skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there's a huge difference between an owner of a small company and a majority owner in a major corporation or that a CEO of said major corporation. The former has little, if any, support beyond a small circle of friends, associates, and business partners. The latter has an entire tax system setup to let them fail and come up smelling like roses. Not to mention the latter has many more options and seem to be rewarded by stockholders for failing (aka golden parachute).
Nothing imaginary about baseless claims.

False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.
Nope.

Owning real estate means that your income is market rent - carrying cost - amortized capital expenses.

My coworker owns about a dozen 2-4 family properties and spends about 10 hours a week on them. Most tenants are section 8, which means he's paid on time by the government and gets above market rate for marginal property. He probably nets around $250k.
ENGINEER: An American with a computer, who knows what source code is.
Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech.

A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named).

In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't.

My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.
*piece work
Yeah I spend half my day browsing Reddit on salary, but my work gets done and no one has ever said anything to me about it. And if they did, I'd probably just quit and get a job for a sane company.
A lot of people are getting fired due to increased minimum wage. The employers will take their money and pay it to you and me to build automated solutions that do what the now-too-expensive people once did. That's what McDonalds is finally doing with self-order kiosks.
Yeah, I read the review a while back actually. While I agree that science denialism isn't the sole domain of the American right, it is think more broadly embraced in right of center political circles, and I believe the most visible public science deniers in the US are part of the political right. I don't think that's anything inherent in the political ideology per se, but a result recent historical accident, the "southern strategy", and the embrace by the American right of evangelical voters.

That said, the left has anti-vaccine nuts so no political leaning is immune.
I think the only unethical thing is holding back on the results. It's great to automate tasks and the company doesn't need to know about it unless it is explicitly stated. But your obligation is to deliver high quality results as fast as you can.
Lawsuit claims Uber ignored attempted murder conviction of driver who later rape
Despite what others seem to be implying, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with looking at porn, per se (and in some contexts, it can quite healthy) -- or in acknowledging this fact publicly -- if that's what you're getting at. But at some point it reaches a saturation point, and you kind of realize there's not much of a "there, there", in that medium.

So as to "connoisseur" -- sorry, no.

This comment thread really seems to be more about your personal sexual outlook, rather than the possibility of some porn technology crossing over into mainstream (non-porn) application.

The original article, which was really quite straightforward, wasn't making any kind of far-flung statements about potential crossover effects of their technology at all. And it certainly wasn't making any references -- even indirect references -- to the (basically apocryphal and unsubstantiated) "porn killed betamax" story line.

So as much as people are browbeating me for "missing the point" -- those definitely weren't the main points of (or in way mentioned in) the article, either.
regressive idea of Free Expression

Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't incite hate in Canada. Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.
Why It’s No Longer Possible for Any Country to Win a War
This is not a good idea. That code is gross and illegible. There's definitely better ways to handle anything where you think this is the solution.
Can you elaborate on what's currently stopping you from setting up a sync server for chromium?
This guy sounds like a real shithead.

He makes his living teaching the children of totalitarian aristocrats at a faux university, is saving for the future on the backs of the poor back at home, and gets a kick out of having indentured servants at his beck and call.

I wouldn't shed a tear when his little empire of dirt collapses.
I'd be interested to see more statistics but at a guess there's more female programmers in industries where Rust isn't relevant? Swift is probably only interesting if you're in an industry that would target iOS for example.
> If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder.

That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.

In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.
Technically, a full handshake adds 2 RTTs, and it's only one RTT on a successful resumption. In practice, I think that most modern browsers currently use something called False Start, where they cheat and send some data early, so even the full handshake takes only one RTT. False Start works only with a well-configured server.

In TLS 1.3, the full handshake is one RTT without any tricks; resumption also. There is also a 0-RTT resumption, but it sacrifices security for speed. Lots of people are unhappy about it.
In part 1 you mention that under vibration the bricks self assemble into bridges that obstruct the conveyor belt, and you want to minimize that.

How about maximizing it instead? Try to build bridges as long as possible? Or some other fitness function?

