skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Leaf exists, and it existed for years. Since its existed for years, we pretty much know exactly what we're gonna get.

In contrast, as of today, the Model 3 doesn't even exist.

Personally speaking, I don't buy the first model of any car anyway. If I were seriously considering the Model 3, I wouldn't plan on buying it till 2019 at the earliest. That would give Tesla enough time to work out the issues that the first batch of cars will inevitably have.

No car company has ever launched a new model line without issues. The issues may be major, or minor (like doors or windows not closing properly... rattles and that sort of thing). Inevitably, the first year or two are basically a public beta-test. For what basically amounts to a dozens-of-thousands of dollars investment, I want to make sure the car manufacturing company gets it right.
So where do we draw the line between relevant experience and non-compete violations?
Here's a comment I made some time ago on HN about similar / related Python libs / tools:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8735892#8737512

Edit: That comment was part of an HN thead about this topic, which might be interesting in its own right:

Streem – a new programming language from Matz (github.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8735892
This thread is getting beastly but I want to weigh in to comment that The Web is an interesting alternative to this problem.

Rather than allowing dangerous apps and requiring them to undergo corporate review, The Web just assumes the app is nefarious, lets anyone at all run anything they want, but architects the runtime so that apps can't do anything unsafe.

There is heavy debate about what constitutes "unsafe"... privacy-wise, security-wise. And features like graphics shaders and camera stream take longer to diffuse. And different devices make different choices on these subjects.

But choosing to target the browser as The Computer is a vote against app stores. And a vote for bringing the safety and freedom of the sandbox closer to the metal, rather than going straight to the bottom while forfeiting our freedom.

Do you accept a class-based system where the privileged class gets "full" device access and hope the class divide gets fairer.... Or do you accept limited device access in exchange for a truly egalitarian distribution landscape, while hoping device access will improve? To me that's the choice for developers, and I choose the latter.
>Those using IE6 also thought it was the best for a long time.

And it was. Is was also closed source and had its own ideas of what standards mean (even though its “version” of the box model actually makes more sense and it's generally preferred by most developers today. Oh yeah, and Ajax.)

Webkit, on the other hand, is open source and a huge proponent of standards compliance.
I liked the sound assist. I actually prefer this to a regular podcast format, which tends to get monotone sometimes. Reminds me a little bit of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibuiUXOTE4M
Digital pharmacy startup ScriptDash rebrands as Alto, inks $23M
I've always felt the real problem is the monopolies. Net Neutrality doesn't fix that--it's up to local governments to fix it.

In the early 2000's when my home town still had dial-up only, Comcast came into the town and offered to build out cable broadband. They would even throw in a $300k grant to the school district for new laptops. The only catch? They needed to be granted a monopoly on all the telephone poles in the town. The town agreed.

As circulated on HN recently, the town of Chattanooga, TN is another interesting example[0]. Chattanooga made the smart decision many years ago not to grant a monopoly in exchange for a fiber build-out. Instead they built their own fiber network. Years later they offered to expand their ISP to the surrounding towns, which only had dial-up and satellite. It would cost zero taxpayer dollars. Instead the state decided to give $45 million to Comcast/AT&T to build out--get this--DSL!

As the parent article points out: despite cost-per-bit plummeting over the years, the cost to consumers isn't going down. The problem is monopolies naively being granted by local governments. In a world where that didn't happen, Pai would be right: ISPs would be forced to compete on features and quality, and so nobody would be talking about bundling websites like they do with cable channels, or whatever other nonsense Net Neutrality is designed to prevent.

[0] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/tennessee-could-g...
If you really did make up your mind, I suggest you first talk to a lawyer about your potential decision.

Then when all things are clear from the legal side, first try to get this to work (if you still have any hope for this guy). Sit down with him and honestly talk about what you have in mind, and tell him you want to make this work. And make him commit to several things by certain time.

Or you could just tell him you want to split up. (Again, after talking to a lawyer).

You wrote 100% of your code and there was no legally binding document that transfers your ownership so I think it should be fine, but really really I suggest you talk to a lawyer if you are serious about this business. It's worth the money.
Actually, the US and the UK are quite comparable when it comes to obesity.
For what it's worth, I might be a more-obsessive-than-average user, but it kills me when I see tearing and flickering in X11 windows. "Every frame is perfect" is a super visible change :)

Btw, am I right that tearing in a video in VLC is an X11 interaction, or is that purely a VLC thing that I should expect to keep happening with Wayland support?
Helping you choose the best CDN provider
This used to happen to me all the time with Lloyds "Worldwide Service". When I would travel, I would tell them ahead of time where and when, and inevitably the first time I used my card in another country it was declined and I'd need to call in to card security and clear it. Mind you this would cost a couple quid due to the overseas use of my phone. These weren't exotic locations either, it would happen in NYC.

