skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: How do you stop being a toxic employee?
I've seen it happen. For whatever reason, an employee starts to get frustrated. Fatigue, burnout, mounting responsibilities, etc. They start to become visibly discontent, turning down happy hours, pushing back hard on anything not within the scope of their job, maybe even dropping off-the-cuff remarks about other employees or managers. This type of negative attitude feeds upon itself as they look at the world through shit-colored glasses.

Have you ever been here and successfully lifted out of it? How do you stop the burning and begin to heal? Without quitting or being fired. How do you repair your relationships with other co-workers at the organization?
Toptal ->https://www.toptal.com/#select-eye-opening-coders-now
I live in Belgium with 2 main languages, Dutch and French. YouTube still shows me French adds, while I speak Dutch.
I've seen it happen, repeatedly, and the outcomes of it (even to the point of hardware and software engineers being sent out to visit customers to figure out what is wrong). So yeah.
Linux didn't arise where Windows had a monopoly.

Wikipedia didn't arise where Britannica had a monopoly.

The industry changed, and the segment where Windows had a monopoly became less relevant, the same with Britannica.

Windows still retains 90%+ market share on desktops.
If I spend a weekend updating my resume, practicing algos, or browsing job listings, then that time is useful for all jobs I'm applying to and interested in.

If I spend my weekend on a work sample assignment, it's only applicable for that one company which might very easily not give me a compelling offer or be somewhere I'd want to work.

At this point, I'll only do work assignments if I'm already very familiar with the company and have reason to suspect they'll give me a compelling offer.
The question is whether there's a power imbalance. Investor/founder: not OK. Manager/rank and file employee: not OK. Two peers at the same level of the organization: fine by me if it's mutual, but problems arise if it's not.
USA has a different system than in the U.K. Or Australia.

In the US, buyers go and get a buyers agent to help them buy the house. Buyers agents get 3% and sellers agents get 3%. (Actual amounts varies wildly)

In UK and Australia, 99% of people do not use buyers agents. The agent showing buyers through the house and answering all the questions works for the seller. There is only one agent so only one commission.

Selling privately is popular in the U.K., but much less popular in Australia however the segment is growing). USA less so again.
Let me guess, that ~$5k is less than 1% of what you would pay in total.

No offense (and sorry for being off-topic) but I never get how people obsess over the under 1 or 2% cost savings while completely ignoring the overvalued principal. Two other examples,

- People go over to buy a $50-$70k car and later boast how "they made" the salesman give them a $500 or $1k discount. (well what about a fully-functioning $20k car, or the same car but 2-3 years old but costing $8-12k?)

- People buying stupid stuff off amazon etc, and worse, travelling to random places, just because they have credit-card cashback and travel rewards, and looking at you funny when you tell them you only have one credit-card and you make sure you don't overspend but never paid attention to how many points you accumulate.
This project looks very interesting and monetizeable (by reaching out to venues for very targeted advertising).

One thing that doesn't seem quite right though.

Shouldn't location, not activity, be the first bit of information requested from the user?
From the article comments:

>George Hotz:

None of the < $100 ones can dump all the data, they don't have the bandwidth. Or be reliable enough to send a packet at 100hz for hours without dropping any. Trust me, I wouldn't be building hardware if I didn't have to.
> I'm not aware of anything similar for music services or other content

Google has the “Google Play Family Library” which covers most types of content in the Play Store (but not all individual pieces of content. of the covered types), including Apps, Video, and Books, but not Music and Newsstand items.

https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/7007852?hl=en
I was mostly working alone. Most of my mistakes where omission. In the line
2560 data 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,45,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,128,42,128,128,9,0,0,0...
Missing one 0 is fatal, but the streak is long enough that it is easy to miss one and not notice.
The OP described a non-equal situation. Peers in a large org would be different.
I was in the same wagon, but note that being sore is not the problem. Heavy lifting is very taxing to the central nervous system and this is what causes the systemic fatigue that won't let you be productive at work. A couple of recommendations that worked for me (46 years old)

1. Lower the intensity. There are a tons of ways to do this, but the simplest would be doing heavy lifting only in the first core lift of the day (squat, deadlift, bench or press). Then, increase the volume (lower the weights, increase the reps) for the rest of the exercises.

