skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The pain point is one I’ve talked to a number of founders/writers about. They create stuff they’re happy with, and then struggle to get the word out.

For example, one of these folks has a pretty decent following (you’ve likely read his stuff), solid list, and a number of books published. Last summer, he and I had a long email discussion about this. He noted that this (reaching new readers/buyers) was the one problem he just couldn’t solve. He found sites like HN increasingly difficult to crack, posting through other major media sources (e.g. Lifehacker, Huffington Post, Newsweek) low-yield, and social media less and less effective.

So, all of this is part of a larger plan. Our core service has been in place for ~2 years. Through it, folks talk one-on-one, and get feedback, advice, ideas. We don’t have a ton of users, but it generally seems to work pretty well. In fact, someone yesterday noted that their 10 minute OH session led to an hour-long Skype call, and then an in person meeting.

The problem with the initial product, and the one I think competing services also run into, is that there’s limited reason to come back to such a service—and make a habit of it. That is, you don’t check an advisor site on a regular basis, because you typically only need help from time to time. My hunch is that a lot of people heard about the service, thought it was viable, and then promptly forgot about it.

The reason for adding Streams (the feed) is to give folks more of a reason to check back in—and to create starting points for discussions. For example, one might read an article, find the content interesting, and then want to ask further questions one-on-one. We also see this tying into questions, as folks will be able to post a question, and then have an advisor either respond to it in a comment, or offer a one-on-one. All of it relates to helping folks build connections, share their stuff, and find new ways to collaborate.

I should probably also clarify something. I’m not so much fearful that this won’t gain traction. (It’s only been live for three days, and traffic is up 5x for each of those days.) That said, I know the process of building out such a thing is substantial. I refer to it as “the empty dance floor.” No one wants to dance, until someone is—and after a few more do, everyone leaps in. We experienced the same with our initial product. It took us weeks to get the advisor base (https://officehours.io/advisors) past a dozen people—then it started growing on its own.

So, my question isn’t so much one of: “why doesn’t this work?” because I think it can. It’s more of an: “is there a smarter way to reach out to new startup founders, and get them involved?”
This is a mock up. Do you seriously think they forgot to ask the question "what about the giant hole in the ground"? lol
Arctic is indeed shrinking. 15000 years ago (or so) there were miles of ice on top of the place I'm currently sitting.
This is incredible, thanks for sharing!
EO 12333 doesn't redefine collection. Data collected abroad under 12333 is still "acquired" according to the definition in the NSA's documents leaked by Snowden. Do you have any documents that you can point to that say otherwise?
Municipalities could easily accomplish that with zoning restrictions.
An exploding tank is way worse than cells in thermal runway.
Security is near and dear to me too, so I'll use that example for my rebuttal.

Would you like to know how many companies I have found serious vulnerabilities in which had previous audits for things like PCI and ISO 27001? Their CISOs had cute certifications, too. They could talk all day about what XSS is, what a good business continuity plan looks like, all the different types of "risk treatment"...

I've sat on the other side of an audit, as an internal security engineer for a bank. Our QSA literally said to my team one day, "That sounds great, now can we switch gears and talk about your cyber program?" I like to think we honestly did well on those PCI audits, but I also know that we didn't have to do well. We could bullshit our way through it. And even if you try hard, it has little to no signal. Requiring engineers to know OWASP, or to memorize organizational risk facts doesn't work. Requiring your company to get a third party audit sort of works, if you know what a reputable firm actually looks like. Requiring your company to get third party "network segmentation scans" is a waste of time that will leave you wondering how a company stays in business that reports false positives all over your infra.

The security industry is a rabbit hole of oblivion. Vendors don't know what they're doing. Consulting firms barely know what they're doing. What you suggest will not meaningfully change that. As I repeat time and time again, the most talented and effective individuals I've known in the security industry have no certifications, or reluctantly get them to shut HR up. Some of them never even went to college. You would need to dramatically rethink what an enforcing agency looks like to have effective certifications without allowing them to be the rent-collecting they currently are.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing a concrete proposal for what an effective certification or licensing body would look like and how it would fairly enforce its requirements. If it's a model that could work, then fine; hit reset on the current organizations or dramatically improve their processes. But comparisons to other industries aren't good enough, and thus far the evidence is stacked against it.
some more here: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-boring-company-tunn...

"Tunnel-boring is a notoriously expensive process. The Boring Company is looking to cut down costs by building a machine that can dig and place reinforcements in the wall at the same time, Musk said. Tunneling machines traditionally dig for half the time and then go back to add reinforcements, a longer and costlier process."
no, people aren't machines of any kind. software development is more like creative design than assembly line work. your metaphor is flawed and the way you talk about the process and the people is misguided.
>That's the only time they really count.

