skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can absolutely imagine an Uber manager speaking against ethics. I find it less plausible that a man in his 40s (my age group) refers to women as "sweetheart"...that seems like a thing someone in his 60s or 80s would say.
Oh, I absolutely understand why it is interesting and fast: what I don't understand is how it satisfies the rules, as it is effectively "some random project with a hashtable". Is this particular one so famous that it should be allowed instead of java.util.HashMap? Can I just publish my C++ hashtable and then rely on it, in which case the rule makes no sense? That's why I tack on "?!".
> autistic

I wasn't suggesting that, but rather thinking through the logical consequences of your arguments.

I don't like psychological labels, as I think personalities are too varied to form good clusters.

> no respect

An interesting stance. I suppose there's no benefit to further discussion.
It seems we have have been taken to a bizzaro parallel earth where people enjoy built it bloat that should be an addon in their formerly highly customizeable browser.
For $50K a year I will make up 10 of these per day.
Distributed IT often seems like a waste of money, but having an IT staff and procedures built around the needs of a specific customer may provide better service at comparable or lower cost. Up front, all the analysis is super optimistic, and you can make the case that savings will be huge. The problem is that no one ever does the full ROI calculation including the inevitable loss of productivity, slower response time, and predictable failure to realize economies of scale.
>Except that these two private citizens are presumably absurdly wealthy. Whereas the nationalize space program which brought forth the Apollo mission gave all private citizens, as well as schoolchildren for generations, hope and aspirational outlooks.

I doubt it's any more difficult to get absurdly wealthy than to become an astronaut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban

There are ethical concerns and legal limitations regarding experimentation on some animals.
You're probably thinking of PLOS Biology. This is in PLOS ONE, which is multidisciplinary.
The "logical consequences" you've throught through dont come from my argument. They sound vaguely like my argument, but theyre not mine, and you know that.

This is why I dont respect you, roughly.
> Maybe it's hard to understand for some that money is not the ultimate motivator?

Except that's the whole point of the market. Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The company has to be motivated by money and growth. Maybe they'll pump out dividends. Maybe they'll take over the world first like Amazon and then pump out tons of cash. Either way - it still always boils down to money.

If a company doesn't care about money, they can be taken over. Their stock price can suffer. Going public means you've decided to be scrutinized. For better or worse.
Cool, hope it's useful to you :)
I apparently am missing your point entirely as most of your comments seem directly contradictory to the idea that harassment can be objectively observed.
> instead of java.util.HashMap

Not "instead of" as-well-as.
I don't think I've ever been somewhere with more toilets than managers, that probably supports the assertion though.
If people claim: "I know C++"... then I rub my hands and the fun begins. It usually ends with leaving that one off the list.
Or instead of a band-aide solution you could just get an alignment and solve the underlying issue.
True, it's always comforting to have a cause for all that happens. It gives us a sense of control over our world.

Yes, I agree, the article is written with a bit of humor but watch how fast it becomes fact in some people's mind.

I suspect the thesis of the Chariots of the Gods book was a throw away comment at one time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods
Show HN: First jekyll template for photographers which shows EXIF data
I think at some point we're going to have to have another uncomfortable conversation about whether cybernetically enhanced (say ex amputees) humans should be allowed to compete in sports where their new physiology is giving them a distinct advantage.

The same way right now we're stuck between biology and political correctness when talking about ex-male MMA or wrestling competitors dominating in the women's side of the sport when most of their physical development happened before hormone therapy and they end up with a distinctly more powerful physique.

Separate bathrooms for cyborgs who maybe will be reviled and feared when they do become a very small minority?
It may seem less weird as trips to the moon become more common. We still use "flew too close to the sun" even though human powered flight at high altitudes is now common. It's more about the story of the original moonshot.
Cool, hope it works well for you :)

If not, I'd greatly appreciate some feedback, I'm newish to sh programming and CLI design in general.
It just seems surprising to many of us that this skepticism only seems to crop up in situations surrounding racial or gender discrimination.
you might have not had more than one manager then :)
In the end, they send Trump to space.
This is a great point that I wish I wrote about.

I think this is actually the source of the "steep learning curve" problem. Once you've used it enough, it is an almost orthogonal part of your brain that does thats the VIM command-ing. It becomes more like, "to walk, put one foot in front of the other." You don't actually process that thought when walking.

But, until that point, it absolutely IS the same part of your brain. Until that point, there IS a PAINFUL contention between work brain and editor brain.
Spoken like a manager.