2. Periodize your workout plan. This is a science in itself, but the general idea is to adjust the intensity and volume over a period of 4-8 weeks, including a deload week every now and then.

3. Ditch the deadlift. At least for me, deadlift is too taxing.

Hope this helps.
That's kind of implying a meritocracy actually exists.
An investor-founder relationship is akin to a boss-underling relationship. In many companies, sleeping with each other is forbidden if one is a direct report of the other and this is the right way to handle it.

If two founders of different companies happen to meet at a conference, there is nothing inherently wrong with them dating (assuming it doesn't cause some kind of conflict of interest due to their businesses). But an investor-founder relationship needs to be platonic.

Think of it from this angle: You are a heterosexual man pitching a bunch of heterosexual men to get money for your startup. The industry standard is that investors can sleep with founders that are pitching them. If some woman comes in, sleeps with all the investors on the board and gets scads of money for her startup while you get turned down because there was not enough money for both, are you totes happy with that outcome?

The reasons for disallowing an investor-founder romance go far beyond protecting women from predatory male behavior.
> Personally I am disgusted that this standard is being promoted by the W3C and Tim Berners-Fucking-Lee. The browser vendors are perfectly capable of building (and even standardizing) this tech by themselves.

I don't understand these two sentences in conjunction, which is most of why I don't understand all the complaining about this issue. If, as almost everyone admits, the browser vendors are going to ship DRM-enabled playback one way or the other, what difference does it make whether it's in the official spec?

The HTML5 spec is just a piece of paper that exists to make web developers' lives easier. I don't understand the need to assign attributes like "purity" to it, especially when (as you yourself said), whether or not the DRM is in the spec changes nothing on the ground.
Digital software is able to reproduce the sounds, the challenge is in the synthesis of it.
I do something very similar, my oldest build gets synched once a year and is in cold storage. I hope I never need it. The hard drives from my previous build hold cold copies of the most valuable volumes (monthly sync), and the current system has plenty of redundancy and snapshots (insurance, not really backups). I use zerotier to stay in sync when away from home.
To be fair, there is some material there not related to GC; like about inconsistencies between built-in types and classes and whatnot.

The rant about OOP and responsibilities is completely way off mark.

It is not a firm rule of OOP that a module has to clean up all the resources it allocates and never pass any of them off to be cleaned up elsewhere.

This is violated all over the place with layering. For instance, instead of allocating a buffer here and then having someone free it, we can create a Message class which has a buffer. We now send a Message from one module to another. Oh, the buffer is now a single responsibility: it is allocated by the Message module and freed by the Message module. But all we have done is wrap the resource in a trivial class; the design hasn't really changed. We can have a semantic leak if we start creating Messages and stuffing them into some queue which nobody dequeues, just like with the original buffers.

Layering of ownership creates the appearance that one module is managing a resource. That module's instances, though, can be created by one higher layer module and released by another.
Having a brief search around the standard UK price per page of document to be notarised seems to be £60. Or, as here, ~£200 per hour - http://www.premiersolicitors.co.uk/Legalisation,11332,10160,....
I had the idea to do the same thing dedicated to Django. I eventually stopped as I realized that I clearly underestimated the amount of work required to make it work better than Heroku.

The landing page is still visible at https://prodmatic.com
State Department concocting “fake” intellectual property “Twitter feud”
The Value of Science Is in the Foresight (The Gerasimov Doctrine) [pdf]
This:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13739329
So I do AI research on something pretty related to the guessing game -- I'll shoot you an email.
Ah right. Thanks for jogging my memory; been a while since I last researched this for an online debate about bitcoin ^_^

Looks like the top of the txn queue is 330 satoshis per byte, so for an average size txn of 226 bytes, you're paying 75k satoshis, or about 2 bucks! (according to bitcoinfees.21.co)
It would be swinging around pretty wildly at the bottom (depending on wind), but now I really want to see somebody do this.
... by exchanging it for worrying about the feature breaking every time a minor fix is pushed. If you're going to go through the hassle of manually pinning versions, then just download and host the code alongside your site.
Can you elaborate on that? Why do you believe this?
This seems like a bad design if you care about latency.

