skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One thing I would note is that it's not always necessary to abstract away your database layer. It is if you are developing software for installation into an existing infrastructure at a customer's datacenter. It's not necessary if you're building your own application on your own infrastructure.

In my experience I've never seen an enterprise company change databases over night. Uber perhaps being the exception to the rule. If you're choosing the target platform that your software runs on you should exploit that platform for all it's worth to get the best benefit from it. Yet I've seen plenty of software shops that insist on writing/running heaps of code to abstract away the database server on some imagined future point where someone decides they're going to run it on Mongo now instead of MySQL.
> We needed some privatization to foster competition and raise quality.

Or alternatively, public (and by public I don't necessarily mean state) owned infrastructure, in which the public can vote directly for what they wish to be improved about it. The argument against the quality of infrastructure isn't very strong when it's the public that decides how the infrastructure is operated and which parts are improved. As for competition, I can't see why that's necessarily a good thing. It's a waste of finite resources.
I agree with you , I do disagree with one tiny part. I agree with your entirely on any sort of lock-in, lock-in is bad and constrains future options. Known cost up front for unknown cost in the future should generally be seen as a business risk.

The tiny place where I disagree is that some tasks might take unbounded CPU/GPU time and network bandwidth. Your task clearly does not and I agree your workload looks like a common workload.

When working for the Air Force Weather Wing, it seemed clear that our decision to use the super computers we used was a budgetary decision and that is what bounded the size of the data we fed into our systems. Because we generated forecasts we had tight time constraints to meet, a 72 hour forecast that takes 100 hours to make is useless.

Weather modeling and forecasting is still advancing and even the latest models are not stable simulations (small fluctuations in inputs can cause large fluctuations in output) and this makes the most nuanced data possible desirable. While most commercial systems used 25km polygons covering the earth, ours used 17km polygons when I left. This meant that we had more precise sims and could accurately model further in the future, perhaps by several days. Even faster CPUs and networking might lead to a drop to 8-11km polygons allowing even better predictions. Ideally the meteorologists want to skip the rounding to regional polygons and use the parcels or air model that local forecasters use for the entire world. Presuming Moore's law holds up and weather modeling is amenable to newer GPUs I do not see weather modeling backing away from needing the fastest hardware money can buy in the foreseeable future.
We're waiting for your constructive rebuttal instead of snide remarks.
> I recharge by working on documentation or stuff I can do without a lot of mental effort

There's a gang of technical documentation writers outside, and they want to have a word with you..
> I like the concept of the shared 3-person offices.

I don't. This seem like a smaller version of an open office. Everyone has someone in their field of view, plus there's a TV and large glass windows with couches directly outside of them. That seem like a great way to get a little bit distracted all the time. Three people in one office is usually much worse than two people in a smaller office. Since if one person does something distracting, they are distracting the other two people. And when two people want to talk about something they are distracting the third person.

What the author describes seem more like "not having to go to meetings" or "not being bothered by management" than actually being able to work undisturbed for a predictable period of time.
I agree that the nominative case endings and usual SVO order of English should prevent (nearly all) false positives.

(The only one I can think of is that comparatives are meant to take the nominative case, e.g. pedantically it's supposed to be "he" rather than "him" in "A man smarter than he would decline". However, this rather convoluted sentence structure is rare, even more unlikely in a plot summary rather than the full novel text, and almost always followed by the subjunctive rather than an indicative verb.)

My bigger concern was what doesn't get caught because it appears after a noun rather than a pronoun, or has an adverb in the way. I thought major dramatic plot points might be more likely to use the character's name rather than a pronoun, and so we might see fewer words like "murders", "defeats", etc. From the results it seems like those words are still present in large quantities, so perhaps I'm wrong.

I'd like to see it done with "they" too, partly as a control case and partly to see if any verbs are more common for individuals rather than groups (although the rise of impersonal "they" may hinder that aspect of the analysis).
It's not just crime that you shouldn't use your skills for, it's all immoral or unethical activity.

It's a surprisingly urgent problem in a field that enables mass government surveillance, dark patterns, big data aggregation, and cyber warfare.

As an attorney, I wonder if software engineers should consider implementing some kind of rules for professional conduct and an organization to enforce it like the lawyers have.
I didn't read that as "this will definitely happen to you", it's more like "these people will always exist, so don't be surprised if it does happen".
VueJS v2.3 Released
Can you provide a link to one or two of them you think are good examples?
Eh, it's always been my understanding that the problem with rocket packs (and by extension, this) was fuel. Wingless flight -- and believe it or not, helicopters are "winged" flight, which is why they can "glide" (autorotate) -- requires insane fuel consumption.