Something is either being actively developed or it's dieing, there is no in between with software, there is no finished state.
What do you mean by "objectively observed"? Obviously im not asking in general, but in this case.
It's pretty clear this person has gotten themselves into a logic box they can't get out of. All discussion has to point to evidence for their point of view, or it's discounted or ignored.
I suspect it's about the longer term profits, like any other corporation purchase. Generally, you can't buy/afford it when it's already super successful, but you can when it's on the verge of being that (but needs your funding/image/resources).
I don't see why this would have a chilling effect on free speech. Surely people realize it's a crime to conspire to commit crimes?
Silicon Valley is awful, of course, but my company is different. It actually provides value.
I'm somewhat amused by the fact that if we were workplace colleagues, I'd probably report this discussion to HR.
Circa 2000. A commercial product named PowerMarks. Cross-browser. One click bookmarking. Default indexing based on words pulled from title, some meta tags, whatever -- that the user could augment/change on the fly. Terms listed space-separated, making doing so very easy and quick.

Rapid, incremental pattern-matching search against the index. A list of matches would shrink as you continued to type in your search term. Again, space-separated, making this very quick to type.

Basically, if you remembered a few relevant things/terms about the page, you were probably going to find it within a couple of seconds. With the automated, default pretty-good indexing, you didn't have to spend time manually entering tags/terms. You didn't have to think and then manually sort bookmarks into folders.

PowerMarks "just worked".

Unfortunately, it was shareware, and it eventually went the way of a lot of such products. Add to this the continued changes of browsers that made keeping the cross-browser functionality and the application's independence (of itself, a major plus, in my book) an increasing struggle.

Sigh. I still miss it.
This entire subthread is clearly a digression ;p, but why do you say that? The rules were about using a built-in or standard collection: this Java implementation does not use HashMap and instead uses a random project with a better data structure for this use case. This is a loophole to bypass the restriction on writing your own hashtable: you just have to publish it first? ;P
Yeah I do: everyone can lie. Also, innocent until proven guilty, don't just believe what you hear, etc. I see the smoke, I know that by practically all chances there's a fire, but before I grab my pitchfork and go on a crusade telling everyone and anyone to never use uber again (which I will quite soon judging by the escalation and their inability to handle the accusations only adding to the likeliness of their guilt) I would like to make sure I'm 100% sure that what's been said is true. No need for more zealots, one's already in the whitehouse.
Or that was all made up? Who is in a position to know every employee at Uber, so they can verify that this person actually existed, AND that they actually wrote it?
How many ethical and legal violations will be until the CEO of Uber is fired? If this were a public company, 1) the stock would have taken several hits and 2) he would have been out a long time ago.

A decade ago it was Worldcom and Enron and other giants. It is unfortunate that the founder mythology has shifted some of the worst corporate behavior to start-ups.
Sorry, I was not being clear - I wasn't thinking of sexism, but what a person with a software engineeing degree was doing at a programming boot camp. I realize that software engineering is not programming, but if the term has any meaning, I would expect anyone with such a degree to know enough about what it takes to make software as to be able to pick up common languages by self-study. Your reply hints that his attendance at boot camp might be as much about certification and documented hands-on experience as education.
I didn't see any wording that vague when I read the statute. Which clause are you talking about?
Solar Now Provides Twice as Many Jobs as the Coal Industry
I felt the same way. I don't know if it's the fluidity of its movements while it was moving or something else. I kept thinking of Silent Hill for some reason.
They're _probably_ implying that 6 month stints on your CV don't look "bad" to a hiring manager.

I'm not in the valley, but here (in Sydney) I tend to ask questions about people changing jobs in 12 months or less, and more than one 6 month stint (especially consecutive ones) is a serious red flag (mostly due to local employment law and practices). There are a set of people who "interview well", but cant actually cut it in the roles they land - these people can _usually_ stick it out and fake their way through a 6 or 12 month stretch before getting fired or leaving because they know it's inevitable if they don't.

One six month stint in the middle of 18+ month stretches and you'll probably at least get an interview with questions asked about the short job (with even vaguely plausible answers "I hated the commute", "the manager I was working for left, and I didn't enjoy it as much after" would all be fine, if delivered with sincerity)

3 six month stints in a row, without provided upfront and verifiable explanations "these two were contracting engagements, that one was a company that folded 6 months after I started", you'll most likely not make it to the phone screen stage.

It's certainly different in the valley - but I still question how much a string of 6-ish month stints on your cv is gonna be read down the track...
Too late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper#Sp...
Usually everyone achieves 100% of the bonus.
Good performers more than that.

It's not part of the 'base', but it's almost a certainty that you'll get it.
The future of logging
The ghost from Howl's moving castle: http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/spiritedaway.jpg
> I think the bottom line is that some founders believe that you have to tolerate abusive personalities in order to hire the best.

