skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Childcare is avoidable if you avoid making children.
Next to NYC, commuting in Tokyo is effectively trouble-free. It may be crowded, but it's also predictable when the crunch times will be. Trains are on time. Cars keep moving and don't block every intersection with incessant honking.
Interesting idea!

I imagine a number of interested folks might ask "I'm considering a masters in CS or maybe this new PM one; why should I choose one over the other?". How will you answer them?
Attention to network connection quality has dropped.

1. Many organisations have abandoned end-to-end internet connectivity, and deployed NAT or restrictive firewall rules. Hence modern videoconferencing apps designed to work without direct communication. This increases complexity on many layers, leading to hard to diagnose failure modes, leading to inability to fix the crappy network when things work poorly.

2. Nearly all other communication is HTTP requests to services that are designed to tolerate mobile connections, people don't really notice hiccups and the videoconferencing ends up being the only real-time networked app that businesses use.

3. Last mile internet connections have stopped getting faster, or nearly so. If the 2000's trend had continued, we'd all have 10 gigabit internet connections by now. But instead people got excited about iPhones and choppy 3G/4G.
He's trying to hit a price point. We're not completely allergic to the $20M freeway bridge that's about 100ft long, and comes with heavy upkeep costs over the long term. So, $100M per mile with Upkeep Lite™ sounds good when making conversation about the topic. Also the $1B/mile is the cost of the Purple Line extension in Los Angeles. Worst case cost no doubt. A real figure nevertheless.
Doesn't seem like a teachable skill, frankly.
> An argument could be made that the entire capitalist system is built upon uncompensated labor. Just ask your mom.

My mom grew up during the Cold War. I haven't asked her specifically but I'm pretty sure she would just be confused by your comment. Women in the Soviet Union didn't get compensated either for domestic duties, like spending an hour standing in line to buy food staples.
No one else has mentioned zoom.us here. For my money, it's easily the best of its kind for multi-person video chat. The UI could be made a bit easier to navigate, but beyond that, it's a fantastically well-built piece of software.
The grey stars get inserted into smart playlists created to include rated songs. I don't want to hear what apple thinks I'd like. I want to hear what I've rated highly.
You are right- but the average MBA cost is 26k.
So every day on HN I see articles explaining
1) why Elon Musk and Tesla are great,
2) why Kalanik is evil and Uber is going to fail, and
3) why Trump is evil and stupid.

This article comes very close to all three (only briefly mentioning Trump).

Now, I dislike Trump and Elon is my hero (don't know much about Kalanik), but clearly there's a very serious groupthink problem going on here on HN.

All three of these men are mere mortals and only have 24 hrs/day. They can't commit great crimes or great heroic acts every single day. Yet, these articles hit the top of the feed every day and seeing these articles every day is going to cause your brain to outweigh these articles, seriously distorting your perception of reality.

I suspect this is why some were so surprised by the election result. I actually bet my money on Trump even though I dislike him (he's a slimy jerk, but he's not stupid). And while many here are 100% sure Uber is going to flop, I'd be tempted to put money on Uber. Their business model looks insanely good to me (if self-driving cars or government actions don't wipe them out).

Unfortunately, this reality distortion isn't a problem restricted to HN.
> more than 100% farebox recover ratio

Doesn't this just mean that they are expensive? I heard complaints about how expensive Tokyo's subway is. Reducing price and propping the system with tax can be a better approach in the long term, because that can encourage more people to use public transit and reduce demand for costly highways.

(Also, one could argue that the freedom to move around at an affordable price is a basic service the government should strive to provide, although I'm sure some people will regard such an idea as socialist nonsense.)
Cool, then who's going to pay the bills when you're retired?
I wouldn't have high retention if I didn't have the approach I outlined. The market is frothy. I ask all candidates what they prefer regarding hours so we're all on the same page from the get go. If you want to put in 60 and get compensated for it then I'll negotiate based on that. Most employees stick to 40 and Fridays are super light. Most work from home at least 2 days per week too. I'm exploring doing 32 hrs for new roles.

