skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A crash of a cargo jet (eg. converted airliner approx. $40m value) is such a rare event that "bean counters" can justify a certain level of risk.

A good comparison is SpaceX Falcon[0] or Orbital Sciences Antares launch vehicles. If they have a mishap, there is high probability that it'll take 6mo+ to return to flight. There is a significant cost to that ($300m+ cost to SpaceX, for vehicle replacement and compensation for delays). If UPS crashes a jet due to pilot fatigue[1] and nobody on the ground is hurt, the airline will continue flying with minimal interruption.

There have been issues with Fatigue causing accidents at both UPS[1] and FedEx[2]. If a cargo jet crashes but doesn't cause ground fatalities, the general public forgets fast. The UPS Airbus A300 crashed in Birmingham, AL with 'only' two crew fatalities. A passenger A300 would likely have resulted in many more fatalities.

Turkish Airlines had a cargo 747 crash[3] in Kyrgyzstan, killing 4 crew and 35 people in the village that it crashed into. This involved a contract operator, and received minimal attention in the world media.

In aviation there is a tendency towards "regulate by tombstone"[4] When an El Al 747 crashed shortly after takeoff in Amsterdam and killed 39 in an apartment complex, along with 4 crew, It was a huge story in the European media.[5] 747s were inspected, repaired and upgraded to prevent a recurrence.

Cargo airlines do a lot of "back of the clock" or overnight flying, which is considerably risky from a fatigue point of view. I'm actually amazed that more accidents haven't happened.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos-6

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_1354

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_80

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_6491

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_mentality

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

PS. I had a fatigue related car accident in flight school. The "symptoms" can sneak up on a pilot and quickly become an extreme hazard.
You are receiving bytes that I pretty clearly own the copyright to. You have an implied limited license to the content. You are not buying the content.

But to be clear. I actually lean towards agreeing with you up to a point. And I think the topic shifted slightly from my original intend.

But it is my opinion that the point you are pushing it on other people (by bundling it with your browser) is where I draw the line. I'm okay if you, TeMPOraL do some post processing of the data but if Mozilla (a browser) or Comcast (an ISP) does it on your behalf without your say and without the content creators say.

Especially considering that I am responsible for customer service on my own site.
Humans in California 130,000 Years Ago? Get the Facts
The Western philosophical tradition is at least 600 years older than Christianity, and the Indian philosophical tradition is at least 400 years older than Rabbinic Judaism (i.e., the religious tradition that we recognize in modern Judaism).

There might be other reasons to privilege religions and faith over other epistemologies, but seniority isn't one of them.
None of this changes the fact that Silicon Valley is, in fact, ludicrously expensive. Knocking someone down for alleged hypocrisy or naïvety may instill a temporary feeling of moral superiority but emphatically does not actually change that fact.
Came here to mention this one. Vue is nice and clear in all the ways React and Angular (both flavors) are not.

It's just simple and enforces "good" practices by making sense of them.
Wow, this is probably the weirdest thing I have seen on the Internet so far.

But if we end up with androids dreaming of electric sheep, this is where it started.
Why Poverty Is Like a Disease:Emerging science is putting the lie to meritocracy
Strictly technical? Determining the existence of metastable states for the T-cell receptor protein in solution (PhD Dissertation topic). Sort of difficult science, though it seems quite easy in retrospect now; the project wasn't so much hard, as it just cut across a lot of disciplines. Poor developer interview answer though, as it didn't involve a lot of software development (lots of TCL scripting for data extraction and ML with Python instead).

The answer I used to use was a problem I had working as an R&D intern: determine when the speed limits posted on a street have changed from measurements of driver behavior. Interesting and fairly tricky ML problem (weather is a big confounder). Ended up writing a lot of C to get high enough performance to make the solution reasonable which was educational (I didn't know a lot of C at the time), but almost certainly not the right approach to the performance problem. Still more science than development, so it depends on who's asking.

Probably the hardest business-type technical problem I've encountered is database restructuring. We moved (a subset of our data) from a NoSQL database to SQL as part of larger architectural changes, and mapping, migrating, and maintaining compatibility has been non-trivial.

The hardest problem I've encountered has been helping to rescue a project with a severely dysfunctional development history. Much more project management and people than technical (it was just a CRUD app) but I came into a project that had been in development for a year or so and stalled out. The development was outsourced and I fell into a position as a liaison between the internal folks at the university that wanted the product and the dev team that had been hired to build it. Sort of a classic issue where the dev team and the stakeholders would talk right past one another. It drove me crazy at the time, but an excellent experience in retrospect. And it has a happy ending; the project went on to be successful after that, at least when I last heard.
Knightmare: A DevOps Cautionary Tale
It's difficult to argue against Balzac's "behind every great fortune is a great crime". There's a lot of exploitation of edge cases, which are quickly patched in order to shut the door behind them. Similarly, people get famous by speaking outrageously, and then lambaste anyone who does the same once they're famous. There doesn't seem to be a lot of exceptions to this when you're talking about the upper-echelon.
This criticism is usually brought up with this kind of energy transfer (solar beamed down from orbit etc.). But would it not be rather simple to build in some kind of feedback mechanism, where the ground station beams back at the orbital unit as long as it is receiving an incoming beam?

