skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The filter line is typically execution risk, which is to say that once you've demonstrated that people will pay enough money for the product that you can fund the business, growing the company to the point where it is net cash flow positive flips the switch.

The thing about Theranos was, as we found out, that they had yet to prove their fundamental thesis which was that you could do a useful number of diagnostic tests with a small amount of blood to the same confidence levels as the same test done the existing way. Fundamentally they could not show that to be true.

So in a more critical (or perhaps skeptical) investing environment, they should have stalled out several years ago when they couldn't demonstrate to new investors that they had a viable blood diagnostic process[1]. But for what ever reason that didn't happen.

[1] And yes there are stories that they simply lied about what was happening.
That or someone is vacuuming next to the universe simulating super computer.
The article has too few details!!!

It's difficult to google this, but after some tries I found:

[In Spanish] "Crece la anomalía en mesones B de LHCb tras Moriond EW 2017" http://francis.naukas.com/2017/04/02/una-anomalia-a-49-sigma... Autotransation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A...

"B-meson b-s-μ-μ anomaly remains at 4.9 sigma after Moriond" http://motls.blogspot.com.ar/2017/03/b-meson-b-s-mu-mu-anoma...

My takeaway: This is a 4.9 sigma anomaly. And it is a 2.9 sigma anomaly in an independent experiment in the other corner of the LHC. That's a lot and it would be very strange that it's caused by a statistical fluke. Anyway, they still don't have a good theory to explain this experiment. There are a few candidates theories that propose a new particle, but they don't have enough data. And usually this theories have a few parameters that can be adjusted to fit the data, so it's more difficult to distinguish between the real correct theory and a wrong theory with a astute election of parameters.
Yeah, I'm with coldtea here. This is very similar to the phenomenon where the "attractive" women in media were a specific type for a long time. Implication was others weren't or should look like them. All the fake experiences those media outlets pushed vs lower number many women experienced that were contrary made a lot of them think less of themselves or try to fake themselves into what "worked" (but was lies). I had similar trouble trying to get modeling agencies to take in women outside the fold who were utterly beautiful with long list of people that would want to date them. Not skinny enough, not tall enough, blah blah blah.

The BS the vanlife people are promoting might do something similar. Even worse, them faking the difficulty and reward ratio on many people who might have never heard of such scams on social media might lead them to waste money on a van or loose real opportunities. This can actually damage people like other forms of fraud. So, I certainly discourage doing it or aiding those people in any way.
Brian from Backblaze here.

> AWS picked highly available, redundant
> Backblaze picked redundant, and cheap

Both AWS and Backblaze have had (and will have more) outages. No single vendor is a good choice for a service that absolutely positively must stay up no matter what.

We liked this article that shows how to configure Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure, or Backblaze B2 so you are not susceptible to Amazon outages: https://cloudrail.com/avoid-next-aws-s3-outage-failover-scen...
That must be the slowest-loading page I've visited today, though.
Is this not a glorified data.world?
Of course, federal "income taxes" are less than 2/3 of total federal taxes on income.
React is mostly an API contract (React.Component) and it didn't change. If you didn't like it for this reason, you won't like more.

If you left React for performance reasons especially related to real-time updates or animations, well this version is better.
> We know what to do in such a situation (turn the monopolist into a regulated utility), but the current political climate won't permit this action.

Or, guarantee single payer and become a monopsony, thus combating the monopoly effects with an opposite market force.
We were sent an email and asked to pick a set of times. It was a ten minute conversation with a partner. I imagine each partner has the ability to set up a certain number of pre-interviews at their discretion if they want to gather more information on a particular startup - it's neither a positive nor negative signal, but simply an indication that they wanted to find out more information that's not in your application.
I will actually HAPPILY increase my retirement age: when employers stop firing engineers over the age of 55 and replacing them with college grads. I'm happy to work until 72 or even 75. I have a pretty generous vacation allowance, so I'm not feeling the "rat race" in that way anymore. What I'm feeling is the creeping dread as I approach 50, that I'm going to be rightsized.
I am also from india. Did you also get pre-interview
If we get a strange claim like "The 737 at MLW should have a stable approach speed of 170kts, with 70% N1 and 5 degrees of pitch", then asking for a source of information seems pretty reasonable here...

They usually don't find it because it is based on "shower curtain" type of sources. ("my brother told me", or "this other sim behaves this way")
It's a chicken and egg problem too. As the comment above referring to Apple having issues with SMBv2 and v3, they can't do anything but use SMBv1.

It's sad really.
It's because when you truly add a new capability to your toolset, like 100ms installs, or universal cross platform loading, this has ripple effects through every problem you solved before. Some things simply don't work in the new codebase, other things have regressed. Then you go back and one-by-one you fix everything to work in this new reality. This happens every time our aggregate software architecture gets a big new ability.

