skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You should tell that to the Go team so they can stop doing it everywhere.

Edit: I realize this came off as snarky, sorry.

I'm somewhat serious though. In my current Go installation I count 519 type switches in the standard library.

Some exist for perfectly valid factoring reasons. For example, the x509 package switches on the type of the public key it receives in order look up some x509-specific values for encoding. It would be a layering violation for the public keys themselves to have x509-specific encoding values attached, and Go doesn't permit the x509 package to declare new methods on types defined in another package. (They _could_ define a new interface which extends PublicKey, and declare a new local wrapper type for each supported public key type, embedding the external ones then attaching methods as needed - but this is sufficiently clunky that I've never seen it done in Go core).

But there are plenty of other cases, especially in the crypto packages, where the type switching seems gratuitous. For example the crypto.PublicKey interface is actually empty - 100% of public key functionality is implemented through some kind of type assertion or switching. Maybe there really is a good reason for this, but it's not obvious to me.
They said the same thing about Groupon and somehow they're managing to keep their heads above water.

I haven't seen them in the news at all in the last year or so.
I'd be interested to know if your thoughts on this change once you do. I don't think people who haven't had children can really understand how parents feel about their own children. I know I didn't.
Thanks for the encouragement, we probably ride it out. Our competitor goes to our customers and shows how he is 'better' on seo (it's relevant to our customers). We probably need to educate our customers more.

Sadly the seo is very heated in that niche, so we went for long tail queries roughly 12 months ago.

Yes we know, we would love to get of the seo addiction, but for us others channels are not working as good (we do newsletters, FB, Twitter, Google, print etc. also).
The UK has by all accounts tried to agree this ASAP before article 50. Europe (specifically Germany) has blocked this.

It seems cold but it would be irresponsible of the UK to not defend the rights of the millions of British citizens living in Europe. You'll notice that all EU countries have acted the same way.
Well, most of the dire economic predictions of Brexit would never pan out until Brexit actually happens anyway, so it's way too early to expect that. It's not like things were going to collapse immediately upon the result of the vote (although the drop in Sterling in the immediate aftermath was pretty impressive).

Yes, there are downsides to the EU, but the idea that we can do better by going it alone just seems absurd to me.
I wonder if a good solution is to introduce a landfill fee on these companies for each product they manufacture that makes it to the landfill and keep a public registry for each brand. This way there is an incentive to make longer lasting products from both a financial and brand reputation perspective.
Actually, after reading the walk.go code I still wonder what the best way to do it would be. (Not saying it's bad now, though I'll still remain my devils advocate)

As I skimmed through the code, in my opinion you could easily have a Walk(v Visitor) method on each of those node types.

This way you'd have no need for casting, and in the Walk method you would be able to use type-specific functionality without the need to cast. The only disadvantage I see is that the Walking functionality would be spread out among the code in different places, but this isn't a problem with modern editors.

I'll note this down somewhere and if I have time I'll test it out sometime.
>> Isn't that exactly what you saying here.

No, that's not what I'm saying. "Every single manufacturer" does not need to coordinate for this kind of problem to exist. Otherwise, it the numerous instances of this kind of collusion which have actually been outed, over the years, would not have been possible.

All that's necessary is is insufficient competition in a particular sector. We see this increasingly in the industrialized, Western world, where just a few megacorps handle almost all of the business, much more so than in the past. I would attribute this to largely to less free markets, which reduces competitive forces that would normally prevent this sort of thing. Large corporations are often allowed to buy influence, dictate legislation, that create barriers to entry in the very markets where one sees this kind of dysfunction. Less cynically, one can also look to industries with rising capital costs, e.g. if it takes super expensive R&D to compete in a market you might see just a few large firms.

Once there are just a few firms in a particular sector, it's tempting to form a cartel. But it's not necessary to explicitly collude in order to be less responsive to competitive forces, or even to communicate.

If you read the OP's article you may have noticed that the author points out the diminishing number of firms in the appliance business.

>> The world isn't big enough for two things to be true at the same time.

No a particular market sector isn't big enough for these two things to be true at the same time. One "honest"/driven competitor will largely rout out such bad behavior, which I think is a more proper statement of your core insight here. So the question we should be asking ourselves is, why can't one good competitor enter the marketplace for washing machines in today's climate, e.g. a significant market share selling 30-year washing machines, since that's clearly possible?
Interesting. What about eating with your wife/husband/SO? Are they on the same diet? Kids?
You have good judgment and I have good judgment but the troop who's whole problem is poor judgment WRT a dumb permanent solution to a temporary treatable problem is by the nature of the problem not going to react very well to "that created a chance" and "vulnerable to exploit" type of talk. If the whole point is they're coming up with a drastically wrong solution to a problem, theoretical probability talk is the same as 100% certain to them in their bad judgment situation. Or maybe another way to phrase it is if the troop inaccurately thinks he's in the worst situation humanly imaginable, telling him that the half of the guys who aren't in the very worst situation turn out fine, isn't really much encouragement, because by definition if the troop had judgment good enough to interpret the problem as something the docs can patch up, it wouldn't be a problem... From the point of view of the troop with a problem, you're publicly agreeing with me.

