skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Both of these organizations might be "helpful" if you have a new Internet Explorer vulnerability, but neither will likely help you with a CSRF bug in a bank website.
I remember watching Alien 3 at the cinema with French subtitles:

Audio: She's down in there with the beast!

Subtitles: She's down in there with the priest!

(Weirdly, beast and priest sound much the same in French, too.)

Or when watching Neverending Story the turtle says "one thousand miles". The subtitles convert this to kilometres with 6 decimal places showing.
Indeed. I would argue that this is actually a 270 byte demo, as knowing the title is essential to the full experience. :-)
I think the answer to this problem is take-home coding tests. They do the best job of simulating actual working conditions and minimising associated stress and anxiety. I've had this confirmed by multiple candidates I've used this approach with.

I'm actually launching a product to streamline the process if anyone is interested.

https://takehome.io
I would like to add the reason I continue to use my current method is that it creates so many diverse points of data (using that term loosely) because so much happens in the hour we're together.

There is something incredibly revealing when it comes to collaboration, especially if the objective is slightly open-ended. People have very different styles of approaching ideas and a lot of the time, it's revealed when the objective hasn't been overconstrained. Simply asking people, "What would you do here?" and "What's your approach?" in a non-judgemental way that actually conveys you're interested in their ideas goes a long way. Also, phrasing your questions so they come off as genuinely curious rather than pointed goes a long way.

Most of all, letting people take you somewhere you didn't expect to go is an interesting way to learn about someone. When your agenda is open enough to allow a person to solve a problem with tools or ideas they're comfortable with, it can be eye opening.

However, if I see them doing something where I feel like I improve it, I offer to show them a trick and this gives me a tiny peek to see how they learn. Do they get it right away? Do they ask good questions?

I think all those things are important aspects of collaboration. You need to have a genuine interest in each other's ideas and receptive to teaching each other new ideas and making each other's work better by adding your insight as well as absorbing their insight.

That's why I'm hesitant to simply interview and ask questions. I actually enjoy coding with other people and it's hard for me to see if I'm going to like working with this person if all I'm doing throwing questions at them so they can wax poetic about their last job, thoughts on tech/methods, etc.

Again, I'm still not convinced my method is optimal.
As a child, I remember walking into a "World Computers" retail store and seeing a Commodore Amiga running some graphics demo. I was utterly blown away. It was far beyond what I had ever seen with a home computer, which at that point, was limited to a Macintosh SE and an 80286 PC running DOS 6.
Former bank robber, now Georgetown law professor
I think it is a good thing that they are formalizing a chat based UI which may work well with low connectivity. Connectivity isn't a stated concern, but I do see it as addressed as round trip communication to discover affordances is avoided.
What should i do my life?
Yep, it's just a hobby and not a terribly expensive one as you say.

I loved my Amiga 500 & 2000 back in the day, and spent more on them than this costs although it was obvious they were never going to be main stream.

I wouldn't do it now, but good luck to those who do.
How is human performance at work "strictly objective" -- lines of code? number of tickets closed? Customer/peer reviews? Number of unknown disasters averted because of diligence and focus? Number of hapless interns mentored who will, years later, become star players?

Unless one is in sales, performance can't be boiled down to a number or two for any individual. Even then, there could be questions.
The lame answer is "it depends", but you might find this chart enlightening: http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx
So this can't possibly happen because of IPO due diligence... right?
Looking a bit more at this, here (at the bottom) are two more videos of earlier prototypes. All appear to be extremely light.

https://www.youtube.com/c/LiliumAviation
Erdos is a very light and modular Graph theoretic algorithms framework for Java
IMO the article overstates the danger of cubesats. If deployed to a low orbit (~ISS height) they deorbit in months due to atmospheric drag. You don't really run into the problems described in the WaPo article until you start putting them into higher orbits where they will last longer.

Here is a more detailed article describing the cubesat problem and potential mitigations.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/07/30/nasa-tracking-cubesats...
Regrettably (or as expected, for some), their voices are never as loud (or obnoxious) nor are their views en vogue.

There is, however, money on the table for anyone who can keep a calm head. The current state of irrational exuberance is showing signs of wear.
Vulnerabilities like these aren't likely to cost anything close to $10K, even if they stay open for years.

But stipulate that there's some number here, and the answer is: because nobody in management at Zecco ever built a plan for how to handle incoming vulnerability reports, and so nobody who got the report was empowered to do anything but escalate the issue --- and halfheartedly, at that, because nobody in management at Zecco ever build a policy that ensures anyone cares about vulnerabilities, so this is for them the moral equivalent of a WONTFIX.

