skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>or are you comfortable with enslaving a portion of the population to ensure these needs are taken care of

I'm not, which is why I'm not okay with Capitalism. Being forced to sell your labour in order to avoid poverty, destitution or death or, in the case of the modern welfare state, the degrading feeling of having to live a poor life from charity of the State is one of the ultimate forms of slavery.

The idea that Capitalism promotes human value is ridiculous. Within the capitalist mode of production, human labour-time is like any other quantity; the spinning loom, the silk, etc. Sugar is bought by the kilogram, human labour-time by the hour. Human labour-time is another commodity within capitalism, and like every other commodity in Capitalism, it is maximised for exchange-value over use-value.

Market interactions, at least within Capitalism, have the quality of being fetishised, so that rather than seeing the obscured web of interactions between people, we merely see prices and figures. If anything is dehumanising, I'd say that working to make things you don't want (usually causing alienation) is the most dehumanising of them all.
Then you haven't been paying attention. This is a perennial topic for both Republicans and Democrats.
I've wondered for a while if size invites corruption. The more governmental functions are removed from the public eye, the more easily corruption can creep in. If this is true, then smaller nations (and smaller companies) which have less scale would tend to be better run.
"Infrastructure" necessarily includes schools, which at this point are in many cases scary useless.
King.com - part of an American company
Skype - part of an American company
Nokia - part of an American company
Rovio - independent but tiny(?)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I think its clear that its difficult to build a world beating company in a smaller country. Yes they make great divisions and smaller branches, but I'm still not convinced its a good place to base an HQ.
> some programmers who didn't know a thing about my profile asked me to invent some algorithms on a white board for almost four hours.

Yep. Did the phone interview after weeks of back-and-forth, told them what I was interested in, told them I was only interested in working on such-and-such, then they drop me in the standard "write memcpy for us" interview. The last interview was some dude with a weirdly confrontational attitude who wrote some assembly on the board and said "Find the bug. It took us 3 months."

If someone like David Presotto or Rob Pike want to recruit me directly, fine, but after similar experiences with Amazon I've decided the typical mega-startup interview process is for the birds.
> They literally say

You cannot claim that someone "literally" says something then make up a fictionalised quote that mischaracterized what they're saying.

None of that "quote" appears in the article. Therefore the term literally and the quotation marks are at best misleading.
I don't get that. Every time a bridge collapses somewhere, we talk about it. During the financial crisis, we talked about infrastructure spending as a way to get more printed money in circulation.

It may be a surprise to those who don't follow the news, but what can you do about that?
> I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this!

I don't know about letting people "define their own role", but a lot of the biggest companies are constantly hiring without a specific role in mind. If you've got thousands of employees then your best strategy is just hire the smartest people you can find, and figure out how to use them effectively - you have enough roles available that you'll find something for anyone to do, and while not every role you need filled is someone's dream job, a combination of internal mobility between teams and great benefits and pay will attract a lot of good candidates.
Should elementary aged school children have privacy while surfing the internet from school? If the answer to that question is "no" then the answer about HTTPS everywhere can be seen as knee-jerk.

Of course, system administrators could put further work into making sure that computers are not used maliciously, for example, by recording the screen constantly and by randomly inspecting the recording or by using machine learning to identify things like pornography, but it won't cover everything (browser bars that are actually malware or other viruses) and it's a whole lot easier to just thwart HTTPS than it is to do anything else.
LOL, your experience was much like mine. They sent me a ton of stuff to study pre-interview, which I thought was odd way to bias my answers (I attribute that to the recruiters trying to game system to get more of their finds hired and look good). When I got there the door was locked and I was trapped in an ante-room with another candidate waiting for 45 minutes. Interviews with a bunch of randoms, half from other teams. Only one whiteboard test which I apparently didn't do well on.
For all of the hate that Trump gets (I personally think most of it is earned), he has touched on some really important issues that have been ignored for a long time. Infrastructure is one of those.
Show HN: QuickLine – a Mac utility for saving and launching terminal commands
I feel like "useless" is too kind... plenty of them are actively harmful and dangerous.
I like getting recruiter emails because it kind of means I am marketable, even though some of the recruitments can become an anecdote I can talk about at a dinner party with friends... (you know one of those totally weird recruitments)

But mostly I want to get it because I want to see what these companies are expecting from their candidates, technology these companies are using, and the salary range. DevOps / SRE / Production Engineers are high in demand.
Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them, you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live close to where you were born, you won't be.