Then one time to me it happened when I was exhausted after a very long flight, trying to check into a hotel. I got on the phone with them, sternly told them the history of events and the situation, and demanded to be compensated for the time and hassle otherwise I would switch banks. I pointed out their bank was misnamed "Worldwide Service". They put £100 in my account, and the problem seemed to go away after that point (I still needed to inform them ahead of time, but that did the trick).
He doesn't do manufacturing: he mainly does real estate. He also started with a pile of money. He wasn't going to go bankrupt for investing that money exclusively in local businesses (esp real estate). He just didn't care about local businesses: his personal wealth and influence goes up as he globalizes just like those he critiques.

Now, your argument can definitely apply to manufacturing. It's why I would disagree with Trump on something like that if cost is the main issue. It's not always as many U.S. manufacturing companies can attest. Even when needing cheap labor, there are countries other than China less likely to cause us trouble that we could invest in. Many U.S. companies do, too.
Regarding academic study, sociology is so partisan you need not worry about them using computer science and/or logic to uncover hidden truths in the near future.

In the private sector however, companies such as Premise and Palantir are already eons ahead of academia, but their insights and data are proprietary.
It's not just about accelerating ML, specifically deep learning. There are many other enterprise technologies that can benefit from GPUs. One example: OLAP-focused databases (such as MapD - https://www.mapd.com/). For some benchmarks, check out this blog: http://tech.marksblogg.com/benchmarks.html.

The DL "training" use-case is well-known at this point, but there are many others which are emerging.
My great-aunt was one of the Coney Island babies. She's not dead yet, last I heard.
A Drugmaker Tries to Cash in on the Opioid Epidemic, One State Law at a Time
I'd also be interested to hear an experts thoughts on this. Could this be asked as a question in a thread of its own?
Where RE is reverse engineering, as opposed to say, regular expressions.
Companies are calling it "two factor authentication", which it is not. Please, hn, don't promote sms 'authentication' at your jobs. TOTP is easy to implement and not never difficult for users to understand.
Hi, please leave your feedback & suggestions in comments!
> Busses and other public transport work well because you have a route which makes it predictable people know when and where they can get onto a bus, and where they can get off and how long the ride will take

This is exactly the issue I'm referring to: the assumption that to be sufficiently usable, the route and frequency has to be pre-ordained, and that this is a necessary condition for acceptable mass transit.

That's the antithesis of on-demand.

> nothing stops public transport companies from implementing dynamic routes

Plenty of factors restrain an incumbent from innovating. Internally, their established processes, values, technology. Externally, the regulatory environment, existing infrastructure, market structure. Sounds like a ripe candidate for disruption to me.
True; if I didn't have the kid, I would love, love, love to work on a much later shift. At work, I usually don't really feel like I'm ready to dive into something until afternoon; and I've spent many hours coding away on personal projects after the kid goes to sleep at 8.
Show HN: Aqueduct – Dart on the Server
The founder of Pinboard on why understanding fandom is good for business
Is there official documentation available that you used for writing the Vivante driver or did you do it by reverse engineering? Or was it some of both?
That tax could shift to a registration fee. In order for the EV to be licensed for road use, an annual registration fee could be applied, or increased if it already exists. Whether it is a flat fee or some other cost structure, it could be a suitable tax replacement.
This really sounds like a galloping case of "I can't imagine how it can work, so it can't work".
I'm not sure why Prompt is slow for you but as a suggestion, I really like using Blink. It supports Mosh and it might help with your latency problem
A lot of warts in software come from legacy constraints - both I'm terms of backcompat, and HW/design constraints that are laughably irrelevant - throwing out warts and starting simpler is how you got ZFS for eg.
>I fear that you've been trapped by the vivid image of an impoverished, innocent, victimized person being blackmailed in a dark alley into selling their kidneys (picture someone like Fantine from Les Misérables) and try to stop that at all costs.

No. That is not true.

>It is most certainly evil if there is a perfectly good spare kidney just sitting around in a nearby abdomen...

You seem to imply that it is "spare" and "just sitting around", doing nothing, which is not the case. I somehow find that statement extremely disturbing...

>Human life is intrinsically valuable because of the consciousness and experiences of the mind which is enabled by functioning organs. If the organs cease to function, that does not reduce the value of that life, or imply that the 'time was right': every death is a tragedy.