How diligently would you escalate a WONTFIX?
What about the people that it lands on?
Are there people who receive millions of dollars in income via stock options who pay a lower rate? If so, how does that work?
Then you're going to adore Revolut: http://revolut.com/
That's why I made the distinction from people who take calculated risks. Death in this case is not a punishment, it's just a consequence. When someone is surrounded by warnings saying 'don't get killed in this very obvious and irreversible way' and still goes ahead I feel fine about mocking such poor choices, for the same reason I laugh every time Wile E. Coyote runs out of cliff.
Do you think I should ask people if they prefer the homework format? That answer might be eye-opening itself.
Do you know why companies spend billions on marketing? And why there are a gazillions companies helping people market their brand, product, and services?

Yeah, marketing matters. Take a look at any successful business and see how much they spend on marketing vs product development.

Perhaps, personal career management ought to reflect that ratio.
The shareholders and investors can go after the executives for fraud. They're not protected in this case.
100 days, guess you have a better memory that me...!
Sounds like we need to bring back Star Wars and laser them out of the air! Kidding/Not Kidding.
Any chance those physicians will be facing investigations?
It would be interesting to see if they have "solved" the software and design engineering problem of VTOL, transition from vertical to forward flight, and GPS+Glonass guided drone like operation, but the bottleneck to implementing it is the problem of the batteries.

In which case the whole design will need to sit on a shelf for 5 to 10 years until some radical change in Wh stored per kilogram of battery comes along. The density of 92 octane petrol, aviation fuel or diesel fuel in terms of kilojoules (or watt hours) per kilogram is still ridiculously higher than the best batteries.
The Dripping Sarcasm Voice
> Be sure to add zero visibility and a 10-20 knot cross wind to simulate doing so in the clouds above the runway as you descend.

With a circular approach to a circular runway, aren't all winds cross winds (and, also, headwinds and tailwinds)?
Golem – A Decentralized Supercomputer
Thank you!

Remember that Google is an advertising company. Chrome is an ad delivery platform, ultimately. Firefox isn't broken because it isn't like Chrome.
If equipped with a parachute like a Cirrus I would not be so scared of it. In its current iteration it's about as scary as the eHang giant octocopter.
Hadn't seen that before, thanks for the link!

That video is funny, perplexing and frightening all at the same time! I was a little relieved to realize the human appendages were added digitally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Drummer).
Interactive Mind Map for learning anything
I have a Google Personal Assistant. I like it for setting timers, alarms, and playing news & podcasts. And asking random questions to see if I get an answer. But for anything nuanced or important, I use a laptop or phone to get the job done. I'd never give that damn thing my credit card. Even if I could get it to order exactly what I want, that seems like a huge security flaw and/or financial liability to me.

Of course, 20 years ago I was the radical one for buying things on the Internet with a credit card. Maybe I'll feel differently down the road.
Triplebyte seems to angled toward doing pre-screening; the hiring organization still does a full interview loop afterward. What I proposed would be more along the line of handling the mechanics of administering a coding interview for a hiring organization while allowing their hiring manager & HR full control and also making the candidate as unstressed as reasonably possible.
In my line of work (real-time), C++ typically reigns supreme but D is just as fast and more productive, so why not use it?
It's not really about meta-programming, for me it wins on the basics.

And is we talk meta-programming, I think D goes further in the Stepanov style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIb3L4vKZ7U
> I'm sure whistleblower protections would have been provided to anyone working there with this knowledge who chose to make it public.

From the Vanity Fair piece which brought a lot of this house of cards into the public light, it's mentioned that the teams were hyper-segmented and the secrecy even pervaded the organization. Nobody really knew what anyone else was working on.
If ever there was a clear cut case of barratry this is it. Too bad it would take an act of God to get the state prosecutors to enforce that law.
I think city zip line networks are much more feasible (energy, cost, speed, and safety-wise) than flying cars, but overlooked.
What makes the Amiga so wonderful is a great question, but what makes it worth $1500 depends very much on the buyer. Some people will pay far, far more than that for a stamp or a coin or a rock, which do absolutely nothing. Beauty and value are in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not saying they can do it on every or most items, I'm saying there are many items they can.

They make large profits on some items, and lose large amounts on other items to keep customers coming back. If they stopped selling losing items (part of the reason they closed quidsi), they'd grow slower but make more.

I can't find Walmart profit numbers for just the online part, or even revenue, but estimates I found say that Amazon is selling more than ten times as much than Walmart. (See http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/23/amazon-grabbing-the-bulk-of-s...). Unless Walmart's margins are ten times better, Amazon made more from online.
That this story is a US journalistic article is probably not enough to make this an on-topic comment. Please comment substantively like we've asked.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>There have been cases where mosques have contacted the FBI to inform them of people they found disturbing (trying to recruit people) only to discover later those people were FBI agents sent to root out extremists.

