skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
- Programmers are increasingly more "API plumbers", not "pathfinders". The change being you have to more often create an "easy to maintain" glue layer between lots of existing code (most of which your company wrote a bunch of years ago, or is external to your code in a framework or library) instead of solving a problem from scratch using CS basics.
Interview questions haven't shifted to "this library has such and such function calls, how would you expect it to report an error?" or "describe two distinct UI frameworks you have used and explain their differences". They're still very much in the era of OK we have two rectangles, how do we find the overlapping pixels.

- Software is increasingly built in teams. We don't ask about "how you handled a difficult person on your code review" or "how would you break this change in to two logical commits" or even "what's a good name for this function", all of which are more important than knowing the big-o for some obscure interval tree.

- CS 101 algorithms have very little to do with how they are implemented. e.g, in a recent discussion with a co-worker I discovered libstdc++ hashtable's iteration orders depend not only on hash code but also on insertion order. Looking at how libstdc++ and MSVC implemented hashtables was both very difficult and exhausting to follow and had many many more details than the typical CS 101 approach of just hash the key and direct lookup the bucket! Turns out writing code that is really fast needs more than knowing the big-o.

- Big O is such a garbage simplification of all the "fundamental" knowledge. Why not just ask some fundamental graph or combinatoric counting questions? Why nothing about what is computable and what is not, or which languages are regular? What about information theory? How come no information recall or database questions? or even these days with all the ML, why not some basic linear algebra?
In addition to what the other commenters said: HTML/DOM is a presentation-oriented document model. It's the "V" in MVC. It only works as the data model for something that is analogous to HTML.

In particular, the moment you have content (data) that doesn't map 1:1 to DOM, you have an issue. For example, imagine I want to embed a "photo object". It's not just an image; it also renders the photo credit/copyright underneath. But that makes it a composite; internally, it's a photo ID, the dimensions, maybe some cropping info, plus the crediting metadata. So the internal data node no longer maps directly to the DOM. Internally, you want a single node, but in the DOM it would have to be multiple when rendered.

Same goes for other composite embeds like videos, maps, forms, tables and so on.

Editors are classic MVC: Regardless of whether the view is HTML, Cocoa, Qt, whatever the Windows UI API is these days -- you need to keep model decoupled from it.
Know that all other mail clients will feel inadequate ever after. If you are forced to use something else at work, you might quit and end up homeless.
> But what do you think motivates developers to invent in the first place? Without that motivation where would the ecosystem be?

Developers develop because they feel a need to develop. No more, no less. Painting, music, writing, etc. are similar.

Creators create because they must create.

I'd say open source invalidates the assumption that there would be no advancement without patents.

All the while the evidence has piled up that patents actually don't promote advancement anymore:
https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_print.html

> http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/

Interesting, but I would point out that he was making those statements at a point in time where the US was literally ripping off anything and everything in the UK that was patented (aka: what China has currently been doing to the US).

That time period is, in fact, a prime example of advancement without strong patent protections.
Duterte was elected five months ago with massive popular support and the Philippines is still mostly categorized as democratic.
I don't expect my phone charger and my car charger to be interoperable.

That's just a huge gap in physical requirements.

Phone charger and beefy laptop? Still different, though more similar.
It probably involved lots of solar as well as the main energy input.
One issue i've seen is that bad tools create lack of accountability. People seem perpetually jaded because there is shit down every street they try to walk down. People silo themselves up to avoid walking around and any request from others becomes an imposition because it requires leaving the silo. There aren't any bears or rebels outside creatinf a dangerous environment, it's literally just shit in the streets. It's not death by apocalypse but by a thousand termites.

the unaccountability is key here. It prevents solodifying the obstacle and instead makes it a fog. It doesn't matter the cultural "fit" of new hires entering this fog
There are outliers but most systems fall between two extremes of regulation, the heaviest regulation is basically a socialist system, owned by the people, run as a public service and so directly regulated. the lightest regulated is a private system, in a country that believes in free trade, unimpeded, Laissez-faire. As a general rule, the latter gives you worse outcomes at higher prices and is, from a patient perspective, unsustainable. the former gives you better outcomes at lower prices and scales with the countries needs (along side GDP) and is very sustainable.

Switzerland has very heavy regulations, everyone is covered by a national insurance system like other EU countries, but the very fact that its private companies that carries out the health care show in the stats, they pay almost twice the GDP of the UK for about the same outcomes, same with Germany, which has a similar system, its about 18% of GDP (and their GDP is higher per person).