On a bigger sense, human life is worth as much as any other life. You are saying it is worth more because of "consciousness" and "experience"? I am sorry, I am not sure what to make of it or how it is relavant to the discussion..

>Demand in this market will have a very small cap. You can't sell more kidneys than there are people who need transplants.

Oh. Wait till this market is in full bloom, and we can see transplantation "prescribed" quite frequently...

>The donor of a kidney will be unlikely to suffer a degraded life...

Ok. What happens when the remaining kidney of a poor donor fails? I see you have addressed it in your comment. But you hand waves it by saying it is not a problem if they can afford it, when the whole reason they sold the kidney was they were poor!

>The people in need of a kidney could, in one world, suffer in a hospital bed on a dialysis machine for the short remnant of their life..

People in need of money, of food, of basic necessities of life, of a roof about their head, has been suffering for ages. The rich has their mansions, studio apartments, their suv's and limos. They didn't think that the money they have lying around is "spare", and didn't re-distribute their wealth among the poor and needful...

Now the rich wants to "help" the poor by enabling them to sell their kidneys!!

Oh the hypocrisy!
Cars in general are bad for the environment. The discount was about being quite a bit less bad, but EVs are still bad.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536854
Nonsense - triaging and urgency prioritization is used in medicine everywhere in the world since centuries.
I consider myself rich. I feel guilty about it. I make far less than many on HN (but live in an area which is much more affordable than SF). By the article's definition we are not in the top 20%, but given a cost of living adjustment I'd put us near it.

Barring a catastrophe striking myself or my wife and permanently impeding our ability to work (and even potentially including a catastrophe striking only one of us) I will never have a concern about paying for food, shelter, transportation, clothing, education for my daughter, entertainment, or retirement. Nothing of any real import.

I think the most serious plausible risk would be a drawn out medical disaster occuring to one or both of us, with exotic and expensive treatments and overwhelming hospice costs. Our society deems it fit to bankrupt families in this state. The truly rich are the only ones really exempted from this potential outcome.

We have a house. It's about half paid off.

Extremely high cost luxury items (such as exotic luxury cars) are either out of our grasp or ruled to be within our grasp but miserable investments, and are not seriously considered. As an example, our primary vehicle is 8 years old, and it cost ~$20k when new. We have a "spare" vehicle which is much older but is still reliable (I commute by bike, but having a "spare" vehicle is useful for emergencies or for very bad weather (when my daughter needs transportation and cannot ride with me safely)).

We keep enough money in the bank to buy a similar new vehicle with cash if this one fails, or to pay for major problems with the house. If both occur at the same time, we would need to take out a home equity loan or an auto loan.

We donate to charity but I feel guilty about how little. We donate more since the election.

We still own luxury items. I have a $300 pair of shoes. My wife owns nice clothing. I own a $1500 bicycle (and have several more less valuable bicycles which I enjoy working on and tinkering with). I own ~$3000 worth of camera equipment.

We shop at a co-op market, we buy local organic food. We eat out at restaurants several times a week.

We travel every year, sometimes abroad.

We never have to work on weekends or holidays.

Our parents are not rich. We "earned" all of this on our own. Through, mostly, simply good fortune at being in the right place in the right time in the right generation.

What is rich? What point is there in having more than this? How would it benefit society for us to have more than this? I suppose we could work less, but we both enjoy our work.
That example doesn't use word games to shift the loss to an uninvolved and innocent party.
Have they passed one of those with a majority Democrat or Republican Congress? Or have they just "wanted" to levy import taxes? The actual legislation seems to favor globalization over protectionism. I think TPP showed more their true colors where they tried to expand globalization but including very, specific provisions to protect the profits of very, specific companies or groups of them here. Some of those companies were themselves helping do the deal. They didn't care about American jobs: just the profits of big companies that donated to them.
Its just about as effective as the USA's according to the World Health Organization.
Oh, Intel was certainly a contributor to Linux and Microsoft flirted with having Windows run on other hardware. But backwards compatibility prevented either from commoditizing their complement on the desktop.
Having access to potentially thousands of dollars from cleaning up victim's accounts is an incentive to go and obtain a fake ID. Do the store clerks scan and verify that the ID is genuine somehow (check against a database, look at the photo) or do they just look at it in passing and give it back.
None of the alternatives I proposed require domain knowledge, they just require you to state the sudoku rules, which is inevitable.
I always thought Microsoft keeping dominance via video game and directx was their main drive to keep Linux out. Didn't realize directx was their move to fight against Intel.

The unintentional effect of this was GPU manufacturer florish, which is something I didn't know either.

The two big monopoly fighting against each other is super interesting. Also highlight the fact that we do need some diversity and competition in these segment.

