skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not just fear. It's fear of the unknown. You admit this is your 1st ever job, so it can be hard to calibrate expectations from employment. It's not all great though, and even at a great company, you just might be in the wrong place or working on the wrong product.

I think personal fulfillment is key to good development as a person. You say you're unfulfilled. Why? Can you make a list? Where do you think things might be different?

I'd also encourage you just to look for a job, and maybe take some interviews (perhaps at startups you think are in an interesting field). This might give you some more perspective, and either let you realize that you want to do something else - or let you recognize how good you have it, and that you shouldn't be taking it for granted. Also, recognize the difference between the perception of starting your own business vs actually doing it. It's a lot of work. It can be great, but it is certainly easier to jump on a small company that is doing something you think is interesting.

You don't know what you've got till it's gone. But you will have many jobs in your life, so I'd just suggest you not get too hung up on any one particular job, and view it more as a long journey of exploration.
Getsploit tool. Search all the exploits from the terminal
Nobody cares about diversity in accounting. There are no role models. It's just a bunch of nerds trying to score 100% on the big test because nobody else is obsessed enough to be any good at it.

That's what programming was like before these people chasing big paychecks invaded.
I can't imagine you'll enjoy working elsewhere if you're not happy at Google. If you're an entrepreneur at heart, you'll likely not feel fulfilled until you're working on your own product. I'd say stick around Google (at least for the paycheck) as your mentor suggested until you have an execution plan. Also, if you decide to find another employer in the future, it will be more difficult to explain that you quit because you felt "unfulfilled" (that would scare me if I were considering hiring you); but if you quit to start your own company, that's a commendable act.
That's true for COBOL too.

FORTRAN compilers were great for loop optimizations, but not clear if it pioneered much else worthwhile.
Unless you are the woman in question, I suppose, it would not be your decision at all. While facing someone in the position to make that decision is surely not easy, the breast cancer could literally kill the pregnant woman and possibly the baby, too. The decision then rests on various medical conditions that a philosopher would be hardly qualified to judge on.
how would that work. if the crash is my fault then my insurance is paying for the repair and not yours. so it does not mather if you have tesla insurance.

or are we talking about casco insurance (that repairs your car if its your fault ? )

i pay my insurance based on my age, power of the car, past accidents and the city i live.

is it different in usa ?
>Yet it does seem to go against the basic idea that many of proponents of manned space exploration tout: a second home to ensure our survival.

This is slightly tangential, but I think it's important to point out that Mars is more than a survival shelter.

The point of colonizing Mars is to preserve human civilization, not merely our species. Civilization is a higher level emergent thing that can only exist in large prosperous groups of humans. Almost nothing could actually kill the human species, but tons of stuff could end civilization. A self sustaining Mars guarantees our continued social and technological advance.
I think you're right, but economics in practice is not always that linear. It is obviously possible to have decent employment results with higher minimums. Other places have this. From the sample range of minimum wages & employment rates that exist in the world, it doesn't seem that minimum wages are a major factor in most cases. That's why the debate keeps coming to the table.

The economic theory is sound, but this is different from other recurring arguments (eg rent controls or fixed pricing generally) in that the real life examples of the theory in play aren't anywhere near as strong.
> My mentor suggested to stay at Google until I find an interesting startup idea to work on.

IMO the odds of this happening is very slim compared to you going out on your own. When you travel around you get to experience a lot of problems first hand and then solutions to those problems come naturally to you.
That's funny that to you "turning off cheating" somehow becomes fully automated communism.

If I were a kid and there was some game where my one of my peers always won because their parents let them spend literally hundreds of dollars on advanced gear that would cost me months of gameplay hours, I wouldn't want to play it. The game's updates and design would probably drift towards rpping off that kid's parents instead of maximzing fun. For some people, this is already real life for them.

In WoW, if my peer has a rare sword, it's not because his mom bought it.
They are very common in Europe, where parking is often very challenging. Watching people shunt their way out of spot in Rome, with no damage done, is entertaining for the first time tourist.
The word to keep in mind here is 'can', or I would say 'may'. The increasing tendency of crying wolf at anything you don't like by squeezing it into a category where it can't rock the boat anymore is not really helping us move forward collectively.
Ask HN: Why does visual programming suck?
Almost every visual programming tool I've seen on HN looks so cool when I see the gif, but when I start using it, it's invariably a frustrating experience. I think it might be because customizing the last 20% is difficult visually, and you so you have to drop down to code. But once you're in visual programming land, changing abstraction layers is difficult.

