skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This seems like an over correction for bad management. A good yearly review should be a quick unsurprising formality because everyone was openly communicating the entire year.

To stretch your analogy... if your spouse doesn't tell you they hate your cooking, that's the real problem: trust and communication. Asking them for feedback after every meal won't help resolve the real problem.
> It's sort of magic.

It's not sort of magic, it would be actual magic.
I always think of this breakdown of 'Flying cars and You' whenever this comes up:
http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg
The obvious next step is to create a real-time market for employee performance reviews, allowing employees to bet on and against their and other employees' performance reviews and possibly even trade derivatives priced based on baskets of rising or falling performance reviews.

There would be many benefits. For starters, having a liquid, efficient market for performance reviews in which employees are able to bet on each others' reviews with minimal frictional costs would unleash market forces that would keep the performance reviews accurate (right?). But the really big payoff would come down the road, when this market could be opened to external investors like the venerable firm that manages your Aunt Tilly's pension plan, generating new sources of trading revenues for Goldman.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure real-time performance reviews are a good idea. They immediately bring to mind the societal nightmare of Black Mirror's "Nose Dive" episode: http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13379204/black-mirror-sea...
Can someone tell me what makes "real" Amiga so wonderful that it's worth paying $1500 for an objectively outdated computer? What does legit Amiga do that something like, for example, AROS doesn't do?
Try typing in "span a" as a CSS selector for the HN homepage.
Ballistic recovery systems usually require a minimum altitude of around 1000 feet, so they are not really an option for urban settings. CAPS [0] for example needs 920 feet. As of August 2016, it was activated 83 times, of which only 69 were successful and there was 1 fatality [1].

[0] https://cirrusaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPS_G...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Recovery_Systems#Dep...
we already have self flying drones and cars. This OLD SCHOOL thinking of technology as stagnant directly causes us to lose sight of the potential the future holds.

humans are so dumb thinking they are so smart.
This is some amazing scale:

-------------------

We run a peak of 500 r3.8xl instances in support of our batch users. That represents 16,000 cores of compute with 120 TB of memory. We also added support for GPUs as a resource type using p2.8xl instances to power deep learning with neural nets and mini-batch.

In the early part of 2017, our stream-processing-as-a-service team decided to leverage Titus to enable simpler and faster cluster management for their Flink based system. This usage has resulted in over 10,000 service job containers that are long running and re-deployed as stream processing jobs are changed. These and other services use thousands of m4.4xl instances.

While the above use cases are critical to our business, issues with these containers do not impact Netflix customers immediately. That has changed as Titus containers recently started running services that satisfy Netflix customer requests.
And intra-pack screening of batteries to avoid cascading failures.
I wonder if the very low-latency GC in Go would be good enough, though? The occasional dropped frame doesn't seem like the end of the world, so long as it remains rare.

In practice, most games don't have entirely reliable performance, particularly on low-end hardware.
I'm skeptical.

There's always a set of programmers who sound erudite because they are erudite. It's typically not that easy to fake being erudite, so it naturally follows that programmers who sound and behave like they're competent are usually competent.

A simple strategy would to always select from that pool. It might even be a relatively optimal strategy too if you account the time and effort to interview people.

However, my experience has show me that assumption has been wrong on a number of occasions. People have both surprised me and disappointed me. I wish I could say it's been the rare case, but it's happened a lot more than I would have liked.

I've considered I'm not the best judge of people, but I can't help but notice a lot of my colleagues aren't the best either. Some are and I envy their talents to notice some set of heuristics I haven't picked up yet.
You can also listen and send a few pennies Aphex Twin's way on Apple Music, at least in Canada.
Sounds like what Triplebyte promises, but doesn't quite offer yet.
Yeah, thanks for the comment on the condensation.

The output pump would really need to mostly pump water and vapor at the input and liquid at the output, but not to very low pressure... even a peristaltic might be doable (no rotary vane/blower needed). It was just a thought, I used to rotovap too so running through the calculations seemed like a fun idea.
You can't dead stick most aircraft in an urban environment. Unless you are Sully...
Video? :(
The solution is to game the system to advance your career.

That's how it always worked.
Back in 2008 (high school) I discovered this exact method enabled automatic creation of google accounts from many different visitor ip addresses, because google signup form did not have csrf protection. It was possible to hide all (pre-filled) form values except the captcha from the user. So to the user it looked like they were just filling out a captcha on a random website, but actually they were creating a new google account (using their IP address).

I hadn't heard of responsible disclosure at the time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Imagine thinking you did a good job all year, only to hear in your review everyone hates your guts -- and you had no idea.