In theory you could control the vibration sequence and the part feeding sequence (once you have sorted all the parts :) ) and use an evolutionary algorithm...
That wiki is brilliant, thanks!
The first bit is useful information. It means you had a ton of minority talent to draw on instead of one location and company. The second means you all talked about this stuff since the beginning without actually doing it or not many on team cared as much. That was the point of the critique. I'll throw out some suggestions, though, instead of just critiquing as my own principles are about helping a project that's doing important good work. Regardless of diversity issues, I still congratulate you people on that and hope you continue to improve across the board. :)

There's two easy ones that you can do on the team side and maybe in some form on the community side. You and the others are simply more knowledgeable at working with communities so I leave it to you to find what applies. Here they are:

1. Supply side. Talk to people doing these bootcamps, conferences, and so on focusing on minorities in general or specific minority groups. They probably know people in the demographic who can code well. Send people there to talk about Rust like you seem to do in general at conferences and such. Also, invite all in these groups to send in references or Githubs relevant to specific jobs. Give them resources to learn it. Get those that want to get a job or place in the community to get on the forums for help learning and/or submitting code/docs. Encourage, but don't require, them to do it blind under an alias with no info on race/age/gender. Without biases limiting them and with increasing supply, the percentage of minority talent should increase naturally.

2. Quota side. Do something like that plus ads for talent in general. Get a supply of people from many backgrounds with some way to evaluate whether they are capable of performing the role. They all "earned" their place rather than just token hires since each seems to be a decent or good hire. The "best" of all programmers is pretty subjective concept with strong possibility of bias anyway. Then, do quotas for the hiring slots with those brought in chosen randomly with right spread or best rated of each group. A lot of the local businesses out here are, despite the South's racial issues, quote diverse even up to a layer or two of management by just (a) hiring anyone who might be able to do the job, (b) giving them some training/coaching, and (c) keeping those that perform well. Works wonders but I mention other things first since there's few jobs to go around at high cost on your end.

Have fun with those.

EDIT: Fix two deficiencies at top I saw.
I have a really hard time believing that governments will do better at distributing resources equitably than a market.

To act as though governments can magically fix this is lazy and not realistic.
>From my perspective, both browsers have a bar at the top to enter a URL
...
Not sure what else (other than configuration menus, perhaps?)

That's where the difference exactly lies. Firefox feels like it is designed by a programmer, Chrome feels like it was planned by a UX person then built by the programmer.

1. There's still a search bar alongside the omnibox. Unnecessary.

2. History is an important part which firefox allocates a measly sidebar. Chrome offers the whole page although with less powerful options to navigate compared to firefox (by time, by site, etc).

3. Bookmarking experience is a lot more thought out in Chrome. When I bookmark something, Firefox just puts the bookmark in Other bookmarks but Chrome remembers the last folder you used.

I really can't come up all the cases where Firefox frustrates me but Chrome doesn't, but that according to me is a sign of good design. Chrome has a lot less friction and minimal cognitive overload. Sure, Firefox has many features I would love to have in chrome, but I know that Chrome will present those options with a much smoother experience.
Why are the axes of a graph named “x” and “y”
Developing Bug-Free Machine Learning Systems with Formal Mathematics
Cheers, man, well met. :) I'll admit, I was a bit grouchy too. Thinking about it now, you weren't wrong to call me on it. The tone of HN is important and I'm capable of being civil while disagreeing. (And I can always vent spleen on twitter. heh)

So thank you. You do great work and like I said, I really appreciate it.
Ask HN: Is it ok to label bootstrapped money as Director's Loan?
I'm a CTO-level technologist. I've co-founded a business with an ex-VP from a unicorn company. My co-founder wanted to bootstrap the business, we agreed that I take an under-market salary and we split the equity 85/15.

We are 3 years in. We have grown the team, and we continue to bootstrap. We are preparing for a funding round, and today I've learned that my co-founder has labeled his investment(~$200K) as "director's loan" and wants to get the money back.

From his view, this is a common practice, and I just fail to see it this way.
I've treated his investment as the reason we split the equity 85/15. Also, I don't think investors are going to be happy that the company has a dept.

Is it a common practice label bootstrapped money as "director's load" and get them back eventually? If so, should we revisit the cap table with myself getting more equity?
Was not aware of this. It seems like the downvote war already begun just for me asking this question...
The odds of getting it right are no better than any other OS with similar goals. We are not talking about a simple firmware, but something that'll run the software that controls a complicated machine, be it an MRI scanner or a nuclear power plant and that has to communicate with a myriad of sensors, actuators and other devices.