When I asked Alan Kay this question, his first response was "well there are various types of visual programming, some of them have taken off". The type of visual programming I'm thinking about here is a WYSIWYG drag and drop interface for building UIs. Imagine having prebuilt views (tables, buttons, dropdowns, etc.) and being able to drag them and lay them out how you want. Then you interact with their API: this table pulls in data from this SQL statement; this button executes this HTTP query; this dropdown publishes this value, which this SQL statement uses via string interpolation. These "widgets" publish their data, which can be used by other widgets (w1.value), and inside SQL queries. The tables can pull in data from SQL queries. You can use string interpolation inside SQL queries, so dropdowns can influence the query being run. So selecting a drop down value would cause the query to change, which would automatically propagate changes to the table.
Google is a good place to work, but it is not the only good place to work, and in some cases it is not even the best place to work. If you have what it takes to get in at Google, there are any number of places you could work, so you wouldn't be giving up a lot if you stepped down for whatever purpose, whether travel or entrepreneurship.

You are very young with, I'm guessing, no large responsibilities outside your job. You also have a bit of money. That means you are now free as you will probably never be again to do what you want. Take this chance to do so if you feel at all inclined.

The job at Google is in the end just a glorified joe-job, and it or something very much like it will still be there if you ever want back.
If they were objectively safer, all insurers would have lower rates for them based on the actuarial data.

"Agreements with certain insurers" is a commercial, promotional consideration, and has precisely zero correlation with your claim that it shows they are "objectively safer".
The same kind of people who banished the word "meritocracy" from the posters in their office because it might be offensive towards diversity hires who couldn't compete on merit.

GitHub, that's who.
Thing is, I'm not afraid of goto. This is more like random keywords behaving like goto in certain contexts.
I have never regretted leaving a job. The only regrets are not leaving sooner.
The question being asked is, 'are Tesla drivers less safe using the Autopilot than the same drivers would be without the Autopilot?' The question being answered is, 'are Tesla drivers safer than non-Tesla drivers?'
Did you have another job lined up when you left?
The reason I mentioned it is that the condition may have been the reason that Hayes did not 'see' the boundary between a bank taking into account its advantage when arriving at its own Libor submission on the one hand, and the wholesale cooperation between several banks and brokerages on the other. That boundary was largely social and not documented/codified.

I was thinking in terms of mitigation.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't want to make this about about MM v Yahoo!. MM is at worst a symptom. My argument is that the disease is systemic.

> In what way? And why do you specify "large" shareholders?

I don't want to go too far into conspiracy theories but I think it is logical that under certain circumstances, a "large" individual shareholder may not have the best interest of ALL the shareholders in mind. Of course, I don't think what I propose will ever exactly happen. This is merely a thought experiment to guide us.

A guiding principle I remember learning in elementary school was that our rights are not absolute. Our right to freedom of speech is not absolute and neither is the right to bear arms. These rights, even though enshrined in our constitution, are arbitrary lines drawn in sand.

I think the right of a corporation to pay and the right of an individual to make a living are also such rights. Now, I don't expect anyone to pick this idea up. It is too toxic. The idea that we should put caps on how much an individual is allowed to earn is unthinkable for most people. People are talking about repealing the estate tax permanently which is a huge blow to my idea.

I hope some day we can push for an aggressive progressive income tax and estate tax. There are a lot of things that need to fall in place for it to happen though. For instance, it should become impossible to transfer large sums of wealth without it showing up on a public ledger of some sort. If someone has not earned $3M+ sum total (including inheritance) over their life and they buy something that costs $3M, that should automatically trip some alarm about back taxes.

The more I think about it the more absurd it begins to sound though. Maybe I was wrong to suggest progressive taxes as a way to enforce caps. If not taxes, what are some ways we can try to rein (is this the proper spelling?) in executive pay?
The problem with this sort of econ-101 analysis is that, sure, "it stands to reason" in a simple economic model. But the question is if it stands to reality where there's a lot more going on.

And even if it is true in a world of sticky wages, regulation and a hundred other things, economists tend to stop their analysis there[1]. What are the second-order effects of the poor having more money? Almost all of that will be spent, so there's a multiplier effect, and I'd expect, e.g., MacDonald's extra dollar in salary to actually cost less, because some of that money will come back. (This isn't different in principle than SNAP, for instance, which generates much more than a dollar of economic activity for each dollar spent.)

Veering in a slightly different direction, if some companies would stop fighting minimum-wage increases so hard, I might have more sympathy for their endless moaning about corporate tax rates. If they didn't use the safety net to subsidize their low wages, perhaps we could unwind some of these absurdly convoluted payment structures[2].

