skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I still don't understand why employers can't simply set up a two week "trial contract" where as promising candidates simply work for two weeks so everyone can actually see and judge, with real world empirical data, how well the person does in the environment at the actual job.

Yes yes..of course I know this could be gamed as well, but no matter...you can't really argue that this wouldn't be magnitudes better then the typical current/broken interview process.
Obviously every state should build their own parallel monitoring program with its own duplicated bureaucracy and time spent developing regulations. Because obviously people in New York and people in Alabama have different levels of plastic tolerance. Heck, I hear people in Alaska like plastic in their fish! Why are we taking away their rights?
Unless you're talking about a very high-level position that either requires substantial leadership traits or very specialized knowledge, interviewing has never been about finding the right person for the job, it's been about finding a right person for the job. The reality is that most jobs can be done successfully by a large number of people. The accuracy of the assessment of the candidate's abilities is, to my mind, a secondary concern in the interview process and yet, just as in this study, is the only part of the interview process studied and critiqued.

But what I find far more important in the interview process is involving current team members in the process of selecting new coworkers. It's one way of getting teams to be bought into a feeling of shared purpose and is the first step in establishing a working relationship. If you don't give at least some of the current team a role in the hiring process, teams will feel imposed upon by those hiring and won't be as understanding about flaws in those added to the teams.

Focusing on selecting the "right candidate" is really myopic in a situation where there are likely many right candidates. We should, instead, be focusing on not selecting a wrong candidate and fostering the right team dynamic. We already know that strong teams significantly outperform strong individual performers who don't cooperate. Yet hiring still seems focused on optimizing for strong individual contributions. And I've yet to see a study that looks at the flaws of the interview process in building ineffective teams.
VR has been around since the 90's so how slow do you want the growth to be? I hear PS3 has like a few million units sold... isn't that enough to sustain a VR dev team yet?
Much of this articles comes across as basically complaining: "these books are long and these books are hard". Why, it's true that sometimes this is a valid criticism, but what about when the subject matter really is long and hard to understand? What then?
Only because we use them as indicators of economic activity.

When stock markets plunge people panic and that panic is what causes economic instability. That's what causes issues. Economics is purely a product of human minds acting in unison or opposition.
Both MySQL and BDB require either copyright assignment or a CLA.

In contrast, Linux does not and GCC's FSF copyright assignment includes a promise that the software will remain free.
And worse, even as a consultant, you have a sample size of 1 with which to base all of your decisions re: what customers want, what solutions are best, etc.

Which makes you even less appealing to other clients.
>The postwar British disease was labour relations, which were handled far better in Germany with worker representatives at board level.

Interesting, UK went socialist after WWII while Germany went social democratic. I wonder what made the difference. Perhaps part of the answer is that the aristocracy retained more power in the UK? I have read that socialism in the UK was supported by the aristocracy as a way to keep control of the economy, but I am not sure if that is correct. Also, Germany was under US occupation for a number of years, I would suppose that made a difference, since the US is quite anti-socialist.
Sorry I was not more clear. What I meant was that the NY Times employs journalists and fact checkers and editors to validate stories, say on politics to make sure, to the best of their abilities, that the articles they post are correct.

Why is that not the case here, where a professor is allowed to sell his own work? It is as if Obama is the NYT reporter for Obamacare.

That people believe politicians blindly is a topic for another day :)
I'd pay money for this!
One major error in principle is that PlatformIO will infiltrate an existing Atom installation. PlatformIO can not be installed in parallel (as far as I know) and it will not warn before doing serious changes to your nicely nurtured Atom configuration.
You will be probably surprised how many plastics you can find inside a shrimps or any other sea creatures guts.
It is all just knobs. There are different standard types of modules - oscillators to make a sound, filters to shape the colour, envelope generators and low frequency modulation sources to control how it changes over time - and once you learn the main types you're good to go on most modulars. (Except for some of the weird new ones that have unusual modules you probably haven't used before.)

Is it a good interface? No. It's a terrible interface. Ironically it severely limits what you can do, because your arms are only long enough to reach a few feet - unless you wear roller skates.

If you need a module you don't have you can't complete a patch. You can only get more modules by buying them, and then they take up space whether you use them or not. They're priced somewhere between sort-of cheap and unbelievably insanely expensive.

When you make a patch, It's impossible to reproduce it with perfect accuracy. It takes a long time and copious notes to reproduce complex patches with imperfect accuracy, and any half-way complicated patch disappears into a mess of wires that's very hard to disentangle - conceptually, and literally.