They also tend to count in context of litigation and social media, all of which can be pursued after leaving the aircraft.

>It's exactly the place for it.

I'm honestly baffled here. It's basically the "I want to speak to the manager!" behavior that so many decry, and yet, it's somehow OK in context of holding up a commercial aircraft to insist you settle your individual dispute right then and there.

>If you can't assert your rights when you need them, they're worthless.

There is no right to be on an aircraft, just as drivers have no explicit right to be on the road. Despite the fact one pays for their car, pays insurance, pays the state all manner of fees, driving remains a revocable privilege should that person not follow the rules. A flight is no different in this respect.

It's like failing to pull over on the shoulder for emergency vehicles, insisting you have a right to remain in your lane. While that might sound proposterous on the face of it, what if the crew that's positioning is operating a flight that's transporting organs? Suddenly the person refusing to give up their seat for crew isn't so righteously justified.
What is truly ethically absolute?

Nothing, as far as I know.
Interesting opinion. I find the quote somewhat true, and the article's broader point mostly true and rather valuable.

The broader point of that quote is that a dynamic conversation usually does reveal more truth and paint a more accurate picture than a practiced story. I find that to be very true.

I feel like you might have misunderstood the article and decided it was wrong before taking the time to understand. That could be an indicator of poor writing in the article, or of excerpting and discussing a quote out of context, but is it helpful to respond with hyperbole?

STAR & SOARA do not dictate a chronology, so they are orthogonal to this point. But their goals align with the article & this quote almost entirely, if you think about it.
>a high-density energy storage device

Like a tank full of pressurized air?
It matters to us, because we are a very small studio where teams are given a high degree of freedom. In our experience, lack of inquisitiveness or interest in the business is a good predictor for a bad fit. Also, I believe interviews should be a two way street, so I expect to be challenged by a candidate, because it's also up to them to decide if they want to work with us.

I do have to note that I mostly do the last interview rounds, after initial screenings and assignment (from home, no whiteboard coding), so I talk to candidates who have had plenty of exposure to things to ask follow-up questions about. Why should it not matter?
See also: [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
One hard part of learning testing is getting the testing framework set up for your langauge/toolset. One way to approach this is to follow a tutorial that introduces tests. A year ago, I would have suggested https://teropa.info/blog/2015/09/10/full-stack-redux-tutoria..., but react/js moves so fast that perhaps this is out-of-date.
I hope you prove me wrong, but I question Google's ability to maintain interest in the GCP side-project over the long term.
Sure, but when 'big' is $100M, I wouldn't really call that amateur.
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14219673 and marked it off-topic.
Yep, you got it. The trick happens entirely during that fan-out of cards that Penn and Teller are inserting into. The trick is that Kostya's bottom hand is not a passive receptacle but is actively reaching out underneath the deck to grab any face-down cards and pull them onto the bottom, but he's practiced it so well that it doesn't look unnatural or jerky. The "into" hand is holding in order:

1. a few face-down cards on top to make it look like it's still mixed,
2. all the face-up cards plus Penn's card, which went in face-down,
3. all the face-down cards plus Teller's card, which went in face-up.

At 4:04 Kostya does a simple move which Penn and Teller are totally allowed to see which reorients these; indeed, Penn's bellow at 4:06 is apparently because he was 100% convinced that this was going to be a "blink and you'll miss it" trick: maybe swapping out the deck, maybe the cards are not perfect rectangles and he can separate them at will, maybe a dozen other ways he knows to get the same illusion -- but instead he just saw the guy turn half of the cards over, meaning that they were already split into face-up and face-down: and he had totally missed it because the cards seemed to move so naturally and the hand underneath was 100% totally hidden from him.
How to have a better death
I use imapfilter[0] to sort imap mails on the remote server and move older ones to a local dovecot instance for long term backup. That way I have current mail available on all my devices and access to the backup via mutt or via file in the MH format on the backup system.

That works, but you have to program a bit lua in order to setup imapfilter correctly.

[0] https://github.com/lefcha/imapfilter
Yes I misspoke, but, for the purposes of the article, the GP's question, and the use to which most readers here will put TLA+, it's tied at the hip to TLC and is used primarily for model checking.
I remember using OfflineIMAP in 2002. It's pretty old.
If you're getting paid as a software engineer in the USA[1] and you're making market rate for where you live, you can easily save >>50% of your salary and retire in 10 years.

Not well in the Bay Area, at least.
Interesting. Well, I don't know what the movie portrays, but there are two ways that I know of to legally order a gun and have it delivered to your door (though I doubt either is exciting enough for a movie).

* You can get a Curio & Relic (C&R) license from the ATF which is basically a collectors license. It applies to eligible guns (i.e. not machine guns or SBRs) > 50 years old such as [0]. When you do an online/mail order the seller will require you to send a copy of your C&R license before shipping.

