skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I might not belong to the majority, but I prefer sharing an office with about 2-4 people. I don't get distracted by that, it rather makes me feel I'm actually working in a team, while sitting in a single room leads more to the feeling of being an anonymous coding monkey.

What helps however is that I'm really good at almost zoning out of the real world when I'm focusing on something to the point that people have to repeatedly call my name for me to notice someone wants my attention. And usually if it's not important they will just leave me be instead of interrupting me for some chitchat.
Some optimizations are easier in Go than in Emacs Lisp, hence the potential quality of produced bytecode can be higher. For big packages that can be implemented in Go naturally (nearly without pain), this can be an advantage.

I found some optimizations that are not implemented inside Emacs lapcode optimizer.
If I will port them to byte-opt everyone win, right (if they pass Emacs team review, of course)?
In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them.

Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.
Trust me, I get it. I'm not a fan of JS for the exact stated reasons. It's fragmented and full of holes.

But the way I see it, JavaScript is like today's BASIC. In a very fragmented computer market, it seemed like BASIC was the one thing that ran common between a lot of home computers in the 80s. While it's not a perfect parallel, it seems with all of the different platforms that are around today it's hard to find a consumer platform that doesn't have a JavaScript interpreter jammed in it, be it an iPhone or a ChromeCast.

BASIC wasn't all sunshine and rainbows either, but it was more than enough to help unify a fragmented world. I think JavaScript is very similar in that respect, and when the dust starts to settle on modern JavaScript it will be closer to accomplishing that goal.

Whether or not NPM is actually so impressive though, I won't debate. It's useful, but uhh... yeah. The baseline quality is not quite near something like, say, PyPI.
That's a good question actually. I was just thinking of nearby grocery stores off the top of my head.
Was that a long time ago? I've heard stories about things like that a bunch of years ago, but my impression was that things have changed.
Well, the entire reason we kept saying "NEVER PUT YOUR REAL INFO ONLINE" is specifically so that real-life problems can't follow you online. Because it used to be an inherently different world.

Now that the two have merged irrevocably, I'll concede that you need to reconcile the ability to reach anyone anywhere at any time, with almost no reprecussion, with the fact that people are dicks.

I think there might be value in the reverse though. An online community that actively prevents people from posting personal details. E.g. you enter your real-life details, and you're prevented from revealing them to someone, and people can't post addresses, real names, etc. You can make as many accounts as you want, but they're all tied to a specific real identity, so if you start harassing someone, you can be blocked and you can't make a real new account. An effort to have your cake and eat it too - keep what made online communities great (anonymous communication and the ability to discuss things of any nature with consenting partners, without jeopardising your real life), while avoiding the problems that trolls bring.
How YOU Can Experience the Aurora Borealis
Maybe he was an asshole? You only got one side to that story.
The second argument hits a snag when a Facebook account is counted as a border credential by the government.
> Spontaneous dialog is far more often disruptive to productivity than it is helpful.

I think this is the crux of where most of these threads end up. Not everyone agrees with both the explicit and implicit premise of this point:

- Not everyone agrees that productivity should be the exclusive focus of office design decisions

- Not everyone agrees that spontaneous discussions should not be embraced as a core mechanism of enhancing team-wide productivity
Yawn.

" Most knew of the reports of poor conditions before joining, but they either needed the work or it didn’t bother them. "

It's not really journalism if you can't answer the question, why work at Foxconn? The author seems oblivious to how good these jobs are compared to others in China. Rural chinese farm laborers earn far less and die at much higher rates.

It's a conceit of the wealthy nations to forget the hard work and sacrifices that were necessary to build their luxurious standard of living.
Does it matter? And if it does, wouldn't it be better to just use "they" and avoid gender issues all together?
Maybe because the company you work for doesn't want to support Uber given their shady tendencies.
a prototype made from parts that can't be reliably sourced? - designing for ongoing manufacture and sale is a serious limiting parameter - without solving that, there's no business model
No one is asking for a rule. In fact - the conventional use of masculine pronouns that you're enforcing is perhaps the closest thing to a rule that's being imposed, albeit subconsciously. Bro.
The point in question was if it would create jobs.
Is authorization generally possible without authentication?
> Elephants are important for the ecosystem, IIRC something like 70% of all species in certain areas rely on them. If you remove them from the ecosystem by domesticating them, you are doing a damaging the ecosystem in multiple way.