I'm half a fan. I like some of the sounds, especially from the Major Name brands played by people who know what they're doing. But I also wish we could move on and start making software more interesting, more controllable, and better sounding.
I doubt that. The only way to bomb it is to make shit up, and I don't think you're the sort to do that.

I don't score it by how many option-letters people know. I score it by how well they demonstrate familiarity with a basic ops activity, which is finding out what's running.

Even if somebody said they never used ps, or like below, only use one incantation, that isn't a problem, because my follow-up there would be to ask how you'd find out what's using all the RAM or what's using a lot of CPU.

Maybe they're just used to using different tools, in which case I can ask for details for those tools. (And then check manually later to make sure I'm not getting snowed.) But if they've done a bunch of ops stuff, they'll demonstrate the sort of know-from-doing level of familiarity with something.

In theory I could just ask the broader question to start. But some people are good talkers, and I'm looking for evidence that people are good doers. All that said, I've shifted mainly to more experiential interview processes, as actually doing is the best way to see if somebody's a doer.
Why can't students just borrow textbooks from the library? I see the 'textbooks are expensive' complaint from Americans a lot and I'm confused. I never had to buy a textbook at my UK university, there were usually plenty of copies in the library. What's different about the US system?
Just to add on to this: even ignoring the SegWit incompatibility, ASICBOOST has real downsides. ASICBOOST incentivizes miners to do things like drop transactions or even create empty blocks often, delaying transactions and going against the reason Bitcoin has mining. If it was discovered as Bitcoin was being created, it would have been fixed like any other bug. But now, since it's being used by people known to be very anti-SegWit, some are politicizing the issue as if wanting to fix ASICBOOST is just a petty attack by (pro-SegWit) Core.

Then add on the possibility that the anti-SegWit movement might have been spawned or funded by people secretly using ASICBOOST who had no true philosophical positions about SegWit or the good of the Bitcoin network, and things are looking very... shady.
If someone is currently employed it makes that arrangement difficult.
...And yet she's a good comparison when looking at Bansky... while Selena Gomez is a Disney product of no great note.
Stem cells and steroids maybe?
Building a Model Is the Least Important Part of Your Job [video]
> Why?

We'll have to answer the questions of "How much is a life worth monetarily", "How much is this specific life worth in relation to others (or monetarily)", "Does this specific situation justify the loss of lives; if so, how many lives and, specifically, whose?", and "Who gets the power to answer these questions?"

We will have to act on the answers to those questions.

I believe those questions open an answer space that would give power to greedy, selfish, callous or indifferent people and ideologies to kill or let others die.

I believe if we accept a utilitarianism as justification for death, we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization and murder of certain demographics 'for the betterment of society' to kill for profit, power or any of the other reasons people have killed others in past.

I don't believe that people determine value well, so I don't buy into the utilitarian argument for much. I also haven't seen good evidence that we can accurately quantify the outcomes of situations used in the utilitarian calculus before they've happened. While I reject utilitarianism as a whole, I find applying the utilitarian principle to human lives to be particularly detached.

> If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it?

I realize the questions I listed above have been asked and answered, directly and indirectly, at different times and by different people. Those questions and answers have justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity.

I don't believe we should base policy on the answers to those questions.
If you care about cost you can get away with only a couple of locations, totaling maybe slightly over $100 monthly.
Best summary here, came to this thread all excited for some technical talk, a bit disappointing to see it immediately descend into the madness of the reddit-schism and bitcointalk

Feels pointless trying to argue an opinion lately, all the arguments have been made ad nauseum, nothing new is being said, all that exists is a WW1 trench warfare stalemate.

If proven, having Asicboost hardware seriously undermines Wu et al, but fear the fact will change little. People have taken sides, it's very hard to undo such a thing.

Note there currently is no proof of these claims, it's legitimacy from authority, would be wonderful to see some proof, and who exactly did the testing on the chip? In such a highly politicised environment, evidence is far preferable to sledging your opponent for a week and then backtracking once the damage is done.

Regardless, Asicboost would explain recent actions by mining pools that looks like self-harm to outsiders.

### On a lighter note ###

>I was heavily involved in the Bitcoin community a few years ago, but have been on the side lines recently.

Apt username
If somebody goes into an interview expecting never to be asked a question they might struggle with, I'm not sure they're somebody I want to hire.

But no, I don't think they walk away feeling interrogated. My style is pretty conversational, and when people don't have all the answers, I definitely work to make them feel comfortable with that. E.g., for this question I'd close with something like, "Of course nobody knows all the arguments to ls. I sure don't. So you did fine."
This is common in many areas of technology. There is a phase of rapid technological development, then it reaches the fundamental limits of the technology, and from then on it is all refinements.