"I am saying that its able to make money which gives it flexibility" - if this is really what you are trying to say, then you should have started with "Private, profit driven health care is fine for rich people", which i would have agreed with.

"waiting time for operations, to see a specialist" - this is a bad example, how many Americans wait all there lives for an operation, or never see a specialist because of the price. if you factored this in the average waiting times in a private unregulated system would dwarf a socialist waiting list(which by definition includes everyone).

"With regards to drugs" - in England we have 'NICE' which is a public board mandated to approve drugs and procedures on the NHS, with the fist stipulation that the drugs or procedures are shown through proper trials to work. This system is not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than a private board incentivized to approve any BS treatment on profit basis alone.

"In Denmark if you go to the dermatologist you have to wait 3 week. In the US I went straight in." Try to put your personal feelings aside and look at the stats; http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Denmark/Uni...
Oh, okay. But, in that sense, there is no "Electron authoring experience," then. It no more "has" a text-editor you can use to "write Electron by hand" than it has an authoring app you can use to "create Electron in a WYSIWYG style."

Electron is not even MS Paint; Electron is Preview.app. It doesn't assist you in making anything. It's a viewer. Do you blame Preview.app for not making it easy to make PSD files? Do you expect it to help you with that?

Electron is, morally, a transpiler. It's a thing you shove a completed application through, and get a completed application for a different platform out the other side. The only necessary "Electron" part of an "Electron project" are the Electron-specific configuration fields in the package.json file. And that's effectively just a release/distribution spec file, much like the debian/ dir for projects that ship .debs.

Which is all to say: there is no such thing as an "Electron project." There's just "web projects" that happen to ship Electron releases. (And, yes, there are projects that never bother to test in any other configuration, so they lock themselves into their code only working on Electron. But this is no different than locking your web project into only rendering on a particular browser.)
For all possible passwords up to and including length n (in bytes), nearly 255/256 of them are exactly length n, and only slightly more than 1/256 of them are shorter than n.

Information leakage is never desirable, but knowing the length should never make the difference between a password being crackable or not. This seems like a "huh, should fix that in the next version if we don't have anything better to do" bug, rather than a "buy a domain name and alert the world" bug.
Pedantic. Wondering why you used 'its a pity' twice. I want to believe it was pure luck, but otherwise it sounds snarky.
Most founders aren't in that position, and Sama said that. Startups are mostly about doing the same thing over and over.
He included IBM in referring to Apple's size. So I don't think it's intentional... just like he didn't mention Amazon.
Every country is spying on all other countries. To not believe this would be naive.

Iran hacked a US drone in 2011 and we didn't go to war with them over it.
I’m happy to share my data too. I’ve been blogging for half a dozen years at http://datagenetics.com/blog.html and have slowly built my traffic up to about 300k PV a month.

A couple of years ago, I installed a single Google Adense skyscraper advert on each page. As others have mentioned, it doesn’t pay much more than a couple of beers a week. On a good month I’ll generate about $100/month from these adverts (which is, at least, enough to cover hosting costs).

I’ve had an RSS feed forever, I’m not sure it does a lot. I’ve recently put up a link allowing people to sign up for a newsletter. This mailing list has grown to about 750 recipients. Open rates on mailings are 30%-40% and click-through rate has a higher variance and ranges from 8%-20% (If you are going to experiment with email, I highly recommend a product called Sendy, it works great). Of course, I have a Facebook page to promote each article, and I also tweet a link to each article (where I have just a couple of thousand followers). The biggest generator of traffic is being featured on places like here on Hacker News, Reddit, or being featured on one of the large portals/news sites; these bring supernovae spikes in traffic for the time the links are in the sun. I also get a non-trivial amount of traffic from localized versions of my pages; People seem to like to translate my articles into foreign languages and usually put link-back credits, which is how I find out (I guess there could be people who do it without giving credit, and for those, I’m just ignorant about!)

I’ve embedded the occasional link to Amazon to allow users to purchase, if I mentioned a book I like. Amazon’s affiliate program gives me a small percentage cut of anything a user buys within a short time after following the link of my page. It works, and I get some revenue, but in total, it’s not yet broken $100 total lifetime earnings.
As regards content, I try to publish a new article every week.

Bottom line - until I can get, at least, two orders of magnitude increase in traffic (or CPM), it will remain a hobby 
There are several problems with your and the parent commenter's approach here:

1) You've not defined intelligence in an agreeable way, such that all parties are discussing the same thing (you seem to have interpreted his point about Sundar Pachai as successful due to being CEO of Google, but that may not be the case).