I'm not sure why you think this is an either/or proposition. I mean, I accept that farming elephants isn't practical for a lot of reasons, but no one's talking about putting every living elephant on a farm.
The least likely​ person I see making my burger is a teenager. Next time when you wait for your fast food, don't waste two minutes on your phone, but instead look up and around you. Appreciate and respect the people that handle your food.
Ah, I see, then I don't think you read the GP post, or I wasn't clear enough, since that is exactly a point I made.

Also, if you're only giving real-world work tasks, do you screen at all for basic competence first? I ask because I suspect we're talking about different things.

Also 2 (edit), does your work only involve one kind of task? How do you assess the breadth of their basic understanding without using simple problems? Are your programmers doing very repetitive stuff?
Finance (or maybe HR if it's an after-hours perk or something) gets incentives/kickbacks? Can anyone that works in this area confirm?
If you think laws are written without exception clauses, I have a bridge to sell ya.
I don't think that is true... Costco requires a membership to shop there, and bars require ID checks to enter.
Choo, architecture and performance
It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it.

Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the service you desire, you are welcome to pack up and take your custom elsewhere. Rinse and repeat this pattern enough times, and the 'giant' will either go out of business or change their behavior as to woo you back. That's commerce. If your friends will only ever interact with you on Facebook (or any single online service), my suspicion is that they aren't really your friends and it's time to find some new ones.
I agree with this, I am fortunate to have the opposite situation at work.

We have an open office with lots of visual and auditory noise. But I am rarely interrupted by other people, we have a good culture of asynchronous communication, and I do most of my work alone. So I'm pretty productive in my shared cubicle with headphones and dual monitors.
But then, more likely than not, your testing how long it takes someone to learn your stack, and not how well they can solve problems once they're using your stack.

(or in other words, total time taken to do n tasks is mn + b, where m is the efficiency when using your stack, and b is the time taken to originally learn your stack. b is relatively large, so with n=1, that's a very different thing than with n=100.)
We should all embrace intersectional office space personalities and that no office of the future can belong to the future if it doesn't accommodate different types of people, work, social and personal needs.

p.s. tabs
Is this substantially different from the one published by Roche?
Yes x2.
In addition to these sorts of serious, immediate dangers, certainly others of us prefer to never use our real name online because it is so uncommon. It's one thing to be Jim Smith, it's another to have a unique name and have your entire online history available to google. I figured this out in the 90s (via dejanews, before google even existed), and have never ever used my real name online since.

Further, I don't understand why some feel the need for me or anyone else to justify this position. It's real simple. I don't use services that try to enforce real ID or sometimes I use a fake name. It's extraordinarily creepy to me that facebook and google can not only determine my real name, but want to force me to use it online.
Hi. Thanks for trying it out. That's the first interaction we expect most users to come across. You can click on the message in the chat session.
And it's not limited to cyclists. I think the general term used in cognitive science is "Looked but failed to see".
The hacker is free to do whatever he wants to but the developers have no restrictions too. So they decided to rollback his transactions.
A decade ago I got introduced to Ruby by writing a static analyzer which used abstract interpretation [1] more or less following the hardcore lattice book [2] as taught by the Nielsons themselves.

I used Ruby because my groupmates found Lisp, ML or Haskell too difficult, and Ruby has(had) a very nice Set datatype plus pretty good metaprogramming and DSL abilities.

The code was on Github for some time and it was always funny to see recruiters reaching me, looking for people with > X years Rails experience, as they always equated Ruby to Rails.

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

[2] http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~hrni/PPA/ppasup2004.html
Yeah. That's really a bad example. If you ever do just about any amount of housework a good cordless drill and the associated bits are the one piece of power tool gear you'll pull out on a regular basis. I have various things out in my workshop I use rarely but the drill (and my Dremel) are in my closet and get pulled out all the time.
GNUcash can learn categories for transactions, and seems to know merchant codes in bank statement exports.
Generate a user name for the user. One can do that such that the probability of the generated name matching that of the user essentially zero. For example, a SHA-256 hash, hex printed, is highly unlikely to match a real name, and even if it does, it likely has a less than a billion chance of being the name of the person you give it to.