Maybe none of this is in the interest of factory workers, but that's not what the left is about anymore, and it's not the left's fault either. The world moved on. You will never get the "old left" back. Weakening the influence of corporations will still be popular on the left, but reversing globalization and freedom of movement will hopefully never be a left-wing position again.

The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.
Is a big product launch the best way to start?
I find that mailgun is highly protective over thier IP reputation, so unless you actually run into an issue yourself, don't bother with dedicated. Some spammers may use them but I've not seen much evidence of it.
Maybe most of the time King Zuck only has 4 people guarding him personally, but if you think that facebook security staff that he controls is just those 4 guys, you're crazy.
I can vouch for at least 9 of these personally. The list is worth reading, if only to self-evaluate how many you've already gone through, and recognize if you're diving headlong into another one.
It's not new, though. The phenomenon of business leaders wanting to build cloistered utopias is at least a hundred years old. Henry Ford had "Fordlandia" in Brazil, and Walt Disney was planning to make EPCOT, before the company canned the project after his death.

Private armies for the wealthy aren't new either: see the Pinkerton Agency.

Note that Fordlandia fell apart and the Pinkertons were outlawed when people realized what a terrible idea that was. But I guess those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
I run linux for work and windows for gaming between a laptop and desktop. For the files I use frequently I unison those between machines. For backups I send everything to an encrypted removable HD on my home network using some rsync scripts I wrote. For the cloud you can't trust any of them with your data privacy. But I still send off some stuff to amazon cloud drive (encrypted of course) using rclone.
What's the problem with wine and crossover? Btw, you can pay for crossover to support its developers.
> a team leader or any other particular person cannot interview 500 applicants

While, yes, it often takes interview more than one, and often several people, to find a desirable candidate — it's not that high. Given that any candidate will see probably around 4 interviewers, I don't think asking that the manager interview is that big a deal. I have to agree with that part of the article (though I disagree with it on the whole): meeting your manager-to-be is important. (And I don't think one understands this until one has a bad manager.)

In a prior job, we would also omit the manager interview if it was certain the candidate wasn't going to be a pass.
Ok, but by your same logic it also means not a few monopolistic multinational silicon valley companies dominating our digital lives. These companies are already more powerful than many governments.
Although there's a few bright spots, the stories I hear about the "No Child Left Behind" generation are terrifying.

Standardized testing has destroyed everything and the current education secretary is going to burn what's left of the system to the ground in the name of profit.
I've found that working with multiple recruiters can be a nightmare if they are all working the same geographic market.

Due to my current situation, I tend to only deal with recruiters who are local to where I live; unless the job opening allows for telecommuting, or it is a "too good to pass up" situation (I have yet to see one) - I will generally pass it up.

Instead, I currently only work with a couple of local recruiters. I have told both what I expect for interviewing (I prefer a practical interview with tests - not a whiteboard pressure interview), and I keep both informed what interviews the other has sent me on, so they aren't both submitting me to the same position opening.

Going beyond 2-3 recruiters in such a situation can and will lead to a tracking nightmare, to keep all of them in synch and not submitting you to the same opening - either at the same time, or worse, after you have already been interviewed once and weren't successful.

I do however, try to review the contacts I do get from recruiters, and if I feel they might be useful in the future, I tell them so, and keep a contact with them (even if it is just a LinkedIn or email contact) - and let them know I am interested in the future. That'll usually be enough for them to keep me in their DB for future potential offers to come up.
I take this pretty literally and I not ironically see Buddhism or something like it as a leverage mechanism to make people closer to angels. But gnostic religions don't scale well unless one intends to be a cult leader. So...
There is no point in giving me binary-tree-traversing questions; I don't know those answers and will never be interested in learning them.

Let's presume this is out of preference and not ability. It's a pretty basic concept. If your preference stops you from learning something as basic as this as a programmer, then it doesn't seem likely that you will be motivated to keep up with even more abstruse concepts.

Nearly every programmer nowadays knows that naive string concatenation is inefficient, and so they should use a stream or something like that. I'd rather hire someone who knows exactly why it's O(n^2) and why adding to the end of an array that doubles when it expands is O(n) amortized. Why? Because a different but analogous situation might well come up in a programming job, and the person who likes to think about such things is more likely to spot the potential problem and avoid it altogether! The fact that the op would actually feature the above sentences as a large text excerpt sets off the "Dunning-Kruger" alarm for me.