Based on anecdotal experience I think this is quite true. It's almost like the dark side of the Taleb chapter that was on HN the other day...just as Taleb trusts the disheveled butcher-looking doctor more than the elegant and refined one because the fact that the unkempt one has made it this far without looking like a professional underscores his actual professional skill[0], it really seems to me that some founders/senior execs instinctively prefer hiring assholes, because assholes must be really good at what they do -- look at how far they've come despite being an asshole!

[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...
Yes, I am saying the law is not accurately represented.

You're reading too much into what I said. The law is reasonable. The article is sensationalized, though not as much as the HN title.
IIRC non-profits can't make and keep profits.
Corps can, hence Mozilla Corp. They can keep profits around in order to.. like, purchase Pocket, or simply pay employees later when Mozilla makes less profit, or whatever else.

These things are hard or maybe impossible in a non-profit (IANAL/correct me if I'm wrong)
We do because we realize what the lack of it entails. So will the general public, eventually. And the only way to get there is if more cases like this start happening. It's a shame they have to learn the hard way but there's no other way. That, or we as an industry act up (in ways I can't even fathom).
Let's just say that I was a little sad that my case (not Uber) was settled via the works-council dispute resolution mechanism...

So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.
Nor in Boston or the Los Angeles / Orange County area.

I'm willing to believe it though. Far, far too many stories. I've also definitely seen it online in spades.
I know comments on this type of articles get extremely heated, but with no intention to favor any side, I will say this: What if she provided that "awful lot of information about herself" with the intent of deceiving the audience and creating the illusion that she's this person, when in fact she's somebody else?

Maybe she aggregated attributes from multiple women at Uber and created this new person which cannot be specifically indentified. I see this as a valid strategy to conceal one's identity.
Thanks for the correction. Buy Toyotas then, folks, if you can't afford Teslas. :D
Definitely rail, which is something like a zillion dollars per mile. The moon trip is only $40-160M.
The reason you have a computer that fits in your pocket, much less requires its own room with a reinforced floor is due to the NASA space program.

No. That's a common misconception. ICs were a commercial development, and microprocessors came from the calculator industry.

Pre-IC electronics miniaturization was pushed hard by the USAF; NASA just used it. The USAF had a flyable transistorized computer in 1954, before NASA existed. The Minuteman I missile (1962) carried a transistorized guidance computer.
> It's the poster-child definition of "big slow bureaucracy" and it's asked to pull off high complexity feats at large scale, with little, uncompetitive money to offer to recruits (in comparison to the private sector)

If you have good reasons why you cannot offer so much money, there are still options available to attract smart people for the job: Just give them a lot more intellectual freedom to do "the right thing" (instead of having to implement political compromises) and give them the authority to be really allowed to do so. Also not every smart person who can, say, program really well "is a startup guy". There are people who prefer a "more safe, plannable career" - here public service has something to offer. Also it might be a good idea to have the job at still attractive places that have a very low cost of living: What is interesting is "salary minus cost of living". So these jobs can still enable a higher standard of living than, say in SF or NY, while paying much less.

TLDR: There are lots of other ways to attract smart people if you have serious reasons why you cannot offer so much money. But you have to be willing.
I took a grad course last semester where one of the groups analyzed a Nest cam and the other analyzed the Mother sensor device. Both were surprisingly quite secure, especially the Mother, which had security features all the way down the stack.
Unfortunately there is no practical application for them. They're incredibly capable, but they're also expensive, fragile, and difficult to maintain. This is, in a nutshell, why Google decided not to hold on to the company - no consumer market whatsoever.
I would love an option that allows you to filter by ECC ram.
> China has been working up to getting a space capability to send people to the Moon with the full backing of the government funding, by 2035[1]. They started in 2003. SpaceX was founded in 2002 and they are saying they will fly someone around the moon next year?

I don't want to downplay SpaceX at all because I'm a huge fan, but isn't flying someone to the moon (and presumably back) more complicated than just flying around the moon and back? As I understand, apart from the challenge of achieving orbital velocity (no small feat), flying around the moon might require ~41% more velocity (assuming escape velocity to orbital velocity being a ratio of something like sqrt(2):1) and you can use the moon's gravity to redirect you back to earth, whereas landing on the moon and returning requires even more energy (slowing down to land + escaping the moon and returning), not to mention the various other technical requirements involved with the landing itself.

"Beyond the moon" makes this sound like it'll be a greater achievement than the Apollo moon landings, but I'm not sure that's really true. Don't get me wrong, the fact that it's a private (ish) company doing this is incredible, just not quite "moon landing" incredible... yet.
> What I really want to see is the other 20 men on her team tell their bosses to cut that shit out.