It would act as a switch, where, as soon as the incoming beam stops, the feedback stops and the orbital transmitter would stop too, e.g. if the energy beam went out of position.
hashed* with a random salt
I think you may be overthinking how seriously your interlocuters take interpreting the behavioral questions.

The vast majority of CS interview questions are really just one or both of two categories:

1. Say something entertaining or that makes me like you.

2. Say something that proves you're competent so if I like you it's not a hard sell to hire you.

When you read this hard into a question that can in this framework be reworded "talk about stuff you programmed that you thought was mentally interesting when you made it", they truly only are thinking about your skills at the most basic surface level, they really just want to let you gush for a minute.

Even in the most embarrassing code you've written there are dumb bugs and little moments of triumph, and they're begging you to share some of the juicy details, of which I'm fairly sure every programmer has a few they can recall.

If you have no example of work you've done you can gush over, then yeah it's a problem, but to me this is a sign that the only truly wrong answer is NO answer or trying to fake a modicum of passion by gushing about something you actually don't care about, and THEN sounding wooden when doing so, because if you didn't come off as wooden, even this would be sufficient.
In the 1900s, Germany was known for mass-producing cheap pieces of cr-p. In the 1960s, Japan was known for mass-producing cheap pieces of cr-p. In the 2000s, China was known for mass-producing pieces of cr-p. Do you see the pattern?
> What is the hardest technical problem YOU have run into?

Layer 8, ie. human beings. The software side of stuff, I can eventually solve by hammering at the keyboard until it works. But the people using it, and the ever-changing requirements they have - especially since this influences my software design - is definitely the hardest part.
> In this question, 100% of developers have an answer.

Sorry, I don't.

The story I would tell if asked this was solved by the guy I was pairing with. He knew about URL encoding images, which immediately solved something we could have worked for weeks on. I was very surprised and impressed. Of course, now that is part of my toolbox, and I wouldn't think much of solving something else this way.

Sometimes I solve problems easily that others find very hard. I'm glad I could help, but I don't go around feeling proud of how awesome I did that day. I just happened to know something others didn't yet.

This might sound like humblebragging, and perhaps it is. Just trying to explain why I have a hard time with this question.
>For example, in most countries you can't just start taking payments and call yourself a "sole proprietor."

You could, if you wanted. The problem is that you can easily end up six or seven figures in debt if you fail. Having some sort of protection in the form of an LLC or GmbH is generally preferrable.
This is not impressive. This is normal. When they say "What's the hardest thing you've done?" I would hope that if you are going to run with this, you explain why conventional maintenance/upgrades were so extraordinarily difficult in this case.

Every developer dreams of going greenfield. Ultimately, that's because it's harder and much more tedious to read code than to write it. If you start from scratch, you understand the whole stack/platform, everything is customized to your liking, and so on. That's great for you, but the company is usually stuck spinning its wheels for months while you push this rewrite down their throats.

It's also very easy to underestimate the depth of domain knowledge and accounted-for corner cases encoded in an old codebase. It looks easy at first, but it usually ends up taking at least months to reach feature parity with the old software, which usually also means that people will use both systems simultaneously, requiring data synchronization, etc.

The whole thing becomes messy, and by the time you're done, the "new system" usually isn't really all that improved over the old system. Systems get convoluted in the process of development, business needs demand quick shoehorning of something instead of thorough refactoring, etc.

Once in a while, a full rewrite is indeed justified, but it's much rarer than most people think.

Going in saying "Yes, my company needed a full rewrite" is an instant orange flag in my book, and thorough questioning would be needed to determine if this is an ongoing attitude problem where there's a reluctance/reticence to read other peoples' code. That portends laziness, a disrespect for colleagues, and a disrespect for the business's needs, which are rarely aligned with tying its developer labor up in a greenfield reimplementation.
"Not using"?! Literally all of the energy we consume on earth, except the radioactive material used in our nuclear plants, is a byproduct of said fusion reactor :)
Sinister Spy Satellite Mission Patches
How is it not stereotyping to assume that women are weaker than men?
> reading religious texts and religious philosophy

as texts and philosophy, yes, as works of fiction-unless-evidenced-otherwise, as literature that chronicles a staggering amount of human history, large-scale social organization, belief and gullibility and "leaps of faith", the search for meaning, and so on.