When I interviewed personally I always asked what the hours expectation was because I knew the game as I had been abused before. So I'd try to ask employees at a prospective company to get the real scoop if possible. It's dishonest to demand crazy hours and not compensate. It also leads to high attrition and I'm not in business to spend time replacing people and risking losing clients over it.
At least in aerospace, the 2,000 hr spec comes up often as a reasonable service life. We could make everything last forever, but that usually means beefier, heavier parts. How much more in fuel per flight hour are you willing to pay for a product that lasts longer? What about decreased range? Also, how much of a unit cost increase will you accept to pay for larger chunks of aerospace aluminum? Tradeoffs are necessarily driven by consumer demands.
(If you're taking about inter-city travel)

I really doubt one person on a lane can be faster than a freeway with 4+ lanes (in one direction) no matter how fast it is going.

Another thing you'll have to consider is that there will be a logistical problem at the exit stops if you want to take advantage of all the high speeds being talking about. I'm talking about passengers getting stopped off there.

There have to be atleast X/2 get-in/get-out stops for people to climb into the sleds or there will be a bottleneck. (Considering X is the throughput for the amount of time it take a passenger to embark/disembark)

(If you're taking about intra-city travel)

Building these tunnels would be very, very inefficient compared to say building another road over the current roads.

I'm not from LA but I believe the major traffic occurs at rush hour, and short stretches of roads are really the problem. So finding out the hotspots and mending them would do much better than digging out lots of tunnels under heavily populated areas.

Another point is that in intra-city travel, high speeds cannot really be taken advantage of, so they'll basically travel at subway speeds. Now, subways as you see are already filled up if you take a look at New York. How do you think a one man car would fare compared to that?

(off topic) Again, I'm a fan of musk, but to me, this seems similar to the 'Put man on Mars' argument because that's where we have to be in a couple centuries. Rather than that, putting money towards colonizing harsher places on earth like deserts or Antarctica would be money much better spend IMO.
While you're right, in that heat is an issue in tunnels, harvesting low-temperature-delta energy is incredibly inefficient. It is always better to source the needed electricity from a generator that is specifically designed for such.

(The only time this may be untrue is when dealing with very small things like remote sensors, where running a wire might actually be more expensive than harvesting the microwatts needed locally. But this is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of total system needs.)
To be fair, laptop + phone vs phone + monitor (+ keyboard?)
Of course they rejected the partnership. Why wouldn't Tesla compete rather than partner? And Uber is valued at $60B while Tesla is valued at $50B. Hmmmmmm....
That's about the best compliment I can think of, thanks!

Worse than just trying to Google for the answers are the Product Managers who come over from Marketing and tend to just make up answers. Ha! You have to go over with them the whole notion of compromise, and how just because it's on a Gantt Chart, doesn't mean we want to commit to all the dates for all the features 6 months out... Perpetual compromise, stuff is going to come up, we adapt and reprioritize and if we're lucky (and a good bit of it is luck) then the wheels don't come off the car while we're driving.
"That’s when I knew Tesla was competing."

^ Reactions like this will make it even harder to strike partnerships in the future.
So, I'm a bit unclear on how some of these ideas reconcile with violating thermodynamic laws as well, but we are probably not alone, since it's an area of active research, so, I'm pretty sure these are Unanswered Questions.

That the nucleus locks away energy, which can be set loose, is basically the fundamentals of fission and fusion, and that peculiar varieties of standing matter could produce heat for no outwardly obvious reasons, was the genesis of the idea for the atom bomb.

Feynman diagrams and rules, within the scope of quantum electrodynamics [0], provide for how a stable molecular system would still represent components exchanging energy at the subatomic level. An object would be regarded as cold and stable in deep space at absolute zero, but other activity could still occur. Maybe a population of stray photons bouncing around in some kind of stablized trap, forever... I'm not saying that such a thing exists, but somehow it doesn't sound totally unreasonable.

