skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And remember that, as a rule of thumb, add about another third to salaries to come up with total comp (health care, pension, etc.)
It pains me to point this out, but I think some people are mad at him for not doing enough. I have to believe that some of the low ratings are due to him not being Trump enough. I am pretty sure there are a bunch that are pissed the ACA hasn't been scrapped yet. Yeah... They also probably want him to outlaw Muslims and probably tell gay people to stop being so fabulous. Also, they probably want to make it illegal to point out their bigotry or to call them hateful.

I am pretty sure those people exist. I apologize on behalf of America and ask that you not blame me. ;-)
No, although that's a thing too.

People with more money have access to birth control and various entertainment options.
So is anyone else aggravated by the use (ever since the Arab Spring coverage started) of "ouster" instead of "ousting"? how the heck do so many progressionals screw this up systematically?
> Where are you gonna go?

China is already getting a little expensive for some types of manufacturing. Indonesia is often the go to destination for really cheap labor in a reasonably stable country, but there are others.

So, if China starts looking less stable that's plenty of incentive to jump ship and likely save some money.
A: Tell them to drop out.
Equating the legitimate regulation of employment, insurance, and public transport operation with the pre-civil-rights laws of forced segregation is an overreach.
I remember when this article about the Etsy engineering department came out on Techcrunch 3 years ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481377

The items that jumped out at me:

> The company owns and operates its hardware and networks in its own datacenter.

> The company has 685 employees of which approximately a third are engineers.

> It wanted to know how Hadoop worked, and the only way to do that was to bring it in-house and figure it out.

As a means to an end, this is a _really_ expensive way of operating nowadays. And when the business isn't rolling, these costs become magnified (and the associated operation vulnerable.)
All this shakeup at the top, but will it affect anything on the ground? I'm still going to take an Uber this weekend and no one not in tech that I know will even hear about any of this, let alone know who the CEO is.

Sounds like they are trying to cleanup their image, then will get back to expanding their already massive reach they have in their cities they are already in around the world.
Initially Jobs was against all apps, and wanted just mildly useful webapps running in their crippled JavaScript engine. Then they allowed apps but with many UX restrictions like no drawing UI outside the view etc. Nothing that could infringe on the core interaction models of iOS.
Heh, I guess Loopt was just a decade too early.
> WeChat seems to be an integral part of Chinese society

WeChat is integral but the tipping feature is used by a small fraction of users and isn't relevant to WeChat's bottom line.
Same can be done with twitter search.
It seems that way. However if we really wanted to deny border crossing we would. It just isn't really a priority. The issue gets a lot of air time but do you think if it really was a national priority it would be so easy to cross?

When I was a kid we used to cross the river into Mexico to go eat (on hunting trips near the border). We'd pay a guy to row us across and then back. It was a well known thing. People from both sides used it to go back and forth all the time.

Guess what, now that guy in a row boat is an official US border patrol checkpoint. LOL

The border is a big joke.
> That and an awful, awful UI.

Definitely just your opinion. Many people thought WP was a great OS.
Looking from within the AI/ML field, I don't think that state actors (or the major tech megacorps) are somehow special in terms of progress in a manner that makes them unmeasurable.

Yes, they have certain datasets that are somewhat larger/better than those available to the research community and somewhat easier access to larger clusters of hardware. However, that's generally a minor and (more importantly) predictable advantage - I may not be able to train as good a model of X as Google does because they have more data and hardware, but I can estimate that their model is likely to have e.g. 20% lower error rate; which gives a meaningful advantage in product quality but doesn't really enable anything conceptually different.

Yes, there are certain technologies that are developed by them and not yet published, but looking at all the competition, what is seen in the products they build, and and what is seen in what state actors are funding/attempting to buy, they're not significantly beyond what is known to the public, at there seems to be no more than 6-12 months lag between when a capability becomes available and when it's seen by everyone else. It may take more than that for others to replicate, but within 6-12 months, people would have a general idea on what it'd take to replicate and what are the limits of such capabilities.

Yes, the bigger actors may have invested lots of effort to polish things that are important to them - so if you're seeing a researcher's proof of concept held together by duct tape then you should keep in mind that somebody can have a reasonably working prototype of that hidden in their labs; but if you're not seeing anything close to a proof of concept in the research community (or at least claims "we know how to make a proof of concept quickly if there was funding for that"), then the capability doesn't exit yet; somebody may have unpublished results but that's included in the "6-12 months advantage" I mentioned above.