Imagine you talk to your manager and coworkers regularly to get feedback but you don't put the negative feedback into a formal software system that encourages politics and backstabbing!
I agree it's easy to layer throwing behavior on top of non-throwing behavior -- Java easily chose the worst possible way to do it.

But having both a Parse and TryParse means that I can ignore the result of the Parse call entirely and let it fall through to the exception handler. It is by-definition always expected to succeed so when it doesn't then that's a bug. If you only have one of TryParse or Parse you cannot judge the intention.
That's some startup that's trying to become an intermediary for bug bounty programs. They're in a WeWork shared space at WeWork Transbay on Mission in SF.
Unless they're hosting a bug bounty program for the vendor involved, they don't add any value.
Haven't they learned from history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y#Theory_X
Your analogies about choice do not really play here. This is about telling someone "we didn't cancel your transaction, everyone just decided to move onto a chain where it doesn't exist". (Also, you are correct that I was abusing the term 'censorship'.)
I choose electrical engineering for some weird reason - I don't think it occurred to me that software engineering was a way of making a living even if I had been a hobby programmer since I was 12.

Luckily the introductory course was based on SICP - and it really realigned my BASIC- and C- damaged brain.

It turned out to be the only course that I enjoyed so I eventually switched to a more computer systems and sciences oriented education.

It was a good introductory course for me, and perhaps most others. Perhaps not good for the most daft though...

I guess you also need some assembler-skills but it's hard in a totally different dimension somehow.
This 10x thing is quite frankly stupid.

The distribution of developer skill (if that's even something that can be plotted) is not bimodal with good developers and bad developers, it's normal. Sure someone 2 SDs above the mean might be 10x more productive than someone 2 SDs below the mean, but the same can be said for literally anything that requires skill.

While we're at it, why don't we call Gordon Ramsay a 10x chef? Or Yo-Yo Ma a 10x cellist. While this is technically true, it's not particularly insightful, and certainly not something you should use to label yourself.

To answer your question, yes someone skilled at software development will be slowed down if dealing with a legacy codebase.
Yes, but that's not very helpful to people who are just becoming aware of such technology. There is some room between explaining things in elementary terms like a tutorial and being cryptic to the point of hostility (see: lots of Unix man pages).

The #1 question I find myself asking on tech-related landing pages is 'why might I be interested in learning about this?' because people so often write documentation aimed purely at their own level of knowledge, to the point that they sometimes forget that it might be of interest to anyone else, or even to mention What It's Good For.

It's not a whole lot of extra effort to say 'FPGAs get us closer to the performance of dedicated hardware while maintaining much of the flexibility of software. If you have ever enjoyed building electronic circuits then you may love programming FPGAs.'

It's kind of like expecting the Ubuntu homepage to explain what Linux is

And why would it be such a bad thing for it to say something like 'Linux is a wonderful operating system for your that anyone can use or modify for their own purposes, and it's free!' In fact, it does say something along those lines:

Ubuntu is an open source software platform that runs from the cloud, to the smartphone, to all your things.

Is there something bad about being informative and accessible?
I also do not quite understand. As someone who loves 68000-based powerhouse art computers from the '80s, I can understand the appeal of the original Amiga line, but the PowerPC ones confuse me a bit because they no longer bring a unique graphics chipset to the table. Without the (potentially) interesting graphics chipset, does the appeal really extend beyond the OS interface design and the brand itself?
Would this really be considered public information, since the existence of that vulnerability it's not known to the public or literally anyone else until you publish that blog post?
> I wonder if/how they will unify them or phase some of them out.

They pretty much never phase anything out because they're serious about backwards compatibility (which frankly I consider refreshing in this world). I mean they've even said at some point like "yeah, the delegates are unfortunate because they're just a more awkward syntax for what the lambda functions do but we're not going to get rid of them because people have used them."
> They're "When UserAgent is detected send shitty version".

If you must pick an example of them breaking stuff, please pick one that they didn't already apologize and fix.

> http://i.imgur.com/FDM5DQ9.png

My mistake on confusing google earth with google maps, that is an important point that issue. It does suck that doesn't work on firefox, but no one is forcing any one to do anything. Its not like you paid for any of this, or there is some law that says companies have to give stuff away for free.

> You're doing 180s with such grace, it it impressive. On one hand, Google isn't forced to release their software for firefox. On the other hand, they're paragons of the open web and are all about standards

I am not reversing my stance or saying anything self contradictory. I am attempting to define nuanced boundaries around some who would rather bludgeon things into a simple categories whether or not it fits. So far all I hear are complaints about company giving away huge amounts of value for free, but isn't doing it the way you (or I) want.