All UI interaction requires a round trip from the browser to the server, with a whole new set of GL commands sent back to the browser. It's a fancier version of VNC ultimately.

It would never work well over the Internet, it might be tolerable on a LAN.
I used to spend some time on TopCoder and got to be fairly good but not at the top "red" level... There is some transfer to improved code quality but I think it's generally not something that made a huge difference to what I do as a developer.

There are plenty of people who can do really hard algorithms but may need more time or research. Real life doesn't always present you with the same canned problems that are used in competition and you're not operating under the same constraint. A competition problem typically starts from an algorithm, somewhat like a comp-sci exam question. As a competitor you need to quickly recognize the algorithm and then quickly write an implementation. I'm sure a lot of the best competitive people would draw a blank when presented with a problem that isn't a well known algorithm and certainly wouldn't be able to solve it within the time constraints.

Basically it's a game.

What I'd say is that outstanding performance in programming competition probably correlated to some degree with intelligence. Intelligence correlates to some degree with being a good software developer.
Google is to patenting application of publicly available compression algo (ANS)
A Ponzi scheme would be impossible, no coinholders are paid dividends. Perhaps you just meant "scheme".
Ask HN: How to pick a good startup to work for when you're not business-savvy?
I worked for three small businesses and they all either flopped or ran stagnant and started going in the red. I joined all these companies where there were 5-10 employees.

I read blog articles about people that joined a company when they were this small, only to be acquired by a huge company and then they made great yields from that acquisition. I know it's survivorship bias but I can't help but think that those early employees that are not co-founders mostly got lucky. Is that actually true, though? Is picking a small company that will have a bigger future mostly a numbers game, or can I apply strategy to it without needing to be business minded?

As the title suggests, I'm not business savvy. I'm just a programmer looking to make a living. I interview with companies big and small, I never cut the mustard with interviews with large companies so realistically I have only the smallest companies to choose from.

I browse Craigslist, AngelList, and BuiltInChicago to apply to places to go work for. I'm pretty much lone-wolfing it out there, without any leads from prior employers. And I don't know what constitutes a company that will be likely to have a good exit.

Working for small companies only to see each one drain their employees (false promises, no benefits, slump in sales) as the company as whole is losing money got old fast. How do you find "the one"? I cannot believe it's just a numbers game, just brute-forcing your career through before you find a company that is good and doing interesting enough things to get millions of dollars of funding and then bought by a huge company.

As I said, I haven't cut the mustard for big company jobs, but this is what I'm interested to know. If you're working a technical job, how do you know how to pick a good small company that has the best future?
You regularly have to instantly write code for a problem from undergrad CS coursework on a whiteboard, and for which you haven't necessarily been involved in working on, in a constrained time with your job hanging in the balance?

I'm skeptical.
Just because I say beautiful code is a myth, doesn't mean I and other people write crap code. If you have to make an argument, don't start off with extremes. I'm sure you've heard much worse things than some random stranger saying beautiful code is a myth. Dial down the hyperbole...

> write code like poetry

When a code base reaches a certain size it's hard to write "beautiful code". Please don't pretend that it is just as easy when you have multiple complexities/priorities. If you write so called beautiful code in complex projects, good for you.
It's not just about intelligence, but also about impulse control, mental illness, desperation, etc. Someone could be reasonably or even very intelligent and still have issues in these other areas.
Yes, it is possible, but rule 0 is you don't date someone in your management chain or who has you in their management chain, and rule 1 is that you shouldn't date someone who you work with regularly.

These aren't edge cases. These are the basic ground rules.