Someone figuring out how to strap jet engines to themselves and not instantly die is impressive, but it's not really solving the hard problem. The "10 minutes" claim is probably already based on loading up with the maximum amount of fuel the person can carry - add more and you don't get off the ground without adding another engine, which burns more fuel...

So I find the claim totally believable, and impressive for what it is, but it's not the sort of thing that has me reaching for my wallet to throw money at the guy.
http://retromocha.com/obvious/ is an implementation of these ideas.
I have left a senior role when I found out that what they were doing could conceivably be treated as criminal - deciding factor was pretty much speaking to a lawyer and they said "leave now" (NB the lawyer in question being my wife).

They went on to have a decent exit so that decision cost me roughly £1 million - I've never regretted it, I don't really have the temperament for a life of crime.... :-)
As I mentioned, this is playing into the fallacy that telling a story during the interview is equivalent to the communication skills required for performing the job.

It confuses story-telling performance during an interview, and the stresses of a success/fail situation, with the type required to perform real work.

Mistaking "overlap" for all-encompassing. Sure, there's overlap. There's overlap in being able to type up a coherent response to a post on Hacker News, but it doesn't make me more qualified for your position.

It fails because it assumes that the candidate has a single defined favorite project. If you try to make the question more broad, then it becomes so open-ended that it is hard to equally compare candidates on it. It becomes random chance that a candidate discusses a project in a way conducive to doing the job. Where if more precise or structured, it might weed out people who can talk passionately about a personal project from those who can constructively explain to a manager the challenges of a project.

It also starts stretching it into saying that everything is story-telling so as to make the term meaningless. I agree it is to some degree, but it's important to try to stick with meaningful mental models that can make predictive assessments about candidates.

The huge problem is there are people without the skills who can tell a good story. This process let's these people through, while ignoring good candidates who may not perform well on this interview question.
These stats are usually better for new airlines (in Europe and US at least) because air travel has become so much safer. Accidents are so rare now that it's just luck if you had 0 or 1 accident in the last decade.
I've had people try to get me to do illegal things for 25 years. It was much more aggressive and enticing when I was young. It's easier for adult me to recognize and reject these advances than it was for teenage me. It wasn't always even money that was on the table, but recognition and acceptance which can make you do crazy things.
All my recent projects use the same foundation for server-side rendering, which seems to be a common way people are doing it: React/Preact to organize view components, with a Node.js server importing the same frontend code to match URL routes and render to string. This library has some examples: https://github.com/developit/preact-render-to-string
You
send them your public key in a GET request, and the payload you get
back is the encrypted HTML page. Make sure to pick a big enough key size, or
you might not see the whole thing...
I can imagine a sport developing out of it though, even if it's not a full suit. Imagine gymnastics or skateboarding with this suit.
I don't wish for the feeling of desperation on anybody. Even for someone who has morals, desperation can warp your sense of reality. Back when I was a truck driver, I had a substantial offer from someone to transport a duffle bag in my utility lock box across state lines. I was desperate, and it was a lot of money. I rationalized, told myself it was just gonna be some drugs, and I never get pulled over anyway. No big deal, I told myself. Until I grabbed the bag, and realized it wasn't drugs. Took a peek once I was out of sight, and it was definitely submachine guns. I started panicking and about 10 miles down the road came up with my plan. I pulled over, punctured a cooling hose, ran my engine til I overheated, and then called my contact and told him I had overheated and steamed out all my coolant and wasn't going to make it. That interaction was probably the most terrifying experience of my life. Never again.
Sure, a few reasons:
1) If they're public they have a lot of investors and even more potential investors.
2) People like to watch competition, they like to see some things (team, companies, athletes) perform better than others. They like the horserace and horserace style articles generate clicks
3) Slow news days and media companies have to put something out.
Let me give you a real life example.

My brother was gay, had a great partner, and died a horrible death due to AIDS back in 1994.

His partner was a wonderful man whose last six months are a mystery to us, because his parents were devout Christians who saw their wonderful son as literally being possessed by the devil, saw us as evil for not casting our family out, refused to allow us to see him, and then had all his belongings (including many cherished ones from my brother that we very much wanted back) incinerated upon his death.

We never learned what happened to his ashes, either.

So no, I am not particularly fond of any group that would condone this kind of behavior. They were able to do what they did because they had the wide support of their entire congregation.

This does not mean I'm going to be a dick to a religious person at all. They didn't do anything to me, and I judge people on their own actions. And besides, I know not all Christian denominations would be so godawful.