That said, the op still has a good point. There is considerable organizational disconnect being displayed here. Those big companies would do well to have developers or a puzzle website do the initial filtering, rather than waste people's time by alternatively telling them they're supposedly wonderful, then supposedly horrible.
Your comment is music to my ears. I can think of like a million other things I would rather do than work (and I actually really enjoy working). Build the app I always wanted, learn assembly, travel, backpack, garden, volunteer, read etc... Or just freaking sleeping in... jeebus, that would be nice.

But from what I hear about "real America". There is a huge value placed on "working with your hands". It's a pride thing. That's at least my stereotypical understanding anyways. I don't really know.
Ok, fine. Please tell me exactly what I can do to help, and make sure it doesn't get me fired.

Your turn.

Let me guess; you don't have an answer, just your snide, pithy response.
I agree with jerf here. In many cases I think the answer should be to create certain systems that are almost always offline (say after installation). We shouldn't be connecting the same computers that hold health records to the network that the doctor is checking Ask MD in the back office.
I'm not entirely sure adequate performance is good enough when you work at the scale of Google...
Then problem is not that he's 100% wrong, the problem is that when he's right it seems to be of the "Broken Clock" variety. When there is little rhyme or reason to the views he takes, he's bound to end up in a few positive places (such as today, condemning anti-Semitism).

The problem with Trump is that they're only positive in these highly isolated, episodic ways.
Arrogance at its finest.

I'm not arguing that Google doesn't have a huge scale, but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and most likely the NSA also have unique systems and challenges.
Evaluation of 18F’s Information Technology Security Compliance
Mapping DevOps into an ITIL Framework
Your best opportunity as a young engineer is always with a startup with smart leadership. You'll get to do far more and learn far more. Google/Amazon/FB/MS etc are full of smart people and offer a more 9-5 type job, but you will find it much harder to do interesting things.
Did you warm up your mailing list? I've seen an issue before, but it was down to our domain being new for email and us not knowing to gradually ramp up the emails instead of sending many from the get go.
Considering I have yet to hear of WeChat, I doubt that.
Hm, I stand corrected. I did find that your review jumped somewhat headfirst into accepting their equivalence though. The first line of your interpretation establishes their equivalence, and the linked quote just states that the author has the same opinion. It's a little disorienting to build from this as an established fact, if the reader does not agree. Also, your suggestion that they are equivalent in physics may be true from an information-theoretic perspective but it certainly isn't intuitive.

My assumption that the statement was linked to LessWrong was due to other similar radical statements I've seen posited by members, especially Yudkowsky's ideas around the equivalence of a consciousness and its simulation.
But optimizing for them? I've been out of school over 7 years; I'm currently a tech lead. I can guarantee you that, while I can likely solve most binary tree related questions you'd care to throw at me, it will take a lot more work, thought, and likely mistakes on my part now than it would have when I first got out of school. It's not an area I've spent -any- part of my development career on, nor is it an area I find particularly interesting. Whereas when I left school, I had actively been dealing with such problems within the past couple years, -and- had boned up on them specifically to prep for interviews, since I had nothing else in my favor.

Hiring a junior with such criteria might make sense; hiring a more seasoned person, probably not so much. Because the seasoned person will just not be as compelling as the more junior person, due to having spent the past few years working on other things.
Yes, of course children should have privacy.
It's been talked about a lot for a long time. But nothing ever gets pass congress.

Obama tried to pass a lot of infrastructure spending as part of the 2008 Stimulation package, but a lot didn't make it into the final budget.

Everyone wants it fixed, but no one wants to pay for it.

Many states fund their roads and bridges via a gas tax. But no one wants to raise the price of gas. So nothing gets fixed through that channel either.

It's a real problem in the US and our divisive and nut job "party first" politics.
Every single problem in the world could have been averted. However, there is only so much time, money, and resources, so we have to chose what to prioritize. There are even entire fields of professionals that deal with this, such as engineers and politicians.
Show HN: Spectacles of a web server log file
Ok, analogy time.

The bigger the banks, the more centralized the banks, the more fragile the banking system. Same for governments. Systemic risk increases as you increase the system's complexity, and you increase its complexity when you centralize it.
Being an agency recruiter in 2017 is becoming impossible in that fewer and fewer people are even willing to talk to you, which is one reason I've diversified into resumes and coaching. I have almost 20 years in the industry, led a large successful users group for 15 years, have published tons of content for tech pros (often critical of recruiters), and have a pretty solid reputation in the industry, I write targeted and friendly approaches (no surprise calls at your desk), and I still have difficulty getting responses from people. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for people who don't have my 'cred' with developers, but the signal to noise makes most people filter out all messages.