If you limit yourself to three-part 'normal' names, there may be some matches, but if everybody knows user names are doled out randomly, I don't think that matters.

For the Facebooks of the world, I doubt using pseudonyms matters, though, as they will soon discover who's behind each pseudonym, even if a third party assigned them, if only because your alias will be in the address book of your friends.
A bank robber isn't considered a "thief" for violating the laws of physics, either. What's your point?

Code is law. The community decided/realized the "law" as written wasn't the one they wanted, so they created a fork that captured both the letter and spirit of the "law" rather than the letter of some other one they didn't want.

I don't get the holy wars over this, other than the fact that some people are obviously very motivated to pump their empty shell coin in the hopes that it beats the leading ETH one. "Code is law" and "laws are imposed upon humans against their collective will" lead to two very different things.
That's more the fault of choosing bad function names, not case sensitive language features.
If you own a car and commute to work, then your car will contribute more to global warming than your diet will. It just happen that more people eat cows than commute to work by a car.

Comparing cars with cow is unhelpful without the correct context. At minimum we should distinguish between meat cows raised on animal feed, milk cows, and grass cows (which in places are helping the environment to reduce overgrowth). Then we need to compare those to other diets.

Regardless, cars will always be worse per person compared to eating cows. I would stick with the domestication argument.
Sounds like you've got it all figured out! Let me know when your unicorn comes out of stealth mode.. /s

FYI we do have lots of tools and frameworks that make developing for accessibility relatively straightforward.. But you have to want to do it, and you have to know how to do it. This takes education and learning, but most worthwhile things do.

Sayings things like "businesses are going to push it down on their existing developers" is looking at this all wrong.

Developers should be building accessible websites in the first place.
There are plenty of examples of trademarks that became generic terms for product or services where the initial trademark owner did not dominate in that market very long. Heck I could argue a genericized trademark may be a bad thing and signify the lack of uniqueness in the service Uber provides if all other competitors are described using the same term.
My point is that you don't really know if the stdlib types actually have one method that returns 1 or 2 value or two methods one returning 1 value and the other returning 2 where the compiler chooses based on the call site which one to call. Just because [] looks like one method to the user doesn't mean it has to be one method.

Having two different functions is a way of dealing with this while minimizing change as it's just syntactic sugar and not a language change. Variable length tuple types are a much bigger change. They'd also presumably be a lot more expensive. Ideally a map type implemented by the user should be as performant as the built-in map type.
Apache Maven Shared Component: Maven Shared Utils Version 3.2.0 Released
I would agree with that point if it would result in CEOs being less hard working people.

What all people want is a stable, save, maybe a little boring, position that shows other people they are respectable and that pays the monthly bills. But not even the highest level of employee has that safety any more. And while they get more money even when they get fired, a fired CEO is still considered a loser, just as you and me, and they fear being considered a loser just as much as you and me. And maybe what increases their pressure back to the sam level as ours is that their failure is way more public than ours. If you lose your job and you get a new one, you can pretend everything is just as it was before. They can not. Everybody has seen the articles in the news paper and know some (true or not) reasons for why they failed.
Err. Why do you think Haskell isn't intended to be used in production settings?
I think it's better to work on making people better collaborators, than to ruin productivity on the off chance someone will hear something important in a conversation not meant for them. For example, I'm working on using Slack more to cc people on questions I have or things I'm doing so they have a chance to help/stop me or at least be aware of what I"m doing.

If you want a flexible collaborative environment without it's horrible effects on productivity, you could build Apple like pods surrounding an open area. Those who want to work in open areas would work in the middle. Those who need privacy to concentrate can still leave their sliders open during times they are open to collaborate.
The traffic light reminds me of SoundEar [1], noise monitors which were popular in Swedish classrooms fifteen years ago (and might still be). It worked well in my seventh grade classroom.

I'm not so sure about the red light being manual trigger only. I think it's better to decide objectively on what the desirable noise level should be.

[1]: http://soundear.com/
Apache Commons FileUpload 1.3.3 Released CVE-2014-0050
And 'just not entering that country' isn't a solution how?
By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora.

Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc.

Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the product vision seems to be to incorporate as many of the kinds of constraints common in meatspace to nudge specific kinds of behaviors and discourage others.

Recall in its origin the biggest difference between Facebook and Myspace was Facebook's calming blue, un-customizable color scheme. Blue is commonly used in police uniforms and hospital scrubs.