* Some guns aren't legally considered to be firearms by the ATF. This primarily (only?) applies to replicas of black powder guns [1][2].

Any other purchase must be sent to a licensed dealer, and when you pick it up from them you'll do the same paperwork as when purchased directly off their shelves.

[0]: https://www.classicfirearms.com/m9130-hex-receiver-russian-m...

[1]: http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/black-powder/traditi...

[2]: http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/black-powder/black-p...
nice baking video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuKstAWof4
A lawful program can be immoral and participating in it probably is going to inherit that problem.

You seem not to admit that possibility in your phrasing.
But getting rights of way are more complicated above ground. That's probably the one thing that's going to kill the Hyperloop and it already strangles passenger rail in the US.
Someone needs to quantify the cost for various level of risks. If the air cargo industry could save an average of 1 live per year at the cost of $1B a year in additional costs to pass to it's customers, should it?
It seems crazy, but there's also some appeal in the idea of opting out of all the legacy infrastructure. If we could rebuild our roads from scratch today to serve a vehicle for the 21st century, what would we build? Probably something like this - standardized vehicles on automated roadways with built in electric connections that enable unlimited long-distance high-speed travel (though we'd just build this into cars instead of using 'carriers').

But it does seem pretty far out that we'd have tens of levels of tunnels for all this underground traffic. Hyperloops seem more plausible.
MFW trump making it harder to prove links to foreign government happens to coincide with my 4th Amendment rights...
If you go and do something like that, why have the car at all?

Edit: To be a little less snarky, multi-modal transport of this form has been considered; it's one of the ways in which PRT systems have been proposed. But those systems don't also say "and now we build the highway underground."
I'm in a similar niche. Anything you could recommend (books?) to learn more about the organization/design of large amount of data (i.e. choosing the right DB for Inventory Management System, designing complex schemas, etc.)
Think about it from the Founder point of view. Very few startups are 8x5. Most expect you to put in a few extra hours, be on call, etc. By letting them know if you've got a side project you plan on dedicating yourself to you are taking those hours out of that pool.

If it's just for an Open Source project, that that's one thing, but if you're also working 10 or 20 hours a week with another company then they (a) need to know that they have to account for that in scheduling and expectations and (b) want to know that you're not working for a competitor and passing inside information.

I had one guy on my team who was working 16 to 24 hours a week at another job, which meant that needed to be careful how I scheduled him (because at the time we didn't have enough work to schedule everyone full time. If we had, well then he'd have to sort that out).
Interesting Talks from PyData Amsterdam 2017
The book is a monument of literature. Its title is the genesis of your buzzy cliché, not a lazy user of it. It deserves none of that opprobrium from someone who hasn't read it.
We've solved it for Instagram: https://socialcull.typeform.com/to/QvznoL
Shadow stats is also entirely bullshit.
No. I'm speaking to professional misconduct. Touching on their point, that a professional conduct regulatory body would not preclude participating in the precise activities they reference as unethical.
In most successful companies, the guy who came up with the idea and his manager will be heavily rewarded, and taken care of in a meaningful way. Everyone else is given some time to either find a different team to work for, or asked to leave and find another job where they are actually contributing something of value.

Although this might seem tragic in the immediate aftermath, it's precisely activities like this which lead to GDP growth and economic prosperity.

The biggest gains of course still go to the business owners and executives. Not the working class. Hence why we need higher taxes on the wealthy and a stronger social safety net.
Good communication skills are certainly essential to being a con artist, but they are also essential to working with other people who are almost certainly going to be very different from them. If someone is incapable of explaining something to another person or discussing and agreeing on a course of action, that's somebody who probably doesn't know a fraction of what they think they know.

For every gregarious person who uses their communication skills to fake competence, there's at least one person who is convinced that they are a misunderstood genius, but their lack of supposedly BS communication skills has cursed them from ever being fully appreciated by the "normals" that they think they are better than. You don't want to be either one of those people, they are equally useless when working on hard problems.
Thoughts on SVG sprites?
> and in none of the mentions is AWS vulnerable.

Yep, that's because most bugs are found in legacy devices that are never found in production. The big exception was a buffer overflow in the floppy device emulation (the "VENOM" vulnerability).

A lot of AWS security bulletins say "AWS customers' data and instances are not affected by these issues". I read it as "we knew about it a couple weeks in advance and have done a rolling upgrade". :)
These posts that pretend or imagine they have a deeper understanding of the science than the rest of us are super irritating.

The writers of the economist article know, climate scientists know, and hackernews readers all know that the climate has been colder and hotter in the past over geologic time scales. We all know this.