I never said Google was paragon of anything and I admitted they could do better (I really do wish they would do better), the only line I am taking is that their behavior is not "anti-competitive", which is not a high bar. Which has not been disproved or this case even rationally approached. I am open to having my mind changed, but I would need well thought out discourse and evidence to change it.

If you respond again so thoughtlessly or with such poor grammar I will not be responding again.
North Korea doesn't exactly have a large pool of technically skilled people available.
Aviation units/specifications are unfortunately almost always specified in knots and pounds.
Why on earth do you believe a formal system would make backstabbing and politics worse?

I'd argue it has the potential to make it better since it creates a papertrail and transparency. I'd rather that than Joe Angry Developer sneakily badmouthing me to my boss or my co-workers behind my back.

Worst case it seems like a lateral move as far as politics goes.
Personally I think Verified Purchase on Amazon does more harm than good.

Many of the spam reviewers are still a Verified Purchase through Amazon and were just reimbursed after (it doesn't actually provide much benefit because VP is a poor proxy for legitimate customer). I always turn it off and wish they allowed making this the default.

There are too many products, office chairs are one example, where buying on Amazon is more expensive than buying elsewhere. So in this case the verified purchase reviews are not from the consumers that did the best research... not necessarily the people you want to give credit to. Ikea products on Amazon are another example.

Still Amazon reviews have de facto standardized as the central hub for product reviews on the web. I might never buy orange juice from Amazon when it's much easier and faster to grab at the grocery store, but before I plop down $8 for a jug of organic, all natural, etc from a brand I've never heard of, it's nice to be able to validate it a little bit.

If they expanded verified purchase to include other sources, eg uploading a receipt to prove verification, then this would change my stance. However, does that really align with their business?

I think verified watching is a similar circumstance.
Yes, you can get the content you want even if it's behind a login page! Expect to create 2 APIs, one for logging in and another for getting the content. An example is provided on their homepage: https://wrapapi.com/v2#/caseStudies/cj
Awesome! Thanks for sharing. This is going to be really useful for doing CSRF attacks in XSS challenges at CTFs. I always just write the javascript to construct and post the form by hand, but this will be much faster, especially because you can just iframe it.
Such pessimism on here. This is why we can't have nice things ha ha.

With so many technological advances happening there will be myriads of solutions to all of our concerns about these types of craft.
But there will also be stumbles and accidents in developing them, but nothing compared to the introduction of day the automobile.
Are we sure it's not an over-powered leaf blower?
I don't recommend submitting to CERT unless you genuinely don't care about the outcome of reporting.

Yes, reporting to CERT is "safe"; you almost certainly aren't going to get sued for doing it. But don't count on CERT coordinating a fix or even figuring out how to report flaws to. It's unlikely that anyone at CERT knows who "Zecco" is.

CERT themselves ask you not to submit to CERT unless your vulnerability fits some specific criteria. "Unresponsive vendor" is one of those, but CERT's fine print says that they prioritize severe, multi-vendor vulnerabilities.

Anyone who runs a bug bounty program can tell you how unrealistic it is to rely on CERT for this stuff: triaging reports for just one vendor is a full-time job. CERT wants to get early warnings of things like OS and platform vulnerabilities. I don't think it's a good idea to report those to CERT either, but regardless, CERT isn't set up to handle your CSRF report in some random website.
I understand your intent, but it's really hard to quantify human performance in a complex workplace. It's not just that we're "a very long way from having meaningful quantification". I mean, it is _instrinsically_ a subjective matter. No "dashboard" is going work, IMHO.
I believe it.

At least the Lustre developers (pre-Intel) had the foresight to enable extremely good debugging - you could simply enable a few procfs settings and easily find the offenders.

It's still amusing to me however, that the biggest offenders of Lustre slow-downs were single core processes. I'd check the RPC counts per node, find the violator, and then check per PID statistics; it was always (95%+) a single core application performing thousands of calls.

We never did experiment with the 2.x branch of the software. I recall one of our co-workers stating that even the developers did not believe the dual MDS set-up was production ready at that time.
> I think something important to keep in mind is that "fixing" programming interviews it is an incredibly difficult problem to solve.

Only because the formulation of the problem is wrong in a manner that precludes the solution; you can't fix the programming interview because an interview is not, no matter what you do to it, a good way to assess practical programming skill. It might be a useful way to assess other skills that are relevant to the work of someone being hired as for a job that involves programming, but not the programming part.
If that's true, why doesn't their e-commerce business make any money? I constantly hear this argument that they can turn on the profit spigot any time they want, they just haven't yet because, "strategy."