So for the most part, I've stopped reaching out to new candidates. Outreach is mostly futile, so my time is better spent doing other things to try and get potential candidates to come to me instead. It goes completely against what recruiting is built upon (always be recruiting, recruit everybody, source, smile and dial, etc.), but when people approach me the outcomes are much more positive.

When I got into recruiting (circa 1998), the primary skill of a recruiter was just identifying potential candidates. There was no LinkedIn, nobody had websites, no social media. The skill was calling into a company and finding out who the Java developers were by navigating different people, and in my case I did this without lying to anyone (there was rusing, but no outright lies).

Now identifying people is ridiculously easy (identifying actual talent is a little different), and so easy in fact that we've turned into an industry of spammers. This model doesn't seem sustainable, and I expect agency recruiters will continue to be replaced by better systems. Nobody seems to have gotten it just right to this point, but some are getting close.
Any news about namespaces support (so maybe Docker server can work on WSL)?
"Fake news" sites is not necessarily politics. Call it conspiracy theory, rumor mill gossip, and the like. There are fake news sites on celebrities, supernatural events, "gross out" fake news, race / cultural baiting, and any other general outrage that inspires clicks. Snopes has a list of them compiled in early 2016, and politics is only a small part of it. (http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/)

I don't see "fake news" as vague. Fake news is fake. There is nothing ambiguous about the term; many people (eg Trump) have co-opted the term wrongly. If you publish an article saying Adam Sandler committed suicide (http://archive.is/n78Do) and the truth is he's still quite alive and making movies... that's fake news. Can you think of a better word? Liars? Con artists? All these apply to me.

I do think that true fake news websites did embrace Trump more than other politicians, but I believe a lot of this came more from Donald Trump's position as an "anti-establishment" candidate making him a perfect target for writers targeting the conspiracy minded. I think it's fair to say that a lot of conspiracy theory relies on large distrust of institutional authority. I doubt personally that the fake news sites would've similarly embraced Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush.

None of this is terribly new to the Internet (stuff like the National Enquirer and Weekly World News would probably be described as "fake news" now). I agree that, if one is prone to believing conspiracy theory, I'm not sure simply a warning label in a Google search will persuade anyone.

Nevertheless, since Google and Facebook are essentially about advertising, my thought is that there might be an economic motivation to at least quietly make sure true fake news sites are less visible. I doubt many mainstream corporations want to be associated with true "fake news", personally, and the often questionable content they have. (Unfortunately any algorithm alterations probably will have to be done quietly, since it's now such a political football.)
> On the contrary, this is a very reasonable assumption. You appear to be confusing opinions and facts.

It's not reasonable to imagine a study used methods just because you would have done so if it were you, even if you know that those methods are the best or most standard ones, then defend the study on the basis of the imaginary method. The point of having a peer-reviewed study is that it clearly indicates how the fact-checking was done.

> You also appear to have an uninformed opinion of Buzzfeed News and the journalists it employs.

On the contrary - I read them and am quite familiar with their work. You can look through my comment history and see me discussing them quite extensively just the other day. Generally speaking, their journalism work is excellent, but it does have somewhat partisan viewpoint in my opinion and they do not always act as an organization in ways that I support.

But again, even if Buzzfeed is not the worst choice, it certainly isn't the best one; you really aren't addressing the point I've brought up a couple times now that there are other organizations better suited to this particular kind of journalistic work.

> You also don't seem to understand the main point of the whole paper, which is that "the writing styles of otherwise opposing orientations, namely left-wing and right-wing, are in fact very similar: there appears to be a common style of extremism."

I understand the point. I just don't think it is useful, and even if it is, I don't particularly think the study has proven it beyond doubt.
Obama tried to make it happen for a long time:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/obama-c...
Mattermost team here. Yes, there are multiple Mattermost deployments over 5000 users within enterprises.
The Bright-Eyed Talking Doll That Just Might Be a Spy
Schools are more similar to prisons than infrastructure.
Tip for the future: be more specific in comments.

It seems you are talking about this crisis, other commenters are talking about infrastructure crises in general.
What does it matter? A large percentage doesn't mean more than 50%, or more than competing services. And remember that those are just systems, not single companies.

Frankly, if something I made had reached even 5% of the whole human population, I'd consider that freaking huge! Hell, I can't even imagine what it's like to have that much influence.

Don't get me wrong: I dislike FB too, I don't use it, and I lobby against it when it comes up. But it is, unfortunately, rather big.
In my experience, recruiting is a fairly cut-throat industry with a very high turnover rate of staff, so once you come to use your list you may find that a fair proportion bounce (or are redirected to someone else). It can't hurt though!