Another important point is in the army its not as simple as civilians see everything not forbidden is compulsory and everything not compulsory is forbidden. Its much more nuanced and for lifers losing out on a competitive slot or promotion or MOS reclass is a major problem. There's a difference in the army between "we're kicking you out" and "we're not supporting your career progression anymore". Essentially the latter is waiting for them to leave, the army can be surprisingly passive-aggressive as a policy. Yes if you go to BH you almost certainly won't get kicked out for that reason, but a hoped for career and retirement could evaporate just as effectively as if the troop got kicked out.

I haven't filled out a SF86 in probably 30 years, but I found a copy online at opm.gov and its right there on page 84 they want all the info on any mental health counseling. If it truly didn't matter then they wouldn't be wasting time asking.

I can sympathize with the Army's need to kick mentally ill people out (preferably with treatment). The problem with a depressed chopper pilot is if he decides to CFIT into a mountain that's a very expensive helicopter and the passengers almost certainly didn't want to come along. The fundamental nature of the army mission is an individual's problem is the team's problem.
I really love GNU GUIX SD (the distro based on this package manager). I just wish the linux-libre crew would bite the bullet and simply publish an actual HCL. "Some transmitters with this chipset may not work because they require non-free firmware (that we deliberately changed the kernel to refuse to load)" doesn't really work for me.
The British are willingly giving away their EU citizenship. Since each member state sets its own rules regarding non-EU immigration, the EU can not "force" anything to happen or not happen.

EU citizenship entails, among others, the rights of freedom of movement and of non-discrimination because of nationality. The UK has made it abundantly clear that it will not respect these rights, regardless of what the EU or its member states do. Ending freedom of movement and being able to "put British people first" were among the main arguments of the Brexit campaign.

So why wouldn't somebody consider leaving a place where they and their families will be open to discrimination, and where they will be allowed to remain only at the whim of the UKBA?
Interested as well. It really seems like selection bias has a play, but I am just speculating.
I'd like to disagree. I work in advertising in London and about 50% of people I work with are from the EU. They're annoyed that they are being used as a bargaining chip for EU discussions. Many of my colleagues are already discussing / planning moving to Amsterdam, Berlin or Madrid. London is expensive enough to live in as it is, now no one feels welcome. And that's just advertising, then there's the NHS.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume people will want to leave, the US election provoked a similar line of thinking ("if Trump wins I'm moving to Canada because X") and yet it doesn't seem to be happening.
It's rather astonishing that Google avoids doing anything effective about the hate speech and death threats that infest YouTube, so they can focus their efforts on removing health information and wedding videos.
> (would probably do it in a few threads, sending messages between each other).

The problem is that I try to abstract these things away – in Java, I have a general framework, and just do

var c = new ObservableCollection<Message>();
var f = new AsyncObservableFilter<Message>();
f.setSource(c);
f.addFilter(new DayChangeMessageFilter());
f.addFilter(new CollapseJoinLeaveMessageFilter());
f.addFilter(new RemoveIgnoredMessagesFilter());
var adapter = new ObservableAdapter<Message, MessageViewHolder>();
adapter.setCollection(f.getResultCollection());

and then I can do

c.add(new Message(new Date(), "cube2222", "Well, I don't see any problems with the logic part."));

And this works for any type – I can use the same code for observable collections of IRC networks, of channels, etc. And I do use them for that. And if I change the filters, it also does the minimum amount of work necessary to update the list, and not a single CPU cycle more.

I’m using it with over 11 different types in the Java version, and I’d have to maintain 11 identical, but with different types, versions in the Go version.

You can understand how much of a pain in the ass this is.

Oh, btw, this also abstracts away the entire thread handling, while still doing it in a reasonable way.

And the backing collection doesn’t have to be a normal ObservableCollection storing data in memory – I also have ones using SQLite as backend, or caches, and I have the ability to add listeners for scrolling up or down to load or unload data as well, if it’s not needed anymore.

In Go, I’d manually have to reify all these, and if I find a bug in one, I’d have to update all of the others, too.
NPR recently aired an opinion by someone who claimed that the US federal government could save money in the long run by buying the (publicly traded) inventor of a Hepatitis C drug on the open market (for about $500M) and then manufacturing and giving the drug gratis to all diagnosed Hep-C patients. The large up-front expenditure is recouped on the back end by reducing the expensive liver transplants that would likely be required, and then paid for by Medicare.