But if what you are saying were true, they'd be making more money than Wal-Mart. But they aren't. In fact they aren't even close.

They have essentially made a land-grab (very successfully) by subsidizing convenience, which is pretty much exactly what Uber did. The problem to me is that I don't see how they turn that into long term profitability. What got them to where they are is almost diametrically opposed to what will make them money.
Now now, don't be talking about how things are fun and might appeal to newbies or children. Gatekeeping is Serious Business and is not a fit subject for play or enjoyment.
Hi. Thank you for your reply. I am never going to build any airplane (well never say never - I should say, it's completely orthogonal to any of my plans). I have a mathematical (-type, obviously it's physics and aerodynamics) proof that it should be possible, so that the person reviewing it would be quite easily assured that what I propose is theoretically possible - but then so is a space elevator. I do not have the level of qualifications necessary to show that it is actually easily possible at airplane scales and with present materials.

If I built a prototype (doing so is not in my plans) then it would be at a very small scale and I personally don't know how to do the calculations to see how it applies to larger scales. In other words, if I had the prototype flying around me right now it wouldn't help convince me that it's possible and plausible. Further calculations are necessary and only an aviation company (or an aviation engineer) is able to perform those.

Are you an aviation engineer? Do you know someone who could spend a few minutes on this case? I will need a small NDA but I am not very concerned of IP theft, just the formalities; the assurance can be verbal via email.

Unfortunately the medium would have to be via email as public disclosure prevents patenting and I don't know at what point (if ever) I would get to that stage. Let me know if you or someone you can put me in touch with could look at this briefly. Your profile here does not list an email.

Thank you for your assistance.
An outfit called Polyend has commercialized the concept with something they call PERC, though I don't believe they have something capable of engaging and disengaging the snare like this contraption.

http://polyend.com/perc-pro-drumming-machine/

[Not affiliated]
Ditto, I just though it might be useful to look at a larger sample size (taking "a 1960's Cessna 172" as more of a general example than an exact requirement).
My problem with this sort of bottom-up approach to learning how to program is that what seems "fundamental" from one point of view always turns out to be an abstraction built on an even lower-level foundation.

So, virtual functions aren't real because they're just vtables implemented in C. But C isn't real because it's just fancy assembly language. But assembly language isn't real because it's just fancy machine language. But machine language isn't real because it's just 0's and 1's zipping around the hardware. So I have to learn how integrated circuits work before learning how to program? No.

Bottom-up knowledge is important for understanding performance and other trade-offs. However, there's also a lot of benefit in learning how to program in a formal system without knowing much about how that system is implemented under the covers. If I was teaching an intro programming course to undergrads in 2017, I'd be strongly inclined to teach them a clean functional language first (e.g. Elixir, F#, etc.), and only introduce gory details like pointers and memory allocation later on.
How the March for Science splits researchers
I believe you are missing the problems that such environment creates.
Back-stabbing, and simply not well thought out events will start to take place.
This is not about the "good" things 360 has in favor, it's about the bad ones that such environment can unleash!
The federal probe into Hampton Creek has been closed. See: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/03/27/hamp...
Partial classes are also useful in the case that you want a nested class to have its own file.
Also on Amazon, Google Play (https://warp.net/releases/computer-controlled-acoustic-instr...), and Spotify (https://play.spotify.com/album/5IUjJ4VcmUvZnGAONAp2IX).

I just wanted to give people a quick taste of what the thing actually sounds like.
> If you can bypass container sandbox it's very likely that you can do the same with VM.

Hypervisors are much, much harder to break out of than a Linux container.
I've been searching, so far coming up empty.

Would love to see a video of Richard James sending midi data to that snare that was meant for a completely different instrument, maybe one of the melodies from Windowlicker :-P
They're the largest and most important bug bounty service, and have been for years.

WeWork leases offices; they have a shared workspace area in all the buildings, but most of their buildings are private offices.

Apart from the fact that there's a good chance the company you're trying to report to already has an H1 program running, what they're promising to do here is to spend some effort trying to track down security contacts for you. They profit from this, of course: if you give them a good bug, and they facilitate its reporting, the target company is very likely to sign up for H1. But it costs you nothing and might solve a problem for you.

(I'm ambivalent about H1 --- we run a couple H1 bounty programs that existed prior to us taking over security at our clients --- but I don't think it's a good idea to be dismissive of them.)