Either way, my example is a bit facetious, since there doesn't seem to be any escape from galactic star light at any distance, if Hubble space telescope images are to be believed. So we don't know that a system could exist which does not experience at least some photons falling onto it, from outer space. That photons can travel for 13 billion years, uninterrupted, and still produce a signal with any degree of fidelity, should provide at least a clue as to how long a photon can keep doing the same thing among non-decaying protons, for a pretty long time.

As for whether protons decay, I'm not being 100% accurate. Recent research set "lower bounds" on the period or likelihood for natural decay [1], and it's an exceptionally long amount of time: 5.9 × 10^33 years [2]. More than the billions of years we ballpark as the entire existence of the universe, so far.

But if I'm remembering correctly that number is regarded as a safe number, simply because for the duration of the longitudinal study, they have not yet recorded a spontaneous decay event for any of the protons in the experiment, which is a huge number, and so, statistically, based on no observations across N protons (50,000 tons of not-just-any water), over N units of time (three experimental research phases from 1996 to 2008?), they've stated an interpretation that one proton is expected to last at least so many years. When that appeared in the news, the sentiment was expressed as "nothing yet, boss!"

Does this mean perpetual motion exists within protons? Don't say that out loud, in front of the wrong people, geeze... But, if perpetual motion is not possible, then does time eventually stop?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Proton_Decay

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande#Results
ok so pay 65kfor a job? PLUS the amount you miss out on by not working.
>These universities are accredited

lol
Microsoft Outlook on the Mac (specifically meeting invites) has borked bullet lists repeatedly for me.

Of course, in this case, it's "not Windows" so it must suck worse than the Windows version.
Feynman on Fermat's Last Theorem (2016)
i agree but sadly all people care about is name. so having CMU on your resume by paying 65k might be worth
Lieutenants. Elon.
In my fantasies I've got a microtbm which digs a 4" diameter tunnel over to San Jose right under MAE-WEST so that I can pull a fiber right to the Internet :-)
I've tried and learned vim and I'm very capable of navigating with it (I don't use marks but I use about everything else) and it is precisely good at one thing: being an editor. If you try to make it an IDE, I believe you're just using a bad IDE. It is only effective for me as a very lightweight editor for quickly making simple edits to a file.

Why don't I like it as an IDE?

* Second hand auto complete

* Second hand project management

* No debugger

These are actually to me huge features and the third party support for each of them exists but doesn't touch the quality of implementation in a dedicated IDE. Not to mention it adds hours of extra work to getting started in an environment you don't already have configured.

And frankly, you don't have to learn vim to recognize this.
Hit their index for lots more great stuff. This is at least the third of their pieces I've come across and I've been impressed each time.

https://pudding.cool/
I hope that can revive Windows Phone, or it'll be a wasted effort.
People have been building tunnels for a lot longer than they've been building planes. They are extremely well-understood.

The innovation here is in digging the tunnels, not their operation.
Looking at their financials, they make tons of money. They just spend gigatons of money. The revenue side of the equation is looking quite healthy, actually.
And who owned the farm? In many such societies, only the husband--meaning the wife's work was still uncompensated.

The problem of uncompensated labor by women does not break down neatly on the borders of economic concepts like captitalism, agrarian, industrial, etc.
This explains why apple hasn't come out with any kick ass product the past years. All their top designers have been busy designing details for this building.
No, the government didn't produce a food pyramid that largely reflected medical consensus of the day. The food pyramid they produced is almost inverted from the medical consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guid...

>I respond because I'm tired of the narrative that when government does something stupid the answer should just be to remove government from the equation.

Don't pretend like you're presenting anything but an equal and opposite narrative. This government program, which is nothing more than bought and paid for marketing by lobbyists, has literally killed millions of people. How many people need to die before you'll say enough is enough?