For instance take a look at liquid-fueled rockets. The first one was built by Goddard in the 1930's, they advanced rapidly with the German V-2 and then the Soviet and American military and space programs, reaching a peak with the Saturn V that has not been exceeded to this day.
I thought cloudflare didn't have a data cap? I'm somewhat concerned.
I doubt that article was targeting 'hip, young kids' who wouldn't get the reference though. Selena when used as a mononym as far as I've ever seen has never been used to reference Selena Gomez (they typically always use her last name) and has always been used to reference Selena Quintanilla. Selena Gomez own name may even be some parental homage to Quintanilla considering how old Gomez is. Even Banksy has been active since the 90s.
Hmm. Have you seen any wholesale feature comparisons between the two that you'd consider objective and fair, and which debunk old myths in the process?
Interesting! How do you ensure enough kieselguhr is flowing into the mix to regenerate new layers of filter? Is it just based on periodic measurement of the end product, or is there some calculation or continuous feedback used?
People tend to be much too glib about this. Megan Mcardle nailed this:

"Moreover, people invest a lot in building up a professional identity, which helps make the work more bearable (and, by giving people pride in what they do, probably ensures that the work is better done). Suddenly abandoning something that has constituted a major part of who you are, and taking a job at the bottom of a new field, is not any easier for a machinist or a coal miner than it would be for a professional."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-06/some-blue...
At some point it becomes easier to beg for charity from family, friends and society​ so that it is not worth working. Hard labor that damages your body for minimum​ wage may not be worth it in the long term versus a cashier's position for the same wage.
The OA is talking a bit more specifically than just getting kids to play IMO. His title is Head of Innovation.

Innovation is corporate-speak for actual company processes where they change things up like their business model, or their target customers or their product etc. I believe he is talking about teaching some of those techniques in an education environment.

The attributes he mentions (relationships, curiosity, agility, creativity, empathy) are teachable skills in that context. The sort of lateral thinking exercises that Edward De Bono advocates or other brainstorming methods are used in the more kiddy version in alternative style schools like Montessori or Steiner schools.

In those schools it is an active-learning, constructivist philosophy where kids have to cooperate with each other on projects and seek out the info rather than be fed info. It's not like practical skills aren't taught. Some are very hands-on. They might build a windmill or something. As they do, they learn all about physics and mechanics.
I imagine there's a correlation there. But for me it's the danger that instead of admitting when they don't know they'll just bluff, going off and building things that look good but aren't. If somebody knows their limits and can admit them, you have to supervise them much less closely than a bluffer.
> I explained that the only effective approach I have found with recruiting is to have a set of pre-defined questions, and each question is specifically designed to give insight into how the candidate meets the pre-defined job requirements. Very much like software development, where test cases are related to software requirements.

This creates a system that can be gamed though. The interviewees can pass this information back to the recruiter and the recruiter can couch future interviewees. The recruiter has a vested interest in placing people.

It would be better to have a thousand questions that are randomly selected.
I view things differently. Back in the 60s when unions were strong and jobs weren't outsourced, employees got their fair share of corporate earnings, and a laborer could afford a middle class life with a car, house, and nuclear family.

Look at things today. The return on labor has dropped significantly due to outsourcing and immigration dropping wages at a time when corporate earnings are higher than ever and socioeconomic mobility is at an all-time low[1]. Productivity is higher & GDP per capita is over $50k/yr, yet the majority of people, especially in the lower class, have not been benefiting from this. I guarantee the corporate managers make obscenely more money than the farm laborers do. I personally don't feel it's bad to feel entitled to my fair share of the work I put in.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...
Sure, sure,... but you read "The Hard Things About Hard Things" and you take a look at the Pmarca's blog and some many other first hard sources/accounts about how it's really like to run a Startup and the common theme is not that of fun.
To me it has been grueling. So I can really relate to those stories. In my case is more about the challenge, not so much about having fun.
Cheers!
Not every job that pays $9.70 is necessarily dangerous, so I fail to see your point. That article is more of a representation of a greater potential issue.
Go-Figure (Print ASCII Art from Text with Go)
The things you mention are artistic limitations - tbey are features, not bugs.
"I feel like having a more common language would just lead people to bang their heads against the impossible or implement horribly inefficient algos not really understanding what's going on under the hood"

I completely disagree. The author is not really arguing for a "more common language" anyhow - he's arguing for a GPU language that avoids many of the inefficiencies and semantic problems with the current approach. To boot, he's arguing for an approach that allows better static error checking, which it's hard to argue against.

I have to say it's sad that Apple went with Metal rather than working to evolve Vulkan as an excellent standard. We'll see how that works out in the long run...
No, simply because it doesn't offer enough jobs to make a macro impact, and many of the issues tied to the destruction of the middle class are much larger than just job availability.