Just to add to what you said - that's not at all exclusive to the FBI or the USA. Up here in Canada, the RCMP spent huge amounts of money trying to catch two "terrorists" that they basically created. These two people lacked the means and motive to carry out any kind of attack, but our federal police service wasn't deterred. A team of 240 officers worked to groom them and provide them with fake explosives. They found two naive, isolated drug addicts, then isolated them even further and tried to plant extremist ideology into their heads. Even then, at several points, they asked their undercover handler for any kind of moral justification for why they SHOULD NOT go through with the attack, and the undercover officer did the exact opposite. In the end, they still wanted to back out but were afraid that the undercover officer would kill them in retaliation.

Their case was so egregious that our Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the grounds that if the RCMP had done nothing, the two wouldn't have done anything worthy of criminal charges. To make matters even worse, the RCMP billed for almost a million dollars worth of overtime alone manufacturing a fake terrorist plot.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/terror-plotters-claim-they-were-gro...
> Eventually maybe someone

FTFY

Because it's going to have to be truly fool-proof to withstand the drunks, idiots, and downright malice on roads today. And that parachute system better know how to land on solid ground and not, say, someone's house.

I do NOT want anyone but professional pilots piloting big heavy flying things over my head, my stuff, or my house
It's full size, that I believe without any problem. But it really is just a scaled up model, there is no payload and it probably would not be able to stay aloft much longer than the video. (you can see the interior is totally empty in the overhead shot at the beginning of the video).

The wing being behind the pilot was probably done for visibility reasons but it will make it very hard to get those front fans retracted or at least out of the way (because of the extra drag they create).

At a guess and judging from the way it takes off the COG is just aft of the leading edge of the wing so adding a pilot would have the effect you describe.

Scaling a model is hard enough so they definitely should get some credit for that but the way it is spec'd right now it would very much surprise me if they ever go to any level of airworthiness with passengers. Battery tech would have to go through some kind of revolution (and then you'll immediately have a ton of competitors, quite a few of those are much further along in creating viable aircraft but none based on the VTOL model because of its obvious limitations).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer

Has 126 Kg of batteries, can regenerate when it loses altitude (forget that with ducted fans) and has a pretty good wing surface compared to the Ilium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU

Not being VTOL it manages to get about 1 hours worth of flying time (but you'd need to keep a reserve).

So there is no question about whether or not electric aircraft are possible. It's just that I don't see the VTOL/short fixed wing and small ducted fan combination work out, especially not at 300 Km/h where drag forces would be considerable, no matter how nice the body looks.

It really is an electric version of the Moller Skycar.
Oh, sry, I read that wrong.
Unifying OT and CRDT for Collaborative Text Editing
Who just has an attorney sitting around who is competent to handle such things? I wouldn't know who the fuck to call if I found something on my bank's website.
1. I didn't use scale as an intimidation tactic as you purport. Scale is one engineering requirement that makes tasks either harder or more work than if it weren't a requirement. Scale isn't only in terms of # of users or how much hardware you need to support those users. Scale also refers to complexity of product. When introducing a new feature, there are all of the considerations you need to make in order to integrate that feature into the existing product system. You seem to think both sides of scale are easy to execute flawlessly, and that sentiment can only come from someone who hasn't worked with these constraints before.

2. You said that I think only a handful of Facebook engineers are the gods of scalability. I never said this. I simply intended to give credit where credit is due. They executed extremely well (in my opinion) and they deserve credit (in my opinion). Also - engineers are not the only ones who help scale a product through infrastructure. As I mentioned before, there is also product architecture that needs to be considered when introducing a new feature. The larger question becomes How does this new feature work to provide value in the context of all of the other things that X does?. For something as complex as Facebook or Instagram, this is hard. A very simple example that illustrates this is user education. It's far different when you have a few users on a simple product that does 2 things and you introduce a 3rd than when you have millions of users on a product that does a thousand things and you introduce the 1,001st.

I don't understand why you're on a mission to discredit people's work or the challenges they face when building something. It's possible to not like something and still recognize that building that thing was an achievement in some way. It doesn't have to be either or.

If you have counter-arguments to what I'm saying and they're informed from your experiences or what you've learned, I'm genuinely interested in hearing them. I don't care much about being right as much as I do about pushing the conversation forward. But I think we can both agree that saying "cringe" doesn't really help anyone learn anything or push the conversation forward.
Replace zip line with gondola.
My thought is that the cost of delivery will eventually drop so much from technological shifts (self-driving vehicles, robotics, etc.) that all retailers will enjoy the same cost savings that people are predicting for Amazon.