Will you build it with virtual memory? Will processes have separate memory maps? Will they communicate via shared blocks? What kind of protocol and connections will be used for peripherals?

I don't see that happening.
for v2 can you make a "no-tech" category? --
i find that those can be the best threads...especially for the non-techy users on HN. nice work!
You might be missing that I do fully agree with you. I guess if it is out there anyway though, makes some sense for there to be discussion on HN as it is a technical forum. Probably safe to skip their "analysis" and only pay mind to the source document.
This could be used as an argument against every effort that ever led to anything good in the world.

It's not that there aren't times and places it might be appropriate, but I think it'd be better to say precisely what and whose effort you wish to spend on something better and what that better thing is.

There's room for lots of people to pursue different, complimentary goals. If you really hope to tell other people that they should spend their energy on something other than the things they have chosen to think are important, you'll need a stronger argument than vague hints of mysterious opportunity costs.
If he's getting paid for the result, then it's fine but most probably they pay him based on the hours that he works and he fakes it in order to get full wage. That's not ethical as stealing is unacceptable and even if your children are starving.

I would probably tell my employer that I wrote the software during weekends and it's done last week (Since I would probably get fired if I tell them the truth and I will live with the unethical side of this), and it also avoids the human verification which means for them to just get rid of the verification. I would start a company with the the software that I built and offer them monthly based subcription fee to get their work done. You will still getting paid and you cana also sell the software to similar companies.

If he doesn't want to deal with starting company instead spend time with his children, then he can find a business partner that can do the things other than product.
Did I claim otherwise in my post? The nuance is BS anyway. One is a subsidiary of the other, IIRC.
Apart from personality, fan engagement also drives fan enthusiasm for HIM as the on-screen portrayal of older luke. That's essentially leverage and increases his influence.
Why does one need 600 tabs open in his browser though?

I've ditched that habit years ago (ironically by switching to chromium), and it has been a major improvement for me.
They did take that kind of principled stand and it hurt them. Firefox was late to support H.264 for that reason and users reacted by switching to Chrome where videos Just Worked. Mozilla resisted EME but that didn't delay DRM in any way, it just meant that everyone kept using Flash/Silverlight DRM or switched to a browser which didn't require them to install plugins to play video.

Getting users to make decisions in favor of openness is an unsolved problem and it's why Richard Stallman, while laudable for acting on principle, has increasingly little impact. Rather than hectoring Mozilla for not committing suicide, your efforts should be directed to figuring out how to get ordinary people to make different buying decisions so groups like Mozilla aren't faced with the decision between standing up for principles and having users.
It seems the greater question is, "What is the employer paying for?"

Economic theory suggests an employer pays for value created. After all, if an employee is generating less economic value than they're consuming, it makes sense to fire that person. But that's only true in a fantasy world where you can perfectly measure and compensate that kind of performance, like performing physics equations without air resistance or friction.

The reality is that calculating "value created" is extraordinarily difficult, so we tend to use "hours-of-butt-in-seat" because it's the closest proxy.
You should tell the company. There's probably a $20 gift card in it for you.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3845107/argos-worker-who-came-...
Thanks. We changed to that from https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2017/ju....

You can get faster results by emailing hn@ycombinator.com. Not to mention more reliable; I only saw this randomly just now.
Byteball is an actual working block-chain less cryptocurrency, without a trusted single coordinator as iota has, and has no proof-of-work.

https://byteball.org
I used cVim for a few months and loved it. However, I recently discovered SurfingKeys[1] and I think it's even better.

All configuration is done in JavaScript rather than cVim's weird viml clone language. SK is way more flexible in my opinion.

[1] https://github.com/brookhong/Surfingkeys
> "Today's decision confirms that online service providers...have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the internet from becoming a black market."

Well that's terrifying.
> What does changing them actually solve?

By itself not much: but I see it as a necessary-but-insufficient step, in much the same way it is necessary to remove public statues deifying US Civil War Confederate "heroes" (I'd prefer the term "traitor"...).