It sounds like the abuse is pretty universal, from the article: "It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn't participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved."

The 20 other men on her team were probably as concerned with keeping their job and not being abused. The big difference is that they can appear to fit in because they're men; women have a much more difficult job of it. But whenever everyone is keeping their head down, it's hard to notice that other people's issues.

The whole psychology of bullying comes into play and that is pretty complex. Yes, if everyone stood up against the bully they would win but how often does that happen in real life? Most people in this situation would likely just quit than put up with that environment so you're already left with those who can't or won't.

I'd like to think I wouldn't let that stuff happen around me but honestly I'm pretty unlikely to work in that environment in the first place. Where I do work, the culture is great and we are near 30-40% women in IT/Dev without even trying to hire for diversity.
A few years ago they were testing one of the big ones they built for the military called the legged squad support system. They were testing it in the parking lot, and it ended up rolling over and totaling this guys car. Turned out it was the guys first day there.
Allow me to ask you a rhetorical question: Do you see many Raytheon engineers telling the front lines who and where to shoot?
I have friend who is an engineering middle manager at Uber. I was having drinks with him and some of his direct reports (including 2 women), and they all told me that they've never experienced or heard of any of this behavior until recently.

Obviously that's anecdata (although it has the benefit of me knowing that it's true, as opposed to Amy's story), but I think people are jumping to conclusions here.

It seems that there is some kind of problem at Uber. The scope and size of it remains to be seen.
Sexual harassment is defined in the legal code, for the US at least. There's a pretty healthy history of cases to clarify the details.

If you're curious about it, your HR department probably has some training materials.
If only they would!
If you get an OrangePi 2e ($35) or an OrangePi PC2 ($20) both have gigabit that performs well, you could easily push 4k reliably from either. They also have libre VPU support so you can playback 4k content if you plug in an HDMI cable.
Real or not, no one's shocked because we just had a major eye-opener (Fowler) so recently.
I find this schedule very very unlikely. No humans have flown in the Dragon at all yet.
Also none on any of SpaceX:s rockets. There have been lots of launch and pad failures.

I'm cheering for SpaceX for doing more towards spacefaring, but I'm very skeptical and think this will, at least, end up being negative PR to them, and, at worst, a lot more.
The rational response from employees to stack ranking is immediately (or ASAP) quit upon receiving a low-ranking slot. Company is (ostensibly) happy to get rid of a "low performer", employee finds their market value, everyone is theoretically happy. Ironically, if your hiring process (arguably a difficult aspect of management and leadership) is firing on all cylinders, stack ranking is blind to that, and thus strongly disincentivizes improving your hiring practices in the first place.

It's a perverse form of letting bugs slip through careful coding and design practices when they are far cheaper to fix, and letting them loose into production facing customers when they are way more expensive (monetarily and soft factors) to resolve, but in the hiring and retention realm.

I learned about stack ranking the hard way. When I quit, it caused all sorts of commotion, culminating in the CEO personally calling me to nicely and politely ask me to stay, far contrary to my worst-slot ranking would suggest. That opened my eyes to its drawbacks. I can see a use case for stack ranking as a leadership tool in situations with clear featherbedding, but when used as a permanent policy it's management cargo-culting at best, Jack Welch fetishization at worst.
At least it's not an endorsement for SGML
Sure! But in this case, part of the functionality was that friends and family could send voice messages to the bear, which are then approved by the parent in app, before being pushed to the bear.

Based on how well the company is doing, it seems like this isn't really functionality that is deserved but it does sound like the justification for storing (some) messages is reasonable.
^This. The idea that I'm a failure if my company "only" sells for $100M is a recipe for perpetual depression and disappointment.
As others have said, possibly to make very disparate events comparable across a population, like the risk of skydiving vs. a shark attack. Unfortunately, this results in an almost useless measure for any particular individual when the probability of being in a risk group is small. Here is a breakdown of the risk for a random person in the US dying from skydiving in 2012 [0]:

(1 death / 100,000 jumps) x (3 million jumps / 350,000 jumpers) x (350,000 jumpers / 313 million people)

The last two terms give us the prior P(jump) ~= 0.01 and the first is the conditional probability P(death | jump) ~= 0.0001. The non-skydiver's risk factor is, of course, zero while the skydiver's risk is about 100x greater than that of the average person (who doesn't actually exist). As you can see, the population measure isn't very informative for either group.

[0] http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/skydiving8.htm
They were never actually sold, the only news related to it was back in march 2016 where alphabet said they were looking to sell. Afaik nothing has come up about it since.