You know what could do it though? A new new deal focused not just on national roads and bridges, but public owned internet.
I have been a fan of Gun's and the HackingDistributed blog for a long time. It's one of the few sites I regularly read on my RSS feed, and he's one of the few people who really seems to "get" Bitcoin and on-chain scaling.

That said, I am surprised at how much this article seems to miss the point, given his otherwise stellar work. Gun, like many in the field, would agree that one of the defining characteristics of Bitcoin is its decentralization. Why, then, push the narrative that the current state of mining centralization is okay? Furthermore, how could it possibly be fine with him that these groups use a patented process - exclusive patents go against everything Bitcoin stands for - to cement their domination over other miners?

In my opinion, the fact that this was hidden invalidates much of the anti-SegWit rhetoric coming from the miners. We all can agree that the soft-fork is large and complex, but it is well-engineered, well-tested, and solves several hard problems while opening Bitcoin up to a variety of novel scaling situations. Now we learn that the opposition's absolute opposition was based on a hidden advantage, not any technical failing of SegWit itself. It is not possible to consider many of these criticisms honestly given this regressive, protectionist hidden motive.
That's incorrect. The FDIC is funded by banks, and receives no appropriations from Congress [1].

Further, this article, and hence the whole thread, does not distinguish between banking and investments (like Glass Stegall did). Depositors are never affected by a bank going under (up to FDIC limits). Rather, securities holders are affected. Huge difference.

Even in 2008, banks did not get bailed out by taxpayers, they got bailed out by the Federal Reserve, which again, is not funded by taxpayers. [2]

[1] https://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/
[2] https://www.richmondfed.org/faqs/frs
I'd add a few more caveats.

- Not all Spring projects seem to receive equal love. They can and do stomp on each other.
- Spring's get-going-quickly seems to mostly come from serious design assumptions. Which is fine per se but they are not made clear which is not OK.
- Spring is far too automagical. My latest bugbear is it deciding to change defaults depending on what it thinks I want. Bonus points for there being multiple settings that control the same behaviour only one of which can override.

You're not using Java anymore you're using Spring.
First, Congrats! Second, as you likely know by now, your child is basically a meat computer. It runs pretty well other than it needs routine debugging. It will feel a lot like working through a bit of code you only wrote half of at 3am having not had a full nights sleep in 5 months with 115 decibels melting your brain as you try to recall important subroutines. Enjoy it though, its over before you know it. =]
Might also want to note that it negatively affects borrows.

Especially those who are underwater on their home loan.
This might not be the place for this question, but can someone explain why we can't / shouldn't have both unlimited block sizes and SegWit?

Block sizes will supposedly be constrained by bandwidth / propagation times. SegWit will allow more transactions to occur off chain, reducing the need for larger blocks.

They seem complementary to me.
I was there and just the right age to be really excited about it. 1986 was a rough time in the Houston economy with the price of oil in the toilet, office buildings standing empty, and sad gestures like the city handing out "I'm Houston Proud!" bumper stickers trying to bolster the city's reputation in any way. This concert was an enormous free public event for the whole city, international and futuristic. He brought a Laser Harp! It was super exciting.
Mental Calisthenics for meditation and memory training
While this doesn't apply to every case, this certainly affected me as a university student:

1. Mandatory online assignments for credit that require a code from a new textbook. (Usually because then the professor doesn't have to grade the assignments.)

2. New editions of textbooks every year, where the order of chapters or questions is shuffled, requiring you to have the latest edition of the textbook in order to do an assigned problem set ("Read Chapter 3, do question 2, 3, 5, 7 on page 148" only applies in the latest edition).

3. Libraries often only have two or three copies of the textbook, and all the students want to access them at the same time (cramming the week before exams).

4. The university library has hours and closes at night.

5. Fewer people buying textbooks leads to textbook publishers increasing per-book costs to cover the fixed costs of a print run, leading to fewer people buying textbooks.

6. Different professors teaching the same course having different preferred textbooks. Both get listed on the course description, but you don't know which one you should buy until the first day of class.
If you want to maintain the basic benefit of a CDN, the cheapest I know of is OVH's CDN. MathJax says they use 70TB/month.

The OVH 100TB CDN plan is £509.99/month. Other CDNs would be 3x that amount or more.

It wouldn't be available much cheaper even if you skipped the CDN. A $20 VPS comes with 3TB outbound, so you would need 24 of them to spread across.

Of course, there may be some opportunity to fix their cache headers, or optimize their js/CSS/images and reduce that 70TB requirement.