Of course if you're touching the same code over and over again, that's probably a sign you're not solving the problem well. Solving problems with a finality such that they don't have to be reopened again and again is the aim of good software engineering. That is true.

But in order to get there, you need to periodically add a major new capability—and thus a major new assumption—to your architecture. If you're not making these kinds of sweeping changes every now and then it's almost certain that you're not actually doing deep refactors that resolve longstanding challenges in lower energy ways.

Resistance to these kinds of sweeping changes amongst professional developers and their ambassadors at major platform companies is the reason why Windows, iOS, Oracle, and the like have stable interfaces and smaller audiences. On the web you don't need permission to write a whole new JavaScript framework, so people can take those first big steps, even though they are quite painful for the developer.
No. Think of blockchains as formalizing consensus reality. Each block, some "lucky" processing node (miner) somewhere gets to determine what that consensus actually is. The various techniques (proof-of-work, -stake, -etc) more or less make it hard for a bad actor to be that "lucky" node.

BC does this by letting everyone submit answers, but making it really hard (computationally intensive, aka, burn electricity) for your answer to the be the one that's accepted.

PeerCoin (to pick one) does this by making your likelihood of being The One correlate with your investment in the worth of the coin (literally how many of the coins you control). If you're the One, either your answer is accepted, or you're selected to give the answer, and then it's accepted - I'm not sure which.

You can also limit participation in your blockchain in combination with these; for example, a closed (invite-only) bitcoin would still burn electricity, but not nearly as much.
I don't know why the rest of YC is downvoting and claiming this isn't the case. If you search previous Theranos threads, you will find questionable comments extrapolating a blanket view on women in tech.
Based on my experience and from what others have told me, one of the best jobs if you want to learn how to interact and deal with people is to be a server at a restaurant.

It takes a lot to do the serving job well, you have to learn how to:

1) Communicate well, both listening and speaking

2) Keep track of many different tasks at a single time (put in orders, take out orders from the kitchen, get someone extra sauce, etc)

3) How to make people happy, especially when they're upset

Those are just a few things you'll get better at by being a server. I had five jobs before I started my career in tech, and serving in my opinion was the hardest, and I didn't do it for as long as the other jobs I had. But I'd be lying if I said it didn't teach me the most about human to human interaction.

A side bonus to serving is that you'll have much more respect for the people in that industry. It's not easy, and it's not the best paying, but being able to understand the waiters and waitresses serving you will help you make their lives easier, thus resulting in better service for you and those with you.
They did video interviews (10 min) with some companies at the end of last week, but no telling yet whether that's a good or bad sign.
See, Google should learn from Facebook: total API compatibility with the previous version.

They saw what happened with Angular and Angular 2—which Google named the same despite it being a totally different framework—and made a smart move.
>Since a properly executed barrel roll can be a 1-G maneuver, it's technically possible in any aircraft.

Although it's a low positive G maneuver it's not 1G, only straight and level flight is 1G, everything else requires a deviation from that to change direction. Wikipedia says it will vary between 0.5 to 3G throughout the maneuver which should be possible in almost all aircraft as it keeps fuel flowing and isn't a major stress on the airframe. It's probably even possible to do it at no more than 1.5G if you do it large enough so that it's even comfortable and not particularly noticeable for the passengers that don't look out the window.
It's easier than dealing with the blowback from slashing essential benefits from millions of seniors.

My guess would be that the marginal dollar provided to a 30th percentile income individual has a higher economic impact than a loss of 0.12 of a marginal dollar for a person making $150k.
Very common. Another fun example is the huge tax break MN gave to Northwest Airlines to build an Airbus maintenance facility in northern MN. They took the tax break and never built the facility. Or how about cable companies getting tax breaks to build out high speed internet in rural areas? One could go on...
It was never intended to be supported natively by browsers -- it's syntactic sugar for the React.createElement API. That's what I mean when I say JSX is Javascript.

That issue you linked to is 4 years old and is clearly a reflection of the poster being unfamiliar with React/JSX. The community has since unambiguously decided to avoid inserting more control flow in JSX. Also, I'm not entirely sure what the do/while plugin has to do with JSX.

> I do my templating in template literals

I would argue if you can write your code as easily with template literals as React/JSX your application isn't complex enough to warrant using a framework.
They also would let you leg sweep a lot more than a normal player would. I'd win whole rounds with just leg sweeps. Not the ideal kind of "fun" when playing a video game, but neither is getting perfectly, precisely owned every single time you jump.
Very frequently high altitude winds are used by airlines. It means that you are taking a path that looks sub-optimal for still air perspective but with wind added it is better.
Ask HN: Are you powerful? Will you quit email?
In his 2012 essay, PG suggested email will be replaced and the way to do it is through powerful people. Since they're all at the mercy of email too, they'd be the first to switch.