They are very useful as books.
>>> int("۲۶۷۹")
2679

Thats pretty cool.
> In what way are we stuck with that mistake?

Thermodynamics was useful to design better steam engines, circa-1845.

Thermodynamics is a rigid straitjacket that limits modern astronomers' ability to explain their observations.

> Interesting story btw.

Thanks for this. Someone voted me down right away, then some other users canceled that downvote out. The crowd here is fickle. :)
> The idea of a decentralized currency isn't bad in and of itself, but there is a lot to laugh at in the current history of cryptocurrencies.

Ethereum seems like a good reminder of this. It has an air of being less seedy and more 'professional' than Bitcoin, with actually-pretty-cool "smart contract" tech. But... the first big project was the DAO, and we all know how that turned out. Robbery and a hard fork. And now the Gnosis auction just hit, and that went terribly and exactly counter to predictions about a "rational market".

Despite any philosophical argument, the actual history of cryptocurrencies is pretty ludicrous so far.
70% effective as I wrote.

Today's top rates are no different, in that people including corporate artifcial ones don't pay it.
cf. the "non-golfing club" joke I can't remember who made
Ask HN: How do I fix my chicken/egg problem?
My friend and I are working on a startup called Officehours. The first stage was a mentoring tool. Now, we’re expanding it with a newsfeed (https://officehours.io/streams) containing articles and product launches.

I’m struggling with the product launch aspect. Few startup folks know about it, so I’m reaching out individually, asking folks to post launches there. (This is made harder because we require folks to complete a profile before they can do so.)

On one level, I contemplate approaching this like Product Hunt, and adding launches for others. I don’t like this idea though as it takes the control away from them (and it’d look like I’m the only one posting content).

So, my question: Do I keep reaching out to folks, and just putting in the time, knowing it will grow eventually (we did just release it)? Or, do I say “screw it” and add others’ products without their knowledge? Or, is there some other approach I haven’t considered?
What if we made a really really huge one? I'm talking 15 × 10^28 kg worth of hydrogen. At that size it would start and maintain itself. We could place it far enough away that we could harness its output safely here on earth with solar cells!
That requires the AI has a superhuman comprehension of natural language, and even then the answer may be "nope".

For example, someone I worked with kept asking for a button to be "wider", yet rejecting everything the programmer did to the button. Eventually the programer asked them to draw what they meant, and it turned out they meant "taller".
Nifty post. Always think the world could stand to learn more about srcset/sizes.

About a year ago, I went all the way down the rabbit hole of programmatically generating `srcset` attributes and wrote about it:

http://kellysutton.com/2016/06/23/boiling-the-ocean-with-mar...
https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/
You're right, it's a vehicle for speculation now. And when the tech matures and the price steadies, it will be, at the very least, a new store of value for diversifying wealth with, akin to bullion.

That is valuable to me and a lot of other people. Until that time comes, I'm happy to embrace the risk of early adoption and the many thousands of dollars it's made for me already.
Show HN: Small extension to add gifv/webm support to GitHub discussions
Also, what parts of these speakers are Princeton actually making themselves? When I go to their site, they have pages upon pages about "tonewoods," but the only hardware customization they offer is changing the look of the knob and grille. I'll bet dollars to donuts that every part of this that actually makes sound is made on an assembly line in somewhere in Asia, maybe even China.
Since it's both logical and fits with 20 years of observed experience it's reasonable for me to act as if it's accurate. Despite exceptions and anecdotes to the contrary.

The times I've been at a company where shitty politics supersede reasonable practices, I've left. And having a resume with greater achievements makes this easier than a resume with fewer.
As a Sibelius user and jazz musician who writes avant-garde music, I humbly disagree. Classical notation is my native language. It's an odd and idiosyncratic language, but it works. If you need musicians to understand what you've written, it's your only option. I can't read piano roll at tempo and I don't know anyone who can.

Sibelius has fairly good support for swing, shuffle and irregular meter. It has natively supported quartertones since version 6; plugins provide good support for alternative tunings and microtonal composition. Classical notation can get clumsy if you're doing really weird things, but "really weird" is a higher bar than you'd expect.

If you're using timbre as a fundamental expressive element, then a DAW is probably the right tool. At present, we have no useful system for notating synthetic timbres.
We need to extend Unicode to account for quantum computing and qubits. It needs to evolve into Qunicode. Text with this feature baked in could be called Quneiform. It should be stored on light-reflecting crystals that are manufactured using kilns.
https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
Commonality doesn't make a shift-accessible character twice in a row less obtuse. It is like if < and > were the bitwise shifts and >> and << were the logical - it would make no sense because the more common behavior was using more characters.