Facebook also reinvented the feed, moving very early on to an algorithmic feed when competitors were still under the impression that people just wanted to see all updates from all friends. Facebook very quickly understood that the right algorithm can turn a boring feed into engagement dopamine.

Consider that unlike a purely online forum, posts on Facebook are much more likely connected to people we met first in real life where our status is already well-established. Nonetheless people use Facebook to signal activities, pictures or beliefs that they feel will increase their status.

When normal meatspace dynamics matter so much to a site's content, allowing fake names pretty much breaks voyeurism, which is a feature, not a bug.

It is precisely the dark pattern of being able to look up anyone on Facebook and peer into their life that creates Facebook's opportunity to arbitrage between the feeling that what we are posting is mundane, yet it being far from mundane when assembled by Facebook into a complete dossier for anyone who wishes to look us up.

But these are side-effects. My interpretation of this is that Zuck has a strong conviction that meatspace and online life should fully merge. I think he believes this as part of the same utopian conviction that led him to envision Facebook as a "social utility", and I think the same one that is leading him on a path to holding public office.

In his ideal world, politicians would not be two-faced, and internet users would not have multiple avatars and identities to flippantly switch between to avoid facing up to reality or to explore a part of themselves that they do not put on display for all to see.

I think the question Zuck must also ask himself in his moments of reflection is "How can Facebook truly do good?". The good that needs to be done in the world needs to be done by (and for) real people, not screen names and throwaways. Thus as building blocks of that utopian edifice, we must all bear the weight of social responsibility that goes with our actual name being attached to everything we do.
I'm a big fan of this. Work environments should be optimized for productivity. Most software is a team sport, so they should generally be optimized for team productivity.

What that means will be different for everybody. But for me I've had the best results with team-specific spaces that have some visual and noise isolation from other teams and wandering interruptions. I also like to have clear separate space for non-whole-team discussions and for hanging out.

Places where everybody gets in and cranks up their headphones to protect from the madness strike me as the modern noise equivalent of the 1960s/1970s rivers that were basically open industrial sewers. [1] If that's what it's like, you might as well let people work remote, as you've already lost most of the productivity gains that come from close collaboration.

But those gains really can be amazing, so personally I'm going to keep pursuing them.

[1] E.g., the Ohio river that caught on fire: https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63
Poster sounds like my brother, who uses an impact driver on body panel nuts. :)
> I think it's easy to severely underestimate the value of having people overhear conversations and interactions of others beyond their obvious scope of work.

But only if you are not doing any work at that moment.

If you are constantly expected to be able to 'overhear' conversations while coding, I don't see how you could get anything done.
To me for software engineering I think right now a good local optimum is:

- Ensure portability of workstations with no loss of productivity (powerful laptops, devices, etc)

- Counteract any dynamics that may inhibit opt-in WFH or remote time. (poor tools, cultural perception that it is not productive to wfh, etc)

- Provide in-office tools to opt-in to better isolation (headphones, private 'plug and play' workstations, etc)

- Try to develop some form of cadence where remote time is the norm on regular intervals. For us it's Tu/Thurs, but you could imagine lots of configurations. People I believe tend to then backlog work which requires dedicated focus for these days.
I saw this the other day http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40190007/the-woman-who...

It makes sense, I don't have children so I don't know if $55 a month is expensive or not.
- HEADLINE: Support for LXD (And LXC 2.0)

- DESCRIPTION: XD isn't a rewrite of LXC, in fact it's building on top of LXC to provide a new, better user experience. Under the hood, LXD uses LXC through liblxc and its Go binding to create and manage the containers.
It's basically an alternative to LXC's tools and distribution template system with the added features that come from being controllable over the network.

- DISTRIBUTION: Stable

- ROLE/AFFILIATION: Enthusiast and wanna be developer
Maybe one of the reasons why they have lost political power is that the most profitable companies today employ much less people than before, as mentioned in the article. Or at least they employ less people in their own country. A huge workforce is a lot of votes.
The point is that Ethereum's selling point was smart contracts, so by definition you can't steal from a contract.
I can actually do that myself to a degree. But my bigger problem is the visual noise like the traffic coming in and out of the office. I'm guessing you are facing a window or a wall, which should help a lot.