2) You've not defined intelligence in a rigorous way, such that all parties know it's meaningful even if they agree on it (is being CEO of a publicly traded company a robust proxy for intelligence? Can we positively correlate corporate success with intellectual formidability?)

3) You have not established any empirical way to assess intelligence in these people aside from what you'd consider tautological (CEOs are intelligent, Pachai is a CEO, Pachai is intelligent) and therefore self-evident. But you can't discriminate between the relative intelligences of members in this group, especially remotely on a forum, which makes this an issue even if 1) and 2) are solved.

I know, taking dialectics this seriously on an internet messageboard is a major pain in the ass. But this brings us full circle to software engineering interviews. One person mentioned a potential proxy for intelligence they consider self-evident, someone else argued against it without full and transparent clarification, and the cycle continues. This is how whiteboard interviews were born, this is how they became controversial, and this cycle continues even on discussions of whiteboard interviews.

People who want to filter for "intelligent" in their interviewing process can't define the term. People who come up with methodologies for assessing it, or identify proxies to it, can't prove they work. People who argue against these assessments or proxies can't prove they don't work because no one can even agree on what should be assessed. It's a Wittgensteinian clusterfuck all the way down, but the same human habits that gave rise to whiteboard interviews are perfectly manifested in the counterculture reaction to them and the resulting controversy.

I propose instead that you resist the temptation to use the word "smart", even in situations you'd consider the quality self-evident. "Intelligence" is like AI - once it's rigorously defined, no one agrees it's AI and it's so narrow in scope that no one cares about it because it's not weaselly and magical anymore (example - the IQ test). When you appease everyone's inclinations and talk about it without defining it, madness ensues.

Rigorously define a problem space, correctly map a set of empirically measurable capabilities to it, and hire people who demonstrate those capabilities. But don't use descriptions like "smart" which mean everything to everyone.
1987: "Hey guys look at my 16k C64 demo"

2017: this
Could you explain your reasoning? Someone doing really well doesn't seem like a reason to stop asking other people algorithms questions.
EU population 743 million, Syria 22m. Even if Erdogan shipped every Syrian to Europe as a refugee it wouldn't make the EU very islamic.
I don't see that on Firefox w/ uBlock Origin and uMatrix
I mentioned "mirror slap". Sorry for not being clear.
That sounds short-sighted to me. Even in Lisp restarts (i.e. the feature that allows a handler to communicate back to the point where the exception was thrown) aren't used that often, but when they are, they are incredibly valuable.
I use this extension for tables. Gets the job done: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/table-capture/iebp...
I may have badly expressed myself, my point was you can't counter argue about US external spying by saying "but other countries are much into internal spying". This make no sense on a logical basis.

To me as a living being on this planet I strongly think no intelligence agency should exist at all for the simple reason that borders and countries should be abolished so we could all be earthlings sharing a planet. Buuuuut it seems the ones in position of domination such as US and old colonial Europe tend to disagree with this view.

But this personal view does not prevent me from using my brains and senses to observe and having a certain understanding of how a minority of humans in position of power defend their own interest and push their own agenda and try to get every edge they can by whatever mean is available.

The point of a spy agency is not to spy, it is to spy and not get caught, because when caught now it's a whole different game. So given the accumulation of recent leaks I would say that NSA and CIA do not so such a good job. And given the nature of the revelations and what is exposed it seems they go too far past what is acceptable. Compared to how China or Russia hack into the US without getting caught or exposed with a fraction of the US budget this paints a picture of an overspending of budget for arguably poor results for those agencies that not only get exposed but also fail at their mission of protection.
Box Office Bomb: “The Beginning or the End” (2012)
Did the U.S. get away with it? Sort of, maybe? But we _are_ commenting on a wired article about it.
Well he got rich starting one, so...
Actually, my grasp isn't that good. Rather, I have an interest in history, particularly that outside of those areas that pass for world history in most schools (i.e., Europe), and I did alight on a course that talked about the steppe nomads over the past 6000 years or so.
Maze generating cellular automaton
Not to mention "Does my character-counter work with unicode?"
Not sure which position you mean. As far as I can see they've said if Turkey adopts EU human rights etc they can probably join. As it is Turkey is becoming another Iran and will be treated thus.
Here we go: now bots have their own hangout to talk to each other
> only forgot to mention that pictures are going the way of books and newspapers.