Regarding user rights, IMHO you don't need to worry about still unknown capabilities of ML/AI but instead about how (and how widely) they'll apply and deploy ML/AI capabilities that are already well known. E.g. there's no question that we can run face recognition to everyone seen by a sufficiently high quality camera and try to match those places to social media profiles; all serious state actors definitely have such a capability iff they are willing (and have the funding/manpower) to build and run the required infrastructure. Whether they will do so is a question of economics and politics, not about AI/ML tech. In order to massively (ab)use something, it needs to have a certain technological readiness level; and there's a long gap between invention and sufficient maturity for that.
Monetization: Pay per Click Advertising
Well, using science we could construct a study where a large scale community has many services pro died by humans vs another large community where many services are provided by automatons. We could look at the strengths and weaknesses of both and maximize human happiness and well-being.

The result could be as simple as machines just fill in gaps for when were tired, moody or on vacation. We could optimize for min usage of automatons, and target low performers for educational opportunities and psychological support.
http://grammarist.com/usage/ouster/

"For the sense of ouster meaning ejection or dispossession, the Oxford English Dictionary lists British examples from more than two centuries before the United States was founded. And for the sense defined as the removal of a politician or regime from power, the earliest examples are likewise British. The first was published in 1782."

Gotta be careful when playing language pedant!
You also may have to clear your browser storage (for wsj.com) if you've already visited it from this link or google.
I have the same problem. Java books from the late 90's and stuff. I should bring myself to throw them away because they are now useless but they were so expensive when I bought them... I'd gladly give them away but I can't imagine anyone wanting them.
Well executed solution to a problem I don't understand as one that needs solving?
You mean... Like the blatant obstruction of Justice a la Greyball? I'm sure the DoJ has gears in motion...
Fair enough... I should know I've seen enough word usage change over a few decades. Sigh.
Probably variations of people taking advantage of the chaos to do things they weren't bold enough to do before. Whether resigning or forcing someone else out. Lots of grudges get settled during a riot.
We want to help banks deliver these APIs ... The market can't wait for the banks, developers and users want new choices, apps and service now.

It was my understanding that the YC-backed company Standard Treasury (acquired by Silicon Valley Bank in 2015) was trying to do this. I don't know where they went with this or what happened (although I believe there was techcrunch write-up about them and the purchase by SVB). Hopefully you can make this work securely because having to navigate a shitty branded (which apparently means constantly changing) web interface to monitor and move money is increasingly frustrating.
Does anyone have any insight into a PSD2-style effort in Australia?

I notice that National Australia Bank is experimenting with APIs, they have a developer portal [1], with FX rates and branch location APIs currently available. Authentication, customer details and accounts APIs are 'coming soon'.

[1] https://developer.nab.com.au/ourapis
not sure i understand why programming should be hard?
I see this as merely a more complicated type of messaging and find the math of it to be... weird.

If I make no money, what stops me and a friend from starting two poem writing companies. He pays me 2k a year to write him a couple poems and I pay him 2k a year to write me a couple poems. Both of us end up making 18k a year profit and neither of us has to work.

It's a silly example, but the point is that not providing UBI to people who don't work... just means you create corruption to provide just enough work to get past the bar. So why bother?

Yes, we do want to incentivize productive behavior but denying UBI won't work and the harder you try to make rules as what qualifies as productive, the more you end up distorting the labor market.
> What Amazon wants to do here is squeeze the authors off their profit, and this must be prevented.

Authors typically get a 10-15% cut of print books. Amazon wants to squeeze the publishers off their profit. While they can be heavy-handed and exploitative, they are much less so than traditional publishing. It's not abnormal for an author to make more money of a $9.99 kindle sale than a $25 print sale.
Alright, I can agree with that. How do you propose doing so, in this specific political climate?
A commenter in another thread put it very well: you can have as many voting shares as you like, but you aren't in control of your company until you're profitable.
Yes, suing your biggest distributor is a great way to succeed in business.
The reason they were fired was because this whole mess got a lot of publicity. If there was no publicity, nothing would have happened.

Ask Warren Buffett even he complains board members dont do much work they just blindly follow what the CEO says.
Came here for the comments.

Just wanted to make sure that FOSS hadn't made everyone open borders evangelicals.

Many demographics have huge unemployment problems, mostly NEETs, because the jobs they used to do are replaced by absolute lowest wage immigrants. This problem has been long brewing in the US, and I just don't understand how making it worse (more immigration) is going to solve it. At the same time I know I'm a massive beneficiary with overseas production of my products and cheap food at home.

Also, why is HN posting pure political articles so much now? I understand technology intersects with politics, but at this point anyone strongly advocating for saving the H#B programs are probably H1B beneficiary companies which are only the Big tech companies, so a story like this feels like it's rolled out to the tech community to soften you up to the plight of the H2B community.