Rooting for AMD on the GPU front to give Cuda a good challenge and also on the Intel front for their CPU.
GRPC and ISTIO Developer Day at Google
> And I suppose I was lucky that my employer was willing to do it, but they did do so in writing. Their lawyer already looked over everything and agreed, so was low risk to them.

I suppose there's an argument that being employee-friendly about this is a good move for companies. After all, they reviewed the contract and shelled out to hire you, so they're clearly accepting some risk over the issue.

Amazon threatens and blusters over noncompetes to retain staff, but someone who promises to fight unrealistic noncompetes might gain an advantage in hiring new staff - especially from places like Amazon.
> ...because the people doing the talking are mostly men, and the people being talked over are mostly (but not always) women;

I find _this_ sexist. I know cases where the opposite is true as well as where the interruptor does not care about the gender of the other person.

> If your rudeness is more likely to happen to women then maybe it's a result of sexism.

If A=A then A=A, therefore we can conclude that A=A. How wise.

I am not saying sexism doesn't exist, I am just saying that the author of this article is very liberal with her accusations based on a single observation of the moderator. Moreover, ironically, it is very sexist of her and I find this unfair to the moderator and men in general.
The article describes the tax changes as a phase out, from 2016 (presumably late in the year since the changes were made in 2015) to 2020.

The prices did not immediately triple.
The workplace stopped hosting healthy communities decades ago. Forcing people into being there all day is just making sure no other community appears to fill this need.
Meanwhile, back in the "reality-based community"...

https://danielmiessler.com/images/mfg1.jpg
Sort of. The original 1872 California Civil Code contains a provision voiding contracts that restrain otherwise lawful trade [1]. But that code was intended to be just a codification of the common law, not a major change in the law (except regarding procedures, which it was intended to simplify), so its authors thought that they were simply restating the common-law rule against restraint of trade.

It turns out that either they were wrong in what the common law said, or else it has evolved differently in the years since then, because California's explicitly codified provision has turned out to have much more teeth than the common-law rule it was intended to restate. But they were of the opinion that these kinds of contracts should already have been voided at common law. Unfortunately the codification movement lost steam or else it might've ended up in the law of many other states [2].

[1] This is the modern descendant of that section: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

[2] A bit on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dudley_Field_II#Dedicati...
Agreed same situation but I lost my desk to someone who comes in daily so I stopped coming in. Kinda miss the office but not as much as I would if I lost my remote position.
Sorry, I elided some of the scenario details.

1/3rd / 3x was based on the idea of splitting my passwords across 3 databases. Let's take your idea instead.

My concern was that if there is a risk of compromise, by using two different software solutions you've doubled the odds that a vulnerability will expose your data. (I once consulted for a company that had two data centers for high availability, but they had split their production services across the data centers, effectively doubling the odds of an outage instead of reducing their exposure.)

If instead you use the same software and two different data stores, I can see a benefit in having a store that you rarely open, but I'm not sure it outweighs the extra work, at least for me. If someone grabs my password store, having the security questions and answers protected would only help for a few accounts (admittedly, my bank being an important one) and the protection would only last as long as it took an attacker to social engineer their way past it.

I admit, now that you've raised the issue I'm going to at least think about moving my bank q&a info, but I doubt I'll go to the trouble; I suspect I'd either end up forgetting how to get to the credentials or leaving them somewhere someone could get at them.
Also helping in due diligence process within the context of Mergers & Acquisitions, by providing access to all the agreements that have been SEC filed for a company.
I typically use the slack app to find conversations I want to read, and then if they're more than a few pages in the past, will read them in the web interface. The web interface seems somehow to perform many times better.
The Evolution of Economic Language Related to Trusts and Antitrust
Neither of which is the company name, Valve.
Appears so. It's not only ad optimization but also gambling. On tv, almost half (or so) of the ads are for casino sites so you can imagine that the business must be booming. I guess it is good for programmers because there are a lot of employment opportunities.
> I would happily pay 80% taxes if I knew that when I needed it most the welfare state would have my back, but I know that it won't.

No, you wouldn't.

If you lived on 20% of your income ($60,000 - still double that $30k household that you claim is the same), you could retire in 5.5 working years and have that nest egg sustain you forever - no welfare state needed.

If you drop it down to the $30,000, saving 90% of your income, you could retire in 3 years.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...

Your lifestyle is preventing you from doing that, and your lifestyle and the fact that you can choose whether or not to live the $30k lifestyle is how you are not the same as that $30k household on the other end of town.

> That is why I am a socialist and I know I'm not the only one.

You're still only a socialist as long as you're spending other people's money.