> Are women really put off of computing because of that? It all seems so trivial.

Not "because of that" directly, no - of course not, but projecting an inclusive image is important to attract people who might not otherwise be interest for fear of not being a "cultural fit" despite having the skills. (Most) people are not robots: there is a very human need to feel accepted and fit-in.
Now this is a wild guess on feedback I've read from women. There's currently less of them coding for fun than men for cultural reasons but plenty are willing to learn a language to make money. Those in the top 10 are all over job ads. That by itself might skew women toward those languages.
It would be a tort.
It does in many very poor nations. What's the significance of the $1 figure anyway? Whose point hinges on this number?
Are you implying that Rust should be the first programming language of these minority groups? Given the complexity of low level programming that doesn't sound like a good idea. If that is not your plan then this is a pointless exercise. The cohort of existing programmers is highly biased in these same ways. The bigger Rust gets the more difficult it will be to maintain anything far from the average. If rust becomes as popular as say Java or C++ it will be statistically impossible to maintain anything but the average within the community.
Closest, or easiest?
> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record.

So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.
Yes, with matters like censorship and human rights abuses being allowed to continue under the guise of "national sovereignty" and "states rights", then yes, the Balkanization of information flow is the only outcome we can expect.
Really? If I didn't have to work I wouldn't write another line of code in my life. But its a great career that hits all of the notes I wanted for a job. What's wrong with that?
Such logic will not convince such sexists, sadly.
We changed the title back to the original a while ago.

Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

The idea on HN is to let readers make up their own minds. If you'd like to say what you think is important about a story you submit, that's fine, but please do so in the comment thread. Then your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's.
Absolutely. People don't always know at a conscious level why they do or don't do things. It's part of the reason why user surveys are a poor substitute for telemetry on how an app is actually used in the real world.

..except that here, we haven't worked out the brain-computer interface yet.
It's time to move on, kindred soul.
I'm in Germany though, it might be that US companies are pickier.

If so: we're hiring ;)
> UPDATE: I'm really not confusing types of owners. The author's thesis is broad not only in the article, but in his works in general.

I totally agree with your points, but only when talking about the traditional/entrepreneurial sense of "business owner." The article is talking more about owning equity in a business, whether that's real estate (which is his example), or just investing in businesses. He even explicitly states that:

> Owners do not have to be entrepreneurs. They don’t even have to be competent. They can hire competent people to manage their money for them. The amount of 'entrepreneurship' in my story was miniscule.

In other words, if you're very wealthy, you can invest in diversified REITs and have exposure to the real estate market. You do not (and cannot, really) work on these projects, and your investments -- ownership of real estate through REITs -- will keep making money. That's not to say it's without risk, of course: the market could crash, the funds could fail to return on investment, the business could collapse.

Again, I think that for the HN crowd, your critiques are totally valid and I agree 100%. I just think this article is more about "hey, if you're really wealthy, your money can work for you!"

Not that that's particularly groundbreaking.
If by "even though all they've really done", you mean,

(1) They've opened several proprietary warehouses,

(2) They've developed direct sourcing relationships with numerous farms, cutting out any distributors/wholesalers/etc,

(3) They've hired chefs to figure out how to take real-time supply data from (2) and convert it into recipes, with the right portions, that account for seasonality, weather, and other supply variations,

(4) They've executed a consumer marketing campaign that's led to over 159 million meals served across 25 million orders

then sure yeah, they're just a "costly middleman".

I don't use this service, but you might try reading their S-1. It contains a lot of interesting commentary on their strategy, and hard data on the business. I don't know whether this thing will be worth its IPO price, or have a lot of upside when it goes public, but I do think there's space in the market for a company that handles all the logistics and gets the exact right quantity of stuff on your table. Per their S-1, 21% of all food purchased in the US is thrown out - that's plenty of room for innovation.

Also, consider that they've done all this on $195 million vs. $675 million blown by Instacart. I know for sure which one I'm more impressed by, but you be the judge.
So the guy is acting ethically because tit for tat? Fuck no
"not guilty" is the usual verdict. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty"; the latter is legally innocent, there is no third state.
Its precedent settings i.e. if google follows it, then china and saudi court can ask them to do the same since these kind of rulings become fair game.