But a hell of a lot of them are, too, and as far as organisations go, let's just say I am not impressed. So if you ever wonder why some atheists might be a bit prickly about organized religion, think of my example. People don't get mad without pain. Unfortunately there are plenty more of these types of example to chose from.
Identifying as an Apache attack helicopter is ridiculous but identifying as a ferret is constructive. That's what furries are.
Ignorance is (generally) no excuse for breaking the law.
His main argument seems to be:

>But preparing for an interview by cramming/studying material that is supposedly needed for the job makes no sense. A candidate should have the experience to do the job well.

I think it is a good ideological stance. However, what about the scenario when you are applying for a junior position and don't have that much experience?

Moreover, as it has been demonstrated time and again, technical hiring is broken. Some folks like to talk about high-level concepts; some folks like to ask trivia and some others like to ask you to whiteboard the algorithms. If a company expects you to use a whiteboard and you are not used to it, you are not going to do well even if it is a topic you are familiar with (We don't realize how much we rely on editor/autocomplete).

I am happy that he was able to find another job without preparing, but this advice will not work for the majority of people.
So it turns out you can basically use type theory to encode a surprisingly large number of desirable traits about your program. (Caveat being that as you get more restrictive, you reject more "good" programs at compile time--no free lunch with Rice's theorem.)

For example: In this paper, they basically use types (with an inference algorithm) to catch kernel/user pointer confusion in the Linux kernel. (https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec04/tech/johnson.html)

It turns out you can encode a lot of other interesting properties in a type system (esp. if you're building on top of the existing type system), though--you can ensure that a java program has no null-dereference checks (https://checkerframework.org/ has a system that does this), and Coq uses its type system to ensure that every program halts (as a consequence, though, it isn't actually Turing complete).

There's also cool things like Lackwit (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/610284/) which basically (ab)used type inference algorithms to answer questions about a program ("does this pointer ever alias?", etc.).
If you're offered a job from Facebook should you say "no"?
But that is exactly my point. Geometric models are the old tools we had. The new tools are ML Models. It would be nice if they both worked together. But there is nothing to say that they should. Nor is it obvious that it would be beneficial.

Your point that this is testable, though, is important. I fully agree with that and was not intending to dismiss the idea. Just because I am not as confident as the author, does not mean that I am right. :) (I'd accept that I am likely not right.)
Adam Smith thought that the free market was termed as such because it is free from the control of its participants. The 'free' market isn't very free for those certain labourers, especially in those developing countries. It isn't 'free' for those most people who cannot accumulate sufficient capital without putting their life on the line. It isn't 'free' for the people who have no way to get clean water without paying exorbitant amounts for it.

The 'free market' being good is a myth. It's only free for the owners of private property.
This (statistics on the nomx rebuttal pages) must be coming from some kind of alternate universe:

>For Media - Some statistics:

Number of nomx accounts that have been compromised since inception: 0

Number of Gmail accounts that have been compromised in the United States (from 2014): About 5 million to 24 million depending on source

How about the TOTAL number of (respectively) nomx accounts and gmail accounts (from 2014)?

I mean, 0/(something) is undoubtedly a smaller number than 5-24*10^6/(a very HUGE number), but maybe the (something) is so little that the target in itself is irrelevant...
^ typical triggering
>I make more money than my colleagues who only do what they're asked to do.

That's not the case everywhere though, which is the observation that TFA and the parent were starting from. Obviously if you do make more it's ok.

>And if my company has layoffs I'm one of the last who would be let go.

You'd be surprised how many people thought that and got the short end of the stick.
My moral system is so incredibly far away from viewing ethical behavior as binary that I can not relate to how someone would think that way. How do you place the line, where an instance of behavior you don't agree with makes you view someone as not ethical?
FB, Twitter and other social sites are under market pressures to maintain/increase user base. At the same time they must justify to skeptical customers/investors that the numbers they publish are legitimate somehow. So, they must adopt a token effort to to combat this, but really it is in their best interest to allow masquerading so long as it is sophisticated enough to not be to obvious.
Been there done that. The only thing you didn't mention was that if you do give a wrong password, it calls the logout function. So all tests do work. You can't login with wrong password.
This article enters a difficult grey area. What should one do when a family member requests something illegal and there's a possibility of retribution for refusing to do it? The solution: lying can be an acceptable way to avoid unethical behavior.

I applaud the author for doing the right thing. I'm not sure I would have been as ethical.

That said, my favorite line is: Salmon, French cheese, party time.
Working Effectively with Unit Tests by Jay Fields[1] is a great book on the subject. There's tons of books out there that are also good, but this is one I like to recommend as a starting point.

Another thing I'll do a lot of times when I'm trying to figure out how to test a weird situation is try to think of another API that works similarly and look to see if it has any tests that are instructive. And I habitually go through OSS projects I use to look at their tests and see what techniques I might not know about. This is really useful when you're picking up a new language or paradigm (e.g. when I started using functional languages over the OO languages I was used to.)