If the government got out of the way then people would seek out the information they need and they would get it from a variety of sources such as books, their personal physicians (probably the best choice), or other sources. Unreliable sources would relatively quickly fall by the wayside. But the government voice is a foghorn which cannot be ignored, especially when you put it in the school curriculum.

>Let's stop being lazy. Let's dig into the details.

I'm right here with you. One-size fits all nutrition recommendations from the government is a disaster. When the government becomes a voice for nutrition recommendations its scope makes it, in effect, the only voice. That makes the government voice the ripest target for manipulation. Instead, the voice of the scientific community at large should be out there. It's there today, but it's drowned out by the government fog horn. If you want nutrition information, the best person to talk to is probably your doctor because they will know pretty near the latest medical information and be able to adjust it for you as an individual.
> But then for some reason the solution has to involve putting cars into these tunnels. If what he thinks he is on to is viable with cars in those tunnels, it's even more viable with trains carrying 1,000 passengers each coming every 3 minutes. So why aren't we building these subways with trains?

Because with trains you never build just a tunnel - there are train stations, escalators leading in and out, ticketing booths/machines, electrical work to power all that fun stuff, connectors to existing depots so that maintenance workers can come and service the cars and the engines.

His idea is closer to Madrid, which has dug tunnels to relieve the city streets of the traffic. The tunnels themselves are very unassuming and look like onramps and underground parking garage entrances.
I guess I should have been more clear and said a 'commodity server' with 1TB of RAM :-)
Not sure about the quality of this piece. One company, Cognizant, is obviously in some form of trouble. The others are laying off a few hundreds/thousands jobs, on a base of 100K+ employees, as part of the performance review process. There's also no mention of hiring being reduced for any of these companies.
He who has the gold makes the rules?
> So, $100M per mile with Upkeep Lite™ sounds good when making conversation about the topic. Also the $1B/mile is the cost of the Purple Line extension in Los Angeles. Worst case cost no doubt. A real figure nevertheless.

The figure is way out. Crossrail in London has a $20 billion total budget (£15b GBP), with 26 miles of tunnel[1]. But the tunnel is only part of the project, several billion is being spent on new regular track and station rebuilds, so the tunneling figure is really closer to $15 billion.

That's about $570 million per mile, but the Crossrail tunnels are just shy of 50% bigger in diameter than what Musk wants to build (20.5' vs 14'). And as the FAQ says, "reducing the diameter in half reduces tunneling costs by 3-4 times".

LA's tunnel might be costing $1B/mile, but how much of that cost is actual construction versus bureaucracy and mismanagement?

[1]: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/
Pay today or pay tomorrow. I don't think it is an outlandish thought IF $100M/mile tunnels are achieved that the TCO for an elevated roadway will be higher. Elevated roadways have to be replaced eventually. Tunnels are more durable, look at the Holland Tunnel for example, 89 years old and no need for replacement in sight. And it's $48M price tag would be $3.3B today for 1.62 miles.
Stephen Bellovin: Who Pays (for software support)?
The zoom mobile app is truly a disaster
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. He wasn't calling the OP a sinner, or even questioning his posting on HN, he was telling him to do something to stop the abuse of his sister.
Friendster Was the Best Social Media Site, Ever
Does libhybris support X11 with GPU accel now? It didn't when I tried to use it in the past
> Without understanding edge case scenarios, we cannot make claims like these.

Actually, this claim isn't based on any particulars of any scenario. It's simply a common human cognitive pattern. We will readily accept a familiar risk over an unfamiliar risk, even if the unfamiliar risk is less risky. We all readily jump in our cars every day despite the statistical fact that car-miles are quite deadly when compared with alternatives like bus-miles, train-miles, or plane-miles.

We're also likely to underestimate the magnitude of a risk when we have some perceived sense of control. Most drivers believe they are above average - so the risk of accidents is undervalued (due to ego). On planes, the risk of harm is overvalued because passengers have no sense of control in failure scenarios.

