is still 40 years old, and the language as a whole makes serious compromises (like memory safety) for backwards-compatibility. The excitement about Rust largely stems from its competition being C++; if you pit Rust against say Python or ES6 in the domains in which the latter are used, it's very much "Why would I use this?"