It is an argument-in-miniature for reforming health care in the US.

In all likelihood, the US should be operating its own generic pharmaceutical manufacturing facility, for all clinically relevant patent-expired drugs, that would, at minimum, serve all VA, Medicare, and Medicaid patients. If you can pay from an effectively unlimited purse, that just encourages the generics manufacturers that you buy from to raise their prices to just beyond the limit of what is reasonable.

Curing disease is usually less expensive than continuously treating them until the patient dies (or runs out of money). The patent system encourages research into the latter. A public health system would prefer the former.

The quest for (economic) profits in an industry is by definition the quest to make it more expensive relative to other industries. You can't get better than average returns from companies in it unless their customers are paying more money into it relative to other industries. Granted monopolies allow firms to achieve economic profits. Health care is expensive in the US because it is protected from commoditization. That is by design, so that health care businesses can be (economically) profitable!

It stands to reason that you cannot achieve lower costs without destroying opportunities to realize economic profits. That is why this administration and all previous administrations fail at "fixing healthcare". They are already committed to preserving the profits. Health care company shares make it easier for those that own them to live at the expense of those who do not. The noise about insurance plans and coverage is distracting everyone from the root cause: for-profit businesses with protected monopolies.

Drug research can be done with the goal of improving quality of life rather than the goal of making more money than can be earned by investing on the no-risk baseline.

Patents make an industry more expensive for everyone else to buy from. That is their purpose. The original intent was to make otherwise untenable investments in R&D pay off. But in mature, non-nascent industries, they are a drag on the economy.
There are further benefits to insurance once it gets more advanced. Actuaries, along with experts studying the domain being insured, find an appropriate price for insuring various different options (ex: living by the shoreline vs however many meters inland) which provides a sort of regulation. It gives consumers a well informed number for any given risk. Even more advanced, they'll start to research new ways to make the activity safer. See: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Granted, gambling does give you betting markets which may help predict the future as well. But I would guess for broader topics only. Perhaps someone could enlighten me otherwise.
Export multiple bigquery tables/queries to single Excel or GSheet file
Oops, yeah should say <100k. Still. Quite small.
We have analyzed those and sadly they are benefitting from them. The sites have no real content, users only click through (we did some user research).
The salary of blue collar workers adjusted to inflation have stagnated. But when compared with the price of the appliances themselves, it is much higher than it was in the 50s. A washing machine was an investment and something the family planned and financed though an easy payment plan, not something you piked up at the supermarket with grocery money. The appliances themselves were designed and expected to be repaired, just like a car or is today.

Meanwhile, the skill set required to fix an appliance has increased beyond blue collar level (complex automation, sensors, switching power supplies and motor control) while the large diversity of brands and technical solutions requires specialized parts which are rare and thus expensive due to simple economics. A vicious cycle is enforced where repairs become expensive relative to the appliance cost, less people perform them, therefore it does not pay to design for repair because it will make your appliance more expensive, therefore it becomes even harder to repair - so even less people do it.

The reliability has indeed gone down and it has a detrimental effect on the environment. But it's not a conspiracy, it's basic economics in an consumerist environment. There is no evidence for a cartel of planned obsolescence. The appliances are build cheaply enough to last just enough for the average life consumers expect, during which they are usually covered under warranty.

People don't want refrigerators that last a life time, they want refrigerators cheap enough so they can replace them every 5 years. They might say otherwise but vote with their wallets for just that. You might not be in that category, me neither, but we are a but a statistical blimp in the market, not enough to induce manufacturers to change this behavior.

To illustrate the point further, take the car industry. The reliability, performance, affordability and eco-friendliness of cars have all improved dramatically form the 50s, despite similar consolidation and reduction in competition. Why is that ? Because cars are expensive, people expect them to be repairable and function reliably for decades.
Could you point out the hindsight? What's different since 2005, in my perspective, it that it is now clear that there has been no political will to let bad loans go bad (evidenced by the government's responses since 2009). If you expect that to remain the case, it makes sense to not sell. If you expect that to change, and that house prices should go back to their historical income ratios, then it makes sense to sell.
If only it were possible for Apple to launch new dev hardware alongside the new platform. Whenever or if ever it comes out.
What’s Attacking the Web? A Security Camera in a Colorado Laundromat
Siblings are one of the main perpetrators of sexual abuse.

This isn't normal sexual exploration, but actual abuse.

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/sibabuse.htm
Or chia seeds.
Many of my European friends have left or are thinking about leaving. For them the UK is a much less friendly place since the referendum and is seeming less and less like a place where they would want to raise a family.