If that's the case, this is nothing more than a propaganda feed.
I don't know if the author thinks they are barbarians, but he does say their beliefs "are almost certainly incorrect." I will give him a few objectivity points for including the word "almost," but he follows the typical modern assumptions by using the word "certainly." The beliefs are also described as "non-falsifiable", which means they do not fit Popper's basic scientific principle, which only means that the beliefs cannot be verified using the scientific method (according to Popper), but that does not mean they are incorrect.
When I read that the data was collected from 1500 CS finals, my immediate guess was that the class was CS61A.

---

I suspect that the distribution of the curve has to depend on: subjectiviness of the test and on the grading. Tests with questions where you know it or you don't. And how much partial credit graders are willing to give.
The team from Standard Treasury ended up building SVB's virtual card platform.
This is light grey. I'm dissapointed in you HN. This is absolutely correct.

One common version: Many sells come with some sort of earn-out. Meaning that the company has to perform at some level over some amount of time in order for the buyer to be on the hook for the full amount of the sell price (or some other bonus).

It is not uncommon to attach a buy-back clause to the earn-out. If you fail to hit the earn out, you have some ability to buy back the company and/or it's assets (there are many different versions). It's a win-win clause. If the company fails to perform under its new leadership the buying company has some hedge against it. It gives the seller a chance to effectively hedge at least some of the risk that they won't be able to fully earn-out the purchase price due to management issues at the new company.

I've been on the executive team for five company sales. Two of them had exactly this clause. Both during earlier stages. We never exercised them.
Scott Forstall and Original iPhone Innovators  Computer History Museum
Did Wal-Mart get another company to make a cheaper version of that product that's similar but sufficiently different that it's not infringing? That's their trademark move.

"Make it cheaper or we'll make it cheaper for you."
I'm more interested in the potential for the glasses seeing things and taking action without the user being involved.

That could do.... a lot. Good and bad.

A worker in a store/warehouse/wherever could effectively do inventory while doing other work...slowly, but constantly, and without disruption.

Ad companies could pay you to run software that will track all the brands that you see. If you think anonymizing data isn't enough now, imagine when there are even more potentially identifying variables.

That's just off the top of my head.
These metrics do not imply that those gains were shared widely by the populace, and especially the employment figures don't account for quality of employment or benefits.

It is unsurprising what has happened.
I believe Wesabe had an implementation that did this.

From http://blog.precipice.org/why-wesabe-lost-to-mint/

Wesabe built our own data acquisition system, first
using downloadable client programs (partially because
that was easier and partially to preserve users’
privacy)
I absolutely agree that the SPA was already a thing before angular, in fact, angular was specifically designed to wrangle the general design concerns related to building SPAs and doing so sold the distinct concept of the SPA to many developers.
Exactly... or they can direct you to pull off the road and then get the others and you just have to wait there.
First, thank you for stepping up the level of discourse.

> Since imposing NN will not solve all the problems, and may as well create some new problems, the next time a problem appears the State will be prompted to introduce a new regulation, and we'll be each time farther from the free markets. Regulation brings regulation.

You bring up a good point. It too bothers me that we've resorted to NN. We shouldn't have too, and we wouldn't if we didn't already have a nearly 100 year history of corporate socialism in the telco industry, where for nearly 50 of those years, the federal government literally picked one winner.

The problem is this: Money is really good at influencing politics and policy. You claim regulation brings more regulation. That's not untrue, but I suspect money in politics creates more regulation because nothing protects a market from competition than regulatory capture. Not only that, it cultivates entire industries that specialize in sucking on the government teat and rent-seeking politicians who make sure they contribute to their campaigns.

Our extremely polarized voting base (I don't blame the politicians) is current incapable of sending a common coherent message to their representatives based on common American values because they can't agree on a single fucking thing. These polarized idiots are simply too emotionally immature to realize they're being emotionally manipulated. Not only that, they're too clueless to tell their politicians that they want a telecommunications industry that's based on free-market principles because they're too busy parroting talking points rather than understanding how they're being played an manipulated by special interests.

Because there's not one fucking thing these right-wing and left-wing assholes can agree on, I'm not convinced we'll ever have a coherent telecommunications policy, let alone a solution to our growing problem of the influence of money in politics.

NN isn't ideal, but it's a lot better giving the telcos everything and asking for nothing in return. It will only embolden them to come back and ask for more. They literally have a history of asking for federal dollars to build next generation networks and then not following through on their promises. They are trolls who live under bridges. Don't empower them. Provide incentives for them to be competitive and opportunities for new companies to challenge them.
Get Brave, it works very well.
I really like the Google Glass idea too, the only problem I have with it is when other people use it.
Kalanick is less CEO and more like a comic book caricature of one before they fall into pure evil. The fact that the board stood by him as long as they did is just mind bending.
Considering Kalanick was one of the people doing the writing I'm sure he did.
I wonder how many of the use cases for a retail banking API would be simply satisfied by just allowing customers to request a weekly email with a CSV transaction file attached in a sensible format?
That's an argument you could make about any corporate tax. For certain products (undifferentiated commodities with low profit margin) it's probably true. For some products, it's really up to the individual corporation how they deal with cost increases.