And finally, I'm simply done with arguments like this. There is so much inefficiency, bullshit work (that term used in the technical sense), barely disguised corporate graft on top of a historic shifting of the tax burden away from the wealthy combined with actual market forces that are concentrating wealth that I feel like even if a modest minimum wage bump were to create a noticeable shift in statistical measures[3], it would still be too little done to help those struggling under the weight of the laundry-list above.

[1] "If you want a happy ending, stop the story there." The same holds for sad stories.

[2] Which are the real reason we have waste and graft. If there's one thing investment banks, car payment finance and low-rent advertisements for get-rich-quick scams demonstrate well, if you are in a position make anything involving money complicated enough, you can do quite nicely skimming off the top. Sunlight and simplicity make all that much better.

[3] Notice how little real-world evidence of minimum wage increases causing economic harm there is. Almost all the arguments are instead from first-principles. We've raised it quite a few times, and a lot of people don't like it. And yet, there is almost no evidence it has ever caused harm.
Cryptoeconomics 101
this is truly great, just tested and it traverses NAT without problems(two peers behind NATs), how does it do that?
IIRC Google is very open to internal transfers and theyou also have a 6 month grace period for you to return if you decide to leave.
As another native speaker I can say that "guys" refers to a mixed gender group perfectly well. Saying that it implies a predominantly male group is more indicative of your personal life experiences or bias.

Regarding GP, my only guess is that they were virtue signaling because they explicitly went out of their way to make that point. If they really wanted to avoid gendered nouns they could have written "folks", "people", or any number of similar words (kind of like how I'm doing here, by not assuming GP's gender).
There was a program on national French TV almost a full year before VW case blew up, they tested PSA, Renault and Fiat cars and _every single one_ was several times above the norm.

also http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/reuters-america-update-1-fren...
I always like to think of these things from the worst likely scenario. What's the worst likely scenario that could happen from quitting to pursue your own ideas and travel? You take the 2 years, try out several startup ideas, none of which ultimately pan out, and you blow through your savings, forcing you to come back and look for a job that may be worse than your current one. Meanwhile, during those 2 years you got to travel, meet new people, experiment with new technologies you otherwise wouldn't have had a chance to in a corporate setting, and you took a shot at building something that can sustain you continuing in this lifestyle longer term. Even if they don't work out, they were likely stimulating and challenging ideas directly of interest to you.

When you think of it that way, what is there to be afraid of? At the end of the 2 years, you'll still be young with an improved tech skill set and in a great position to find solid employment when returning home. Maybe you don't end up working at Google anymore, but there are plenty of other opportunities out there. Don't be afraid, go for it...
Sweden has a sub so small....

The US wanted to train against attack subs that are much smaller than what Russia is using since North Korea and Iran were developing small subs that can be used in effectively what would be suicide missions against US carrier groups.

Sweden built a small sub because it cannot afford large ones and because it allows the sub to operate in shallow water and the narrow passes in the fjords.

Since the US can't ask North Korea to play the red team since they do it in real life they've rented a Swedish sub as an agressor.
I strongly agree with all that. In fact, being FOSS could be a huge advantage.

The #2 kernel ACIS by Spatial is massively held back by albatross round its neck - ie. the parent company Dassault who have foisted there own IMO inferior kernel CGM on them in the bizarre belief that it is a technical marvel.

Dassault is also the albatross round the neck of another subsidiary: SOLIDWORKS [1], and is famous for the $6.18 billion cost overrun when Airbus transitioned the A380 from the Catia V4 kernel to the Catia V5 kernel, which is essentially CGM. [2]

My point was that it is very difficult for OpenCASCADE with its setup to compete with 450 person-years of core dev work on essentially $0 funding.

[1] "One of the non-technical issues with CGM will probably be licensing costs. DS (and, hence, Spatial) is “proud” of CGM, and will be pricing it higher than ACIS."

http://www.3dcadworld.com/spatial-acis-cgm-and-the-future-of...

[2] http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700
Not mentioned in the title, but Sweden thinks they have surrounded an enemy sub in their territorial waters! Pretty crazy.
Starting a company is really going to define you as a person. It forces a lot of hard decisions on you that get baked into your personality. The ups and downs are either euphoric and horrific. If things go poorly you will deal with self doubt and heartbreak on a very deep level. Even if things go well you may end up developing negative personality traits (hubris, callousness, aggression) that lead to loneliness.

My recommendation is to find a project idea that compels you, and at least one other bright and capable person that will help ground you. Most successful companies I've seen have started this way.
In a comment below, you asked if the solution is to ban books, news stories. Are you suggesting banning comments is legitimate?

Lots of liberals have blamed terrorism on poverty and lack of opportunities to integrate. I've been following this issue over the last 3 years, and that's what I have seen.