The basic thing you need to remember about testing is the AAA approach[2]: Arrange (setup); Act(do the thing you're testing); Assert (measure the outcome to make sure it is what you were expecting). Just about everything you read on testing at a lower level is going to come down to that procedure. There's additional techniques like fuzz testing and property testing, but they're not common. At a junior level I'd just expect you to have a basic understanding of AAA and how to apply it to common situations with the toolkit of your choice (e.g. for a javascript dev, maybe jest).

When you think about it, you already test your software, as you write it—its just that instead of writing down the steps in a way that your test framework can use, you're doing it manually. So really you just need to learn how to write down what you're doing in the browser (or whatever your interface is). Further refinement of that process is to use break your software up into pieces that can be more easily tested on their own.

I really just meant to post the first link, but testing is one of those areas that's near and dear to my heart, so my apologies for the rambling :)

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Working-Effectively-Unit-Tests-Fields...

[2] http://wiki.c2.com/?ArrangeActAssert
Googler v3.1 – Google Search, Google Site Search, Google News from the Terminal
Sundar Pichai just hinted at how Google will make money from maps
Hi DanBC,

Naren, co-founder of Tweeple Search here. Did you try Influencer Search? Go here: https://tweeplesearch.com/?bio=suicide%20prevention&is_profi...

About filtering by location, Twitter allows users to fill free text in the LOCATION field. Hence the disparity. In your example, Professor Louis Appleby has set location as "Stockport station". :)
I'm guessing that's not a realistic option for people in jobs where automation is taking place. The companies that would otherwise hire them are probably automating or planning to automate.

If they have the resources, then retraining themselves for another job might be worthwhile, but just leaving their current job probably won't help them much.
There is such a code, jointly published by the ACM and IEEE CS[0]. It's simple and sound. In many ways anyone of ordinary decency can intuit the principles.

It has no teeth and I expect it never will, despite numerous attempts by national bodies to entrench an accounting/legal/medical style of enforceable professional standards.

[0] http://www.acm.org/about/se-code
## What's in?

- Search result metadata (e.g. IMDB rating)

- Multi-site search

- Browse numeric ranges at omniprompt

- googler@ - Financial Times, The Pirate Bay added
What an incoherent article
Maybe you don't hang out with the kind of crowd that thinks like that, but the number of times, I've been requested to do commit crimes - form classic fraud and insider trading all the way to straight up hacking is insane.

Funny enough, even the semi-technical ones are guilty of such requests too.

Over the course, I've learnt the hard way that saying no upfront is better than dealing with the fallout later
DSL is kind of a wide range, I know people that cap out at 256kbps which is not broadband. Sure, if you can get 6-12MB/s download that's not bad, but most people are lucky to hit 1.5Mps/ download and 1/3 of that upload which is not really competitive.
If you're finding some disonnence between 100K stories and your own interpretation of reality, you've really got to ask yourself where the problem might lie.
Why India requires it’s own content discovery platform
Search engine optimisation company india
Like the Bush lawyers and the torture enabling memos?

Or the DoJ lawyers filing uncontested FISA warrants for inappropriate things?

I know! You must mean the federal prosecutors who overcharge as a matter of course to have negotiating leverage for plea deals.

Or maybe the patent trolls? Upstanding folks those are!

Lawyers definitely don't (categorically) do anything besides what their client wants, externalities and ethics be damned.
On the other hand, the discussion delays boarding, you need better/more gate staff, you need the infrastructure to pay out, quickly book to other flights, etc.

I think Ryanair's approach of not overbooking is sensible as it keeps the operation very easy. Also, they can book every flight to 100%. If you deny boarding, you need to offer alternatives. That's not possible if you're the only airline flying from the airport (Ryanair used to use a lot of regional airports) and your next flights are already at 100%.
I believe my insurance company took the odometer reading into account when calculating the rate for next year, so I wouldn't even have to sell the car to turn clocking into fraud.
Depends on the drugs. A duffel bag of weed isn't going to hurt anyone. A duffel bag of meth or oxy will most likely kill many more people than a bag of machine guns. Unless your country was in a civil war at the time, I imagine those weapons never saw use. Hard drugs, on the other hand, get consumed and regularly kill people and destroy lives.
For whatever reason it's working again for me. Maybe Dropbox was doing maintenance.
The question for me, my my day to day use cases, is : can you propose the power to someone who is less proficient in functional programming. That is, a "regular java developer" (I don't say this in a disrespectful way at all, the simple fact is that some people are trained or like to just program and don't always see the advantages of DSL which are, to me at least, outside of the realm of regular software development)
The Why of Cooking – What’s the most efficient path to kitchen wisdom?