It is not correct to imply that the current warming is just a continuation of the usual inter-glacial cycles. It isn't, the rate of change is completely different by orders of magnitude, and the causes are observably different.
When an article is about responsive images, I expect it to at least mention the <picture> element, if only to explain why the article will not discuss it.
They already do, for the opposite. Ban apartments and legislate only single family homes.
> I think the EITC uniquely incentivizes those in the program to work themselves out of it, unlike other programs. That's why I like it so much, because I think other programs do fall under your critique.

This experiment has never been done, but I think we could probably agree on the outcome of this thought experiment: In the absence of any other social programs, the net effect of EITC would be higher employment and lower (employer paid) wages as the demand for labor is (somewhat) elastic, and employers and labor will settle on a lower clearing price for hourly labor at a higher employment level.

I also agree that many welfare programs have a negative impact on work and personal income, as many social services have cliffs that reduce a recipient's net income if their wage income goes over a certain amount. That's not necessarily bad; some people do not have the option of meaningful work, a problem that many think will be exacerbated by automation. If we start actually seeing the 42% unemployment rates that were recently promoted by Trump, then tying social services to income would be devastating.
... except in the crucial way of "getting people to buy more Teslas", which is the metric Musk is most concerned about.
On a sobering note, the Arctic is a tremendous shortcut for shipping, and despite its vast and remote coastline, it's surrounded solely by states with a strong rule of law, making piracy unlikely.

Cargo traffic between will re-orient from the current crop of chokepoints like Suez and Malacca; the Panama Canal will see a decline of Asia-Atlantic traffic and a rise in intra-Americas traffic; and more shipping overall will be conducted in waters adjacent to the coasts of Russia, Canada, US, Norway, and Greenland (Kingdom of Denmark).

Even without additional exploitation of the Arctic, changes like this will affect the strategic priorities of states.
> exurbs with their cheap sprawling subdivisions and giant SUVs benefit from it

I guess I'm with you to the extent this means they "recoup a larger proportion of their losses on these pointless endeavors".

> Your not being in San Francisco costs the government $30k/year. Any subsidy below $30k/year that gets you to that more productive job is profitable for the taxpayer.

With this I agree, although it seems at odds with what I think you were saying earlier, that tax should be COL-adjusted. If this were the case, it would no longer be true.

> People are most needed where they would create the most value, regardless of cost of living.

Nope! True, this would be best from the government's perspective. From the individual's perspective, it is most rational to live where they have the biggest surplus of wages over costs. Doesn't do you much good to make $1M if it's $1.5M for a crappy apartment and basic food.

Unless you are separating the concept of "people are needed most at X" from the concept of "it is most economically rational to live at X".

> imagine someone who costs taxpayers $20k/year in Appalachia, but could generate $30k/year ($5k in taxes) as a barista at the Googleplex

OK, yes, but this sets up a mostly false dichotomy between "employed in SV (etc)" or "unemployed in Appalachia". There are a lot of places in the US that are less dysfunctional than either one of those two places.

> I simply argue that subsidies to get people to high-productivity cities are much less costly (they can even be profitable!) than subsidies to help people stay in low-productivity situations.

It just seems self-contradictory. You say that people in SV pay more tax than people not in SV. That's right. But then you say people in SV should be subsidized, which removes the logical basis you're using to argue they should be there in the first place.

It is helpful to remember that subsidizing someone's COL in a low-cost area is by definition going to cost less than someone in a high-cost area. In short, if we HAVE to subsidize people a lot, then we should subsidize them to live in Appalachia, not SV. But if only a little (i.e., they still pay tax in net), then it could make economic sense to subsidize people in SV. Ironically, by this logic, it makes more sense to subsidize the $90K person in SV than the $30K person.
> It is not enough to protest, give speeches, start "green" companies, and whatever else we do to feel good about "doing something for the environment."

I have to disagree. Please keep doing something good for the environment. Please keep making companies that replace old harmful ones. Keep protesting to politicians and by all means, keep doing speeches to inform the public.

> just reduce our intake by, say, just 15%

Everything I know about psychology tells me this advice won't work. You need to provide an alternative or you'll be fighting a losing battle against habit and enjoyment.

But I should dogfood on my own advice here, so here's what you should do instead:

- Give people specific advice on habit changes instead, ie. switch from beef to chicken, from chicken to fish and from fish to vegetables.

- Tell people HOW to change electricity provider (if your country or region allows it)

- Tell people to VOTE for the environment
I basically said that I won't be the "rogue engineer" like at Volkswagen. If the management are willing to demonstrate that ethics aren't important, why would I imagine they wouldn't use me as a scapegoat?
Yes, as the username of all the accounts they actually care about
It's great how even our most advanced energy generation technologies are still just steam boilers at heart. That hasn't changed in 305 years.