Now it's 2017 and I don't see powerful people leaving email.

I want to understand why. If you're powerful and are reading this, what's stopping you from quitting email?
I'm sorry this is getting downvoted so heavily, but there's a legitimate point here about the way things are talked about here. When Uber breaks the law and does really bad things and endangers people's lives, it's questionable at best. It's fighting outdated regulations that haven't kept up with the times, artificial monopoly busting, etc.

Theranos tries to apply the same kinds of tactics, and people are literally calling for Holmes to go to jail.

If you don't think there's a gender variable about how this is reported and perceived, you're nuts.

Most of you in this thread are approaching this the same way my ancient dad talks about women getting involved in the war effort during WW2.

Are women able to be as good at being men as men are? No? Then they have no place in x.

The conversation typically ends there because we have all these set phrases that we use to protect ourselves from our biases. "Decisions are decisions. Doesn't matter who makes them." Yeah right. It does matter who makes them, fellas. Marissa Mayer eliminates work from home at yahoo. The world freaks out. Jeff Bezos does the same thing at amazon: he's smart. This is good for the culture.

Or people say, "Code doesn't care who you are. It's either good or it's not. Doesn't matter who wrote it." Which is also bullshit because whether or not it compiles is the bare minimum for getting code into a review to begin with. It's everything after it compiles that's subjective.

The problem here is the implicit standard we have ingrained in us. When we interview a guy, it makes sense. Are you as good at being me as I am? Yes? Great. Hired.

The issue should be obvious by now, but I'll make clear: if you only hire people exactly like you, you only get products that are exactly like what you want.

Diversity in the workplace isn't about diversity because it's fair. It's because we need it to produce real products that people want to use. It's because being a man in the world isn't the only thing worth doing, and we need to have our minds changed and our perspectives altered some times.

We are refusing to value anything different from ourselves. Which stupid. The idea that any of us really know it all is really fucked in the head.

I currently work at a company with a female CEO. She makes different decisions and places priorities than any male I've ever met would.

And I could not be happier. It's totally different from any job I've ever had in the tech world, and it's fantastic.

you people downvoting the thread need to grow up and take a closer look at yourselves and your lives. You are a big part of the problem with gender and racial bias in our industry.
I wouldn't necessarily say that! I think pre-interviews are simply an indication that a partner wanted more information about the startup. That might be because the information was omitted or because it wasn't within the scope of the application. I suppose the only certain conclusion you can draw is that prior to the pre-interview you hadn't yet been rejected. But seeing as each application is read by at least one other reviewer, and the 450 highest weighted applications are sent invitations, I don't believe that a single pre-interview has an extremely positive or negative bearing on your chances of being invited to final interviews.
That's what I came for. Oh well. Suggest title change to "I reverse engineered firmware for motherboard LED's."
You're conflating human level intelligence with artificial intelligence for one, AI doesn't have to be human level to be AI. Secondly "statistical smoke and mirrors" is the Chinese room fallacy; it doesn't matter what it is under the covers, if it behaves intelligently then it's intelligent regardless of whether or not it can be boiled down to some math. Your link covers that near the beginning when he discusses duck typing, but he comes to the wrong conclusion. The article should have ended there, if it behaves intelligently, then it's intelligent, that simply is the truth and looking at the implementation is cheating because we don't know brains aren't doing the same thing.

What's really going on is you are branding "human intelligence" special because we don't understand its implementation and labeling everything else not intelligent because we do, for all we know the human mind itself could be nothing more than statistical smoke and mirrors. The only problem here is human ego.

A car that can drive me somewhere on its own simply by being given a destination, is AI, not matter how it's implemented as long as it's the computer doing the driving and is operating locally by actually having sensors that see the road. It doesn't have to be able to ponder its own existence to be AI.

Neural nets were an attempt to model how the brain works; they are by definition AI regardless of whether they boil down to some maths. Everything a computer does boils down eventually to some maths, that is not an escape hatch to claim something isn't AI.

Machine learning is AI. It is not AGI, but it most certainly is AI.
The point you make is definitely valid. I personally know people who are likely to vote against the Lib Dems having previously supported them for exactly that reason.

Regarding detailed analysis, you might find the Ashcroft polls interesting if you haven't seen them before. He did a write-up shortly after the referendum[1], primarily about who voted which way and why. Then there have been a couple more interesting ones just a few days before today's announcement as well[2,3], looking at current expectations regarding Brexit and more general voting intentions.

Spoilers for [1]: The top three reasons identified for Leave voters were (most significant first) sovereignty, immigration, and lack of control over ever closer union and EU expansion in the future. The top three reasons identified for Remain voters were the economic risks of leaving, Single Market access without being in the Eurozone or Schengen area being seen as the best of both worlds, and the feeling of becoming more isolated if we left.