> the web today is video first.

[citation needed]

Most of what I see (twitter, facebook, instagram, etc) is still photos, followed by GIF-style short video loops (at low resolution).

Video is growing but there are a lot of occasions where people are consuming content and can't watch video (you don't want to blast audio in the queue at the supermarket)
> If it demands terms that are too onerous, the good projects will go somewhere else, leaving the government with the ones that don't have better options. Or, you'll basically make government funded R&D all into dead ends, because nobody is going to bother to spend the money taking it from lab projects into commercialization.

Yet, somehow, we had almost a century of research and funding that included seminal things like radio, construction design and analysis, gigantic tools, tubes, transistors, etc. long before Bayh-Dole.

To be fair, I don't WANT government funding going into something that will make somebody money tomorrow. That's not what government research is supposed to be for, and it already has distorted "research" institutions into "funding" institutions where professors keep their best ideas close to the chest to go build a startup with. Besides, lots of people are willing to throw money at what looks immediately promising incrementally.

Nobody remembers them.

What everybody remembers are those rare times when funding flowed into things without any apparent use that magically transformed the entire technological landscape.
Wikipedia article about NSA tends to differ:

Although many of NSA's programs rely on "passive" electronic collection, the agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through active clandestine means,among which are physically bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software.

Though I cannot pinpoint it on NSA, I would say stuxnet is a good example of sabotage and probably involves the NSA.
You are thinking CEO and not founder
How can we check this to be true?
Looks like zooming in switches to 3/4 perspective view. The top-down and 3/4 perspective images were taken at different times. When you click through to Google Maps, it will use the WebGL true 3D version which is, understandably, a completely different tileset. Unless your computer doesn't support WebGL, in which case you'll see the same 3/4 perspective imagery as before. The embed never uses WebGL, perhaps because it would be rude for a small embedded map to use a ton of your GPU memory.

If historical imagery interests you, Google has several options available:

The desktop Google Earth client will show you historical top-down aerial imagery that you can scrub through with a time slider: https://support.google.com/earth/answer/148094?hl=en

You can access historical street view imagery through the main Google Maps web interface: https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/go-back-in-time-with...

For large-scale or global changes, there's https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/ which is essentially a zoomable video of the entire Earth over the past 30 years at ~30m resolution.

For the true 3D imagery and 3/4 perspective view, I believe there's not currently a way to view historical versions (perhaps because stitching and reconstruction continues to improve and older versions would be low quality).
Do you have a link to that study somewhere? It think I might be able to use it to prove a point.
The battery issue is not that simple. Mirrorless cameras need to keep the sensor active and the LCD or electronic viewfinder on during framing/composition, whereas the DSLR only needs to do this for the 1/60th of a second when the photo is being taken.
Slightly off-topic, but the traffic sign on the site is one warning of a roundabout, rather than a ring-road.
The solutions here make the common mistake of ignoring the cost of stack space, and thereby incorrectly claiming that recursive solutions have lower space complexity than iterative solutions.
Contact a known female cosplayer on Instagram and see if they will promote your stuff for a % of the profits.
> and loud commercials have nothing to do with ethics

A quick google search makes it clear that people don't want to hear loud commercials and want legislation in place to prevent them (actually they're wondering why the fuck existing legislation to prevent exactly those ads is being circumvented). It's not just annoying, it's hijacking their hardware to assault their senses. It makes watching TV or listening to radio at night a nightmare if anyone is sleeping in the house. It's ambiguously unethical and the practice only persists because consumers aren't able to out-lobby advertising interests to pass the laws needed to prevent it in many states. And in your mind this is how it should be because 'that's what the sponsor is paying for'..?
I cannot understand the relevance of an email client, now that browsers can do email. It may be my workflow, so I will ask:

Is there any scenario where an email client would be necessary - i.e. a browser based solution will not work?
Although I agree with the message, just being pedantic Henry Ford never actually said that.
Honestly I think that risk is overstated.

I started a company, failed miserably, but it was easy to get a well-paying job with a salary and a lot of stock when I did. And the company I'm at now I joined long after product-market fit. I was still ahead in my career of people who were in the same place but didn't start a company. And I paid myself slightly less but still well enough to get by, so the only painful part was the transition between jobs. If you're a talented engineer you'll be just fine. I've probably had a job offer per week since then, too.

Now I've Saved up enough money, and I'll make another go. If I fail? Back to the same pretty-damn-good default position.
All the example links broken, and show 404 not found