When the costs of producing/selling some goods go down, I don't expect most corporations to immediately lower prices, I expect them to use lower costs to increase their profits if they can get away with it. I imagine it goes the other way sometimes as well, especially if customers expect to pay no more than a certain price.
The crucial steps are malting the grain and inoculating the wort with yeast. Only after the wort is inoculated can fermentation begin, after which the vessel can be sealed.
This seems like a pretty fruitless discussion. I have no idea why you're so focused on finding claims of malice to argue about. I certainly have said nothing about it. I don't know what's in dude's heart, and frankly don't care. This is about observed behavior.

Unless the facts on the ground are very different than what we've heard, Uber HR had a policy of protecting some people accused of harassment because they were highly valued. In other words, a decision somewhere was made that policy was to prefer key-player retention over the risk of lawsuits, because, obviously, that sort of policy is pretty much guaranteed to lead to lawsuits[1].

I have a great deal of difficulty imagining the HR exec who doesn't realize that - that would be beyond incompetent, well in to senility[2]. I also have difficulty imagining the HR exec who will personally take on the risk of mandating policy about balancing disparate business risks (slowing down by losing productive harassers vs. lawsuits and bad press). That can end careers, and anyone capable of landing a management job at an Uber is exceedingly unlikely to take that risk without taking it up the food chain.

Finally, I find it remarkable that so many people are willing to credit the man with extraordinary genius in business execution while simultaneously arguing his incompetence when it happens to absolve him of shitty behavior.

And with this, I'm done with discussing things I didn't say.

[1] Moving on to speculation, making that choice makes perfect sense in an environment with a value system emphasizing winning at any cost and burning down anything in the way. If they thought first-mover advantage was literally everything and they thought they had enough money to weather any resulting legal problems, that's the rational choice. And especially if you think you're the smartest guy in the room and can get away with it. Not unlike hypothetically deciding to gaslight regulators or steal IP from competitors or invade medical privacy to discredit opponents. For example.

[2] I don't know about other states, but in California, HR for firms over some number of employees are legally required to ensure employees have been trained on sexual harassment law. I'm sure it takes other forms, but generally we get to watch these awful law-firm Flash videos of cartoons being either awkward with or awful to each other, and then have to answer questions about which actions are harassment in order to make sure we paid attention.
I feel like it makes perfect sense. It's capitalism in action. They are free to act like jerks, and their users and stakeholders are free to punish them for it.
Open letter to computer science graduates
Uber is now more popcorn worthy than both HoC and Trump administration combined.
That would be ideal. Then competion would sort it out.

But the FCC doesn't have that authority and it's a nonstarter in congress. So the stop gap is to force the government granted monopolies to play nice as a condition of their monopoly status.
They might even integrate it enough so that users tell them what specific thing they were doing in that geographical area.

"I'm here shopping for shoes!"

This would not surprise me.
1% market share is huge. webOS barely had 1% when they launched their third device out of an eventual total of 6. webOS was critically lauded and meant to be used and accessed as you saw fit. No blocking of the homebrew community. I know you're proposing something different, but if webOS was around 1% market share in 2011 in the middle of their device launches and when smart phones were still in their relative infancy...I don't see much chance of an OS like you describe grabbing .5%, much less 1%.

The issue of apps will always be an issue. No matter what commmunity you go to, most people will probably want at least one of a number of popular apps that won't be on this OS. Some can be reverse engineered or use hidden APIs but not always.
Examples being: Messenger, Whatsapp, Snapchat, most other messaging apps or video chat apps like Skype or Viber, Instagram (website doesn't have tagged photos of people or uploading), Pandora, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, basically any tv sort of app, most dating apps like Tinder, Shazam, and any major mobile games.
There's a lot of people in Texas with a lot of money and they sure as hell don't have easy access to birth control. The state's seemingly doing everything it can to obliterate it. The teenage pregnancy rates in some parts of Texas are similar to developing countries.
There is an app called Lisping which allows writing a variety of Lisps (Scheme and Clojure) on iPads. The great thing about it was that there was minimal typing - the interface made the AST very clickable, with minimal cursor movement. When I tried it, it was such a great way to edit code on an iPad. Demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHh00VPT7L4