I myself left a few years ago and Brexit has only solidified my decision to never return. Unlike most Britons in the EU who are being left in limbo, I am lucky enough to also hold an Irish passport.
You claim that they have the "13th highest suicide rate in the world." Do you have a source for that claim? The linked table only contains 26 countries out of 196 countries in the world; so you cannot conclude what you conclude based on that table alone.

PS - What I find interesting about that table is, countries where it is socially acceptable to complain (and to "be sad") there is less suicide than in countries where the expectation is to be positive/happy all the time. Just kind of the inverse of what you'd expect, the UK having a low suicide rate is hilarious given how self-deprecating of a society we are.
What you're seeing is the "though on crime" trap all politicians fall into. Vote for law X and show you're tough on crime. Oh you didn't vote for law X? Then you're not tough on crime, and that's why votes should go to your opponent in the next election. US politicians MUST be tough on crime or risk losing election.
Even if we kept those animals around for human consumption, we could cut the rest 99.9% out to save resources. As a pragmatical vegan, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

Lambs are usually slaughtered after 6 months. In Sweden, to use an example close to me, lambs have the right to live outdoor for two to four months during the summer depending on where in the country they live, which means that they spend at least 2-4 months indoors not grazing this non-arable land. They must be watered and fed, which increases energy consumption, and usually fed from land that could have grown crops for humans directly. Only a fraction of the energy we put into animals gets returned when we eat them, which means it's far more energy-efficient to eat the plants directly.
It's basically correct in the US case.
Why would your fridge need a calendar app?
End-To-End Crypto: Secrets – Tozny
Which investors are you pitching to? If "capital intensive" is the main complaint, perhaps you are trying to raise the wrong kind of funding. Is the "capital intensive" due to the need to float money between payment cycles? If so, perhaps you would fare better trying to raise a line of credit from a bank. Or, specifically target fintech funds.

Also, where did you get the first 250k from? Are those investors not interested in further investment? If so, that's a very negative signal and you need to figure out how to fix it.
We will not know for a while yet but the sample size of this event is 0. We have no historical precedent to learn from.

What we do know is that the specific growth predictions from the government, thinktanks, Bank of England, and independent economists for the immediate aftermath of the referendum turned out to be completely wrong.
Having written a recursive descent parser after reading Bob's Pratt Parser post (and the other three notable Pratt Parser blog posts), I can attest to the fact that you can attain it :-)
Ok! We've changed it now.
The parent comment on which this thread is based is arguing that Uber's elimination of top-heavy management in traditional taxi companies is so great that they should be able to profit even if they never achieve self-driving cars. Clearly if they can entirely eliminate the cost of labor it complicates the question.
ETL Starter Kit
Pay for traffic and make it profitable. It's a more useful skill long term than playing the Google Black Box SEO Game.
10kg of steel would cost about USD$10.00, and then shipping it around the world costs again. At my factory, we use the number "50 cents a pound" as an average cost for shipping pallets around the lower 48 states.

So your extra 10 kg would cost me about $20 more. At retail that would be another $100 or so. In other words, making it 10kg heavier would sharply increase the price; it would also be for things that aren't easily visible to the consumer. Your competition would destroy you.

Source: I own a factory.
This is my assessment as well. People at the c-suite level had to be aware that viability of the company is highly reliant on the magical thinking that they could get to market with driver-less tech before the VC money runs out. The (very real) prospect of complete restart of that research program has likely freed them of the fantasy.

I'm not totally discounting the PR issues as a partial cause of the exits. As a c-level employee, you (more than most hires) have to answer for rotten company culture. I also, however, think both issue (lawsuit and PR issues) make it untenable for the current batch of executives to stay on.
I disagree with the other comments. I think it's because the rides are currently cheaper than they need to be. From the airport to my place, it costs 50$ via normal taxi. Via uber pool I pay $10-12. Most of the times it's only me in the car. There you have it.
One imagines the cost of complying with labor regulation in those countries makes for better economies of scale. I agree that "seldom in the U.S." is more precise, though.
> What happens when Breitbart or HuffPo or various YouTubers and bloggers get caught in a lie? Nothing. Nobody's head is put in the noose.

You switch to a different information provider.
3 Ways to Discover Your Unique Selling Proposition
This is the pain of text. The text format has won so handily that we rarely consider the possibility that files could be anything other than a sequence of characters. But if it were a tree instead, then "parsing" would be a simple, linear-time process with good error messages.
Ag-Grid Partners with webpack – Budget grows to 80k
If the algorithms don't catch them, they'll eventually attract the attention of a human Google reviewer, at which point they'll be assessed a manual penalty that will show up in the Search Console: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604824?hl=en