I don't know how much you have been following the attacks, but in Europe there have been horrendous stories about rape, gang rape, terrorism from Muslim migrants. Since earlier you mentioned you were from Ireland, did you know about the gang rape of children in Rotherham? What about the sexual attack in Germany during New Year's a few years back? This stuff is getting very common these last few years.

I'm ok with immigration and aiding vulnerable groups, but if it brings the kind of problems we are seeing, when would you say enough is enough? How many more stadiums, night clubs, street cafes, streets need to be attacked before people acknowledge that there is a problem? The attacks so far have been mitigated because there was security: if there was no security during the attack on the Stade de France, the casualties would have been much higher, for instance.

I've lived in Europe and travelled freely, but the violence we are seeing are real facts I find concerning. I am not suggesting violence as a response, only to see the problems that exist, understand the causes. Lest you think this is only an Islamic terrorism issue, I also find the violence coercion in the history of Christianity to be problematic. But Christianity is right now not the cause of the violence we see.

And if you have solutions, what are those?

edit: why does this comment not show up? Is there a censorship thing here?
The matter is that the hypothesis is not disproved.
From a statistical point of view, H_0 not rejected just means that we can not exclude that the difference (or the correlation) between two or more variables would be attributed to the chance (that is, the sample variance).
The outcome is, of course, informative. If we organize many well designed experiments, and none of them is able to confirm the hypothesis, we can reasonably conclude that it can't be proved.
The null hypothesis, however, is not as strong (in disproving a theory) as the alternative hypothesis is in proving it.
With regards to the "diff" which I forgot to address earlier.

The changeset still has a textual representation.

So the diff could be like a webpage that is showing:

On 5 June 2017 John Smith authored the following changeset:

- Added new function that calculates sum of given numbers (click to view)

- Removed function called "old calculate sum"

The program is not the syntax the syntax is just a representation of it.

So if I have added a new function we can both look at the diff.

We will both see that I have added a function.

We could both choose to view the body of the function in the same syntax, or you could configure your editor to show it in a different way. In the same way that you could configure the font size or the colour scheme.

The point is to reduce the importance of things that are not inherently part of the domain and give that importance to the problem/domain itself.

So you could view a "number node" like "5,000,000" and I could view it like "5_000_000".

I could view a function definition like "declare function named blah" you could view it as "def fun blah".

Because we are still looking at the exact same thing it makes no difference in the result of the program.
>In the 22 instances when the federal minimum wage went up, the change in total private
employment after one year was positive 15 out of 22 times

>What’s more, looking more closely at the relative handful of instances in which employment
decreased—whether total employment, or employment in our key indicator sectors—it is
also clear that those declines were likely driven by factors other than the higher minimum
wage.

The factor they mention that drove those declines is recession. Good for them for looking at that, but it doesn't look like they checked the flip side of this: those increases in employment they're using as evidence were driven by factors OTHER than the increase of minimum wage.

What was the economy growing at during those years where employment went up? If the falls accompany recession, maybe the increases coincide with crests in growth rates. Was employment starting off a low base? Was the growth rate high enough for employers to easily eat the cost increase? How much was the increase and what was the wage increased from? How does it compare to inflation in the area?

>Significantly, the study finds that, unlike small wage increases, a $15 minimum wage generates billions in new consumer spending that offsets most of the higher costs to businesses.

So they're admitting it doesn't offset all of the higher costs? Why would that then lead to increased employment?

I understand that people making minimum wage find it almost impossible to save money, but this doesn't solve that problem. Even if you have more people making $15 an hour, businesses are offsetting that cost by raising prices. It seems like all you've done is create arbitrary inflation.

So who's better off after the wage increase? Looks to me like the only winner is the government. They just sneakily mandated nominal tax increase. But even then that's just the short term.
Also, note: in theory MusicBrainz already has metrics for the number of clicks, views, lookups, and edits certain entities get through their site and API. I bet these are strongly correlated with listens/popularity.
Generally, in the US, we have the same. The catch is, that if you are leasing or have a car loan on your vehicle, you are usually required by the financing company to carry comprehensive coverage - so that if you total the vehicle while the loan is active, you don't get caught with having to buy another vehicle, and still pay the loan for the wrecked vehicle off.

Thus, while you can carry just liability insurance on your vehicle in most states, it isn't all that common, aside from older, paid-off vehicles, or used clunkers that are cheap enough for people to buy outright without financing.
If you want an answer to your question, you yourself should know what you're asking. I honestly don't know if you're asking a rhetorical question, complaining about the reality, or asking for feedback on your idea. You are talking about multiple things at once here:

1. asking why visual programming sucks;

2. Talking about your experience with Alan Kay;

3. talking about your idea of an ideal visual programming method.
Ahh I get your point now. Apologies