In other words, I don't think the last-mile delivery problem is going to be solved by Amazon and then enjoyed by them exclusively. It seems far more likely to me that the entire segment of local transportation will be reinvented by independent companies and utilized by all retailers. Think people owning their own self-driving vehicles that can stop and pick up their groceries, or independent local delivery services that utilize self-driving vehicles instead of Amazon-branded delivery vans.

At current cost levels, there's no way that delivering goods can ever be more profitable than selling them in-store. Last mile delivery is simply too complicated and costly. It's pretty much the entire reason that the USPS loses so much money while UPS and FedEx make enormous profits. So the only way that the costs could be made similar is if the costs for last mile delivery dropped to an incremental cost of nearly zero.
Requiring signing of web extensions is still ludicrous. It makes sense for Google to do it. It makes zero sense for Mozilla to do it.

Google wants to make money by developing a platform.

Mozilla (should) want to make technology that empowers people. Mozilla does not have to provide technical support. Mozilla isn't making money off of it. I think that the only reason they did it was because Google did it.

Should emacs or Autocad require signing of extensions? Why not? Because it would go directly against the grain of what those tools are for. And users should be smart enough to handle their own security.

I would like someone to justify Firefox extension signing, while also explaining why nobody cares if other software has signed extensions.
> Some people work like tortoises. They may appear slow, but the culminated effect of their very deliberate and careful decisions accumulates far better than a hare. I'm pretty sure my current process doesn't work in their favor, but I'm at a loss for better alternatives at this time.

As someone who prefers to contemplate a question carefully before answering and stutters considerably when put on the spot, kudos for you for considering taking a more inclusive and compassionate approach.
perl -C7 -ne 'print chr hex $1,"\n" if /^([^;]+);.*\bARROW\b/' UnicodeData.txt
I don't need to be defensive in any way.

The band-aids called MISRA-C, Frama-C, High Integrity C++ and DOD certifications are a mechanism to force Ada safe like semantics in C and C++, while paying lower salaries, instead of hiring Ada devs.

F-35 proves how good they work out in large scale projects.
I don't know about the Amiga stuff, but as PowerPC board for running Linux looks great:

"The e5500 is a superscalar, dual-issue core with out-of-order execution
and in-order completion. It maintains the seven-stage, four-issue
pipeline that is a trademark of the e500 family, but is able to provide
additional performance, by scaling up to 2.5 GHz." [1]

[1] http://www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/white-papers/64B...
That's precisely what I claim: that it's very difficult to measure. Yet it doesn't say it's not objective. It's not subjective, as is a matter of taste; it's a matter of fitting the requirements of the mission or organization.

Looking at it in other professions, it can be easy to say who's a better mover - they transport more items in a given time, with less property damage. Or better plumbers, or better painters. Or better investment bankers. Or indeed, better salespeople. If it's possible for those professions, it can also apply to IT.
Everyone just wants to hide away and quietly keep doing what they were originally hired for? And feedback has no value in helping people improve?

The problem is that you're assuming that there's a level of honest and integrity in HR reviews that just isn't there. HR reviews are fundamentally deciding about who should be promoted and who should be fired. Giving feedback as to how you can get better at your job is, at best, a secondary concern.
Simple designations like "static typing" and "dynamic typing", even when you bring in the concept of strong vs. weak (Java allows concatenating an int to a string, Python throws an error), aren't very helpful when languages like Common Lisp exist. (Edit: nor "compiled" vs. "interpreted" either for the same reason but especially in current_year when just about everything compiles to some form of bytecode, whether that is then run by assembly or by microcode running assembly a small distinction.) Specific languages matter more, specific workflows within languages matter more too. And as you say what you're trying to build also matters, but not all that much.
I was cynically expecting only a bunch of resources about parsing and compilation, but was pleasantly surprised that the first section was about language design!

Here's a shameless plug for Brown's PL course last year. The videos and assignments are all online. The assignments involve exploring mystery languages, and aim to teach a bit about the consequences of language design. Next year we might do a MOOC.

http://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2016/index.html
Yes, my point is that once you're comparing two environments that use bytecode and a JIT, you can't necessarily cite the cost of startup time and the cost of JIT compilation as a reason to avoid possibly-virtual calls.
I know this is a long shot but is it possible to detect life on other planets by the metal and trash sphere all modern societies must eventually accumulate around their planet? We have just begun, I can only imagine how crazy it is going to get around our own planet.
Building a Course for Sagefy – Building “An Introduction to Electronic Music”
Sure, we're all descended from Africa. But we all know that ethnographic definitions are arbitrary, and how long ago you or your ancestors immigrated apply more or less to your demographic label depending on a host of cultural, social or economic factors. The definitions are convenient only in labeling populations in broad strokes anyway; every individual has multiple ethnic, religious, cultural, racial identities that can be sliced/defined/labeled any way that society deems 'normal'...