Like I said, we SHOULD understand how new tech can fail. We ALSO need to be careful about the biases with which we approach a new technology and aware of what we're expecting from it. We tend to overvalue the ways in which a new tech can introduce unfamiliar harm, while undervaluing the ways in which a new tech can remove familiar harm that's currently taken for granted (hence, undervalued). This presents policy/planning problems that can inhibit introduction of society-benefiting innovations. This does not mean that conservative approaches to deploying new tech are wrong - far from it: conservative adoption is responsible - it simply points out that our natural human biases tend to maintenance of the status quo.

My point is that, quite simply, we need to be as realistic and comprehensive in our establishment of the benefits a new tech could introduce, as well as the risks, in order to have a balanced perspective of its overall value.
If it needs to be done, and you are going to do it, then don't pollute the code base with your personal TODOs. I shouldn't see it, because it should be done by the time I get to it. If you want to put it in the code base, at least put your name in the TODO, so I know who to contact and remind that something was missed.

If there is something that needs to be done and you are not going to do it -- the code is the worst place to put it. Basically, what you are saying is that you have a design in mind and want someone else to finish it. If you really can't trust your coworkers to refactor the code and build good designs on their own, use a different communication mechanism. The better thing is to forget about your long term plans, leave the code as simple as you can and trust your coworkers.
I'd certainly just enjoy the salary without any sort of obligation to work for such scumbags anymore.
Have you ever read up on Mars lava tubes? The idea of using them to start colonies makes a lot of sense to me.
>~3 decades old earth bricks (granted, uncompressed) and it's not pretty

No surprise there. CSEB is an entirely different material from regular old compressed earth block, which itself is entirely different from uncompressed earth. Squeezing out the empty space and adding a binder (cement) makes it all one solid piece as strong as concrete. Uncompressed earth is just... dirt.

It's like saying, "Concrete roads won't work. How do we know? Because gravel is an ingredient of concrete, and gravel roads suck."
But atom is made by github, right? Not to justify their choice but you can see from a company perspective how it surely aligns with their goals (increase github market share).
I wrote the Art of the Deal with Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past
> Public transit has failed to solve the problem despite a 100-year head start.

So the question here really is "which would improve LA more: tunnels that carry trains, or tunnels that carry carts that hold single cars?"

There is plenty of strong evidence that shows adding additional road capacity increases overall traffic. I'm not sure that adding ways to move cars around faster wouldn't have the same impact, versus a train.
Can't remember where, but I saw a stat recently implying that (on average) even when the unemployed father was the primary carer of children, the working mother still put in more time doing domestic chores, etc.
Kind of makes you wonder who the ignorant, coward, order-following child-killers for profit of the digital world are. Running Windows Update doesn't really compare.
Actually not the same team, just the same publisher that capitalized on AW's success. Eric Chahi himself, the one-man-army responsible for Another World, only did Heart of Darkness afterwards.
Have you saw them working in real life? Can't say about others but the first one is, maybe not creepy, rather looks like fake and cheap. Usually standing in one place, stuttering movement, etc. I don't want to say it is worthless. You have to start somewhere. But we are far away from the smooth and immediate reactions.
Elevator engineers sometimes handle this problem by having "express" elevators that travel between distant floors and "local" elevators that operate between nearby floors.

That avoids the need for big central stations (other than the ground-floor lobby, of course, but there's no way around that for a building -- a street transport system isn't limited to a single point of entry).
What is SLDC?

Edit: Low effort Google gave me the answer: https://www.google.ca/search?q=sldc&gws_rd=cr&ei=C98bWZvbDIj...
>Kim Gwang-ho, an automotive engineer, did something last year that many South Koreans saw as an act of betrayal

Is this really the Korean mentality? It makes me wary of buying anything from that country if it is, let alone something expensive and potentially dangerous like a car.