Spoilers for [2]/[3]: Everything you've been assuming about the Tories being dominant in British politics today is true, except that you've probably underestimated just how utterly dominant they actually are and how unpopular both Labour and the Lib Dems are. It's going to be a long few weeks if you're not a blues fan.

[1] http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-...

[2] http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/04/new-political-landscape...

[3] http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/04/more-from-my-brexit-res...
Regarding values: An emphasis would be placed on Constitutional values, with an intentional focus on ambiguity and how the Constitution has/has not changed over time. Slavery and civil rights would be a fascinating topic to cover through this lens.

The goal should be training new citizens to be unbiased critical thinkers by exposing them to a flood of new ideas while teachers emphasize socratic questioning, debate, communication skills, research, and related skills (eg statistics). Disagreement is absolutely fine, that's the American way... as long as students have the tools and mindset to effectively research and debate new ideas, with the humbleness to change positions.

Ideally, education also would involve a mandatory exchange program to expose students to other lifestyles and subcultures while continuing to work through their school program.
One of the differences is that men (as a group) get vastly more positive press about actual accomplishments. One insidious form of sexism, racism etc is the degree to which we mostly talk about certain groups when there is something negative to say.
Trump's H-1B visa executive order
I don't know... I work for a (non-unionized) company about half the size of Boeing, and we don't have anywhere near that level of bureaucracy, so I have a hard time accepting the premise that "that's just how things have to be." I'm sure there are a lot of contributing factors, but I don't have a hard time imagining unions contributing to process creep by mandating the allocation of tasks in a non-optimal way.

I'm no hardcore anti-unionist, but this particular situation seems like a very plausible late-stage union failure mode.
Are you seriously pretending to think he's claiming Bangkok is the same size as the City of London?
Why does technology have to move from Serious to Frivolous (or Enterprise to Consumer if you prefer?). Think the other way: consumers will be more tolerant of bugs or functionality gaps and can build ubiquity and experience, then it can branch out.

E.g. if the googly-eyes don't track right it's no big deal, but when that has been more robustified then pilots can trust real time overlays of weather radar predictions through their cockpit windows.
I love the way the graph shows they actually broke some tests recently
Is it that absurd?

Building Java applications using Undertow with a build setup in gradle is not _that_ different from a node.js service using Express and package.json for dependencies, or a Ruby, Sinatra and Rake stack. After having tried all three, I ended up going back to the JVM. It's not a perfect ecosystem, but it's damned good one.
"Last summer, the state supreme court ruled against Loomis, reasoning that knowledge of the algorithm’s output was a sufficient level of transparency"

I hope this mentality doesn't make it up to the federal Supreme Court. This is definitely a faulty argument presented by the state to be sure.
They just had a massive round of layoffs that hit cloud as well. That doesn't mean they are pulling out ,but its also not a wild success.
I don't know about Java frameworks and build tools really making things easier. They just shift problems around so that instead of having to deal with the Servlet API (say) you have to deal with Spring idiosyncrasies, IDE integration troubles, cognitive overload by too much tooling, and endless discussions about the "right" way to use a particular frameworks or design pattern. Saying this from 20 years of Java experience.
No. YouTube announced recently that they aren't paying out on videos with less than 10K views.

http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15209220/youtube-partner-pr...
I think it could be some issue with hardware acceleration then? The link is a bit old so I don't know if things are still the same, but I used this long ago.

http://www.webupd8.org/2014/01/enable-hardware-acceleration-...
The case for (and against) “new hip” technology stacks
Fallacy of the excluded middle, man. There's other options.
Illustrating a more human brand (Dropbox)
> I don't know about others but I tire of these comments chiding the "out of control" front-end ecosystem

Old people also get tired by all these "apps" wining for your attention; they want "just a phone". Young people grew up with it. Note to self: I'm getting old.

Old people were used to buying development toolset (compiler+tools+IDE), usually including a physical book, with which they can create software. Young people are used to assessing open source projects, and piecing a project together on top of many freely available libraries/frameworks.
That's silly - if anything it's the other way around. Web tools have a ridiculous degree of corporate backing, especially with the countless libraries from Facebook and Google (React, Angular, Go, Dart, Flow, IMMUTABLE, etc.), and even Microsoft with TypeScript and others. Meanwhile, Make and friends don't have any corporate backing.
The general consensus among the flight sim community is that their license from Microsoft forbade them selling it as a video game, to avoid them competing with first Microsoft and later Dovetail.
That apple.com link you clicked on? Yeah, it's actually Russian
Nor do fuel injected engines, nor jet engines.

Electrical planes have a weight issue with the need for batteries (or humongous wings covered with solar panels). Petroleum products, for better or worse, still have a huge advantage in the energy/weight department.