Of all the glyphs used in the language, :: is probably in the top 5 for frequency of use (probably higher than even * in Rust, considering the infrequency of pointer usage and that multiplication isn't that common an operation in general code) but uses two glyphs instead of one.

It would have required different design constraints starting out to figure which glyph would be best suited instead of ::, but :: is still really ugly in all the languages that use it when its such a common symbol. I wouldn't argue overloading . is right, but I'm having a hard time seeing why a single colon doesn't work - foo:bar:baz. Maybe the parser finds scoping and explicit type names on definitions (ie let foo: i64 or in function definitions) require too many passes to distinguish?
We did a similar analysis of gender stereotypes in the Wattpad online writing community last year: https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/paper/view/...

The conformity with existing stereotypes was pretty depressing, and they're perpetuated more or less equally be male and female authors.
Lane Following Corner Case
For a more functional/reactive approach, there is CycleJS (https://cycle.js.org/).
I once had a very senior manager tell me "No, it's fine, we consulted with legal and they said it was technically legal. And PR has a plan for if it comes out!" or something along those lines. I argued that it wasn't about whether it was legal, it was about whether it was moral. He just... didn't understand what I meant.

I soon found other employment. It pays less, but I sleep a lot better at night.
When I lived in a city flat I used to have a sinking feeling every time i came home as I got to the top of the stairs and expected to see the door ajar. Silly I know. Our car was broken into twice, because in those days stealing car stereos was a thing.

Anyway, when we got a house we also brought a diy alarm connected to the land line. It was liberating to know you weren't going to come home to any nasty surprises.

I looked into how they work and wasn't impressed. Easy to jam etc. So one day I may make my own wired one as a hobby project, just because I'm the kind of person who hangs out on HN and thinks that's cool :)
While this may be true, I'd trust Amazon more than the various Chinese camera makers that offer cloud connected streaming and storage. Heck, I'd trust them more than my own ability to secure a vulnerability-laden home router that AT&T manages and probably never patches.
Prudent to remember that Robert Martin is a consultant and it's lucrative to sell enterprises a story where their domain logic is a billion dollar asset and following his very particular design pattern will enable them to seamlessly evolve this asset with new technology.

Here's where the story breaks:

- Most app's domain objects and rules are small. You could describe them on a few sheets of notebook paper. The technology implementation (e.g. database or http logic) is a much larger portion of the codebase.

- In most teams, especially startups, the domain rapidly evolves. The technology stacks (databases, SQL, etc) are quite stable and have already been heavily abstracted for reuse over the years. Using these proven technologies and excellent existing interfaces is how you go fast.

- Technology choice isn't just about code interface. Each comes with its own assumptions of system behavior and theory of operation. Plugging a different implementation into your storage adapter interface is the least piece of work you need to think about unless it's nearly a 1:1 swap like postgres -> mysql.

So following a strict clean architecture approach will probably pour concrete around something changing all the time and create friction and extra work in using excellent available technologies.

Instead I'd rather follow pragmatic design guidelines:

- The concept of each component should be clear

- Sensible responsibilities for each component

- Abstractions should serve the composability of your existing design; introduce adapter layers if you truly have more than one implementation

- Keep it simple; optimize for reading the code end-to-end and easier refactoring

These aren't inconsistent with Clean Architecture but probably more productive than adding religious rules.
perpetual license is what scared me off as well.
Ideally $199 with 1 year upgrades. As long as it keeps working after 1 year I am sold.
It is surprising how often all these things get reduced to bunch of relational tables with slightly non trivial integrity constraints because sooner than later there will be something that is outside of normal bussiness processes and thus requires exceptions in all these rules.

Essentially all big ERP packages follow the model of bunch of relational tables directly exposed to user with bussiness rules and processes as an afterthough. One can say that this stems from historical reasons, but unforeseen usecases that have to be somehow handled right now are also significant reason.
Surely they would just say "thanks, but no" and keep looking for suckers who will take a voucher?
I don't fault either side here. Amazon in principle is doing the right thing - pressuring their suppliers to lower prices and improve shipment times. In this case they went too far and this company got fed up and left.
This disadvantages you for IC roles, everyone else is sprucing up their plummage.

It's an advantage is you want to self-select out of code-monkey work. Like if you want to be an "architect" or "strategist"
3 ways to take on Google and Facebook while they poach TV viewers
Getting the message: understanding when to use RabbitMQ vs. Apache Kafka
Things made in Japan or Germany or South Korea are all typically high quality. US companies don't outsource their work there for cheap labour.

However anyone moving their production to China is doing it for one reason only, that it is cheaper.
I have read a few that say "after regular expenses" and then go own to include:
"$60k towards Roth/401k" and "three vacations a year"

After that..I'm only left with $17,000 for entertainment.