The possibility of falling in love there is less important than maintaining a professional work environment. Workplaces don't exist for matchmaking. That's not why people are there. If it happens in a way that doesn't negatively impact the workplace, that's great. But that's ancillary.
Well over 30 years ago one of the first things I learned in my EE degree was Steinmetz's method for calculating steady state amplitude and phase in AC networks comprising generators, resistors, capacitors and inductors. He worked out a transformation that lets you use simply solve a set of simultaneous equations, in exactly the same way as simpler DC networks with only batteries and resistors. The only extra price you pay is that the equations use complex numbers instead of real numbers. It really seemed like magic to me. Sadly a career in software has gradually worn down the motivation I once felt to revisit some of the really beautiful ideas underpinning technology, with the idea of getting a better understanding the second time through.
If you had the stomach for it, it would be interesting to just make it a map service for adult content. There are ad networks and billing providers that specialize in this sort of thing, and AWS allows porn (legal, that is).
"Right now our output is basically moving our jaws and our tongues or typing [with] our fingers. We're ... limited to this very low output rate from our brains, and what if we could up that through telepathy?" asks Jepsen. "Instant transfer of thoughts would also speed up the innovation process."

So, instant, telepathic transfer of an idea is faster than simply conveying an idea with words. However, in "receiving" a thought, it still has to go through some linguistic framework, which I imagine includes the same kind of language processing that happens when you hear speech. The same with conveying the thought- is it conveyed with words, and if so, how other than through language? I don't mean a computer reading your thoughts and typing them, I mean actual telepathy, which is the "transference of information from one person to another without the use of any known sensory channels of physical interaction"

Can you really learn anything directly this way, without language processing? Am I totally missing her point? I'm not arguing there aren't other good uses for this.

edit: ok, she is talking about OUTPUT, not necessarily INPUT (which is the second necessary component of "telepathy"). I want to hear more of the "input" side, or else the shit's kind of bunk, kind of like Ray Kurzweil (imho)
This is already on due to idiots flying them near airports.
Alright, time for another rant:

Curtis sees the connection between machines, hierarchies, capitalism, and technology. Curtis aptly points out that in our world, technology has not bred equality, that rather, the very concept of ownership spits in the eye of non-hierarchical society. I also question the degree to which Silicon Valley types fundamentally believe in (socioeconomic) equality - while Rand supporters often invoke freedom, liberty, justice, etc. they generally fail to mention equality at all. Instead, they opt for lofty "rising tide" rhetoric or relate back to a "free and open web". However, Curtis is dead right about the type of fantasy that technological progress has given our world.

This fantasy - that if we just keep pushing forward, we can solve our problems belies a fundamental, inherent fallacy in late-capitalistic logic. That is: when the problems are necessary parts of the system, it is impossible for the system to solve them. Current nation-state-capitalism relies on a few tenets that cause many of our planet's problems. Nations and people must compete, rather than cooperate. Growth must always continue, lest we face stagnation. Property and the means of acquiring wealth must not be equally distributed, in fact, such distribution would be inherently immoral. The last point here is explicitly Randian and is at the heart of global society's moral compass. That what one man has, no other has a right to take, regardless of how that property was acquired. Thus it is wrong for Palestine to contest the land given to Israel at the end of the 2nd World War, it is wrong for young black men and women to stand on the bridges that wealthy San Franciscans take to work, it is wrong for the government to appropriate the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg - despite the fact that his idea and wealth was ostensibly stolen from others.

The fantasy of a "free web" can be only be recognized in its relation to property and ownership. While megacorps like Google and Facebook make lofty claims about freedom, they unequivocally deny that the rest of the web ought to have access to their data, their infrastructure, their systems. They support the laws that make hacking illegal, and in many cases, prove two-faced about what they really want: a free web, but with some limitations that favor them. Google, for instance, supports net neutrality but does not have any interest in limiting their own ability to profit off the web. What we end up with is a "free society" where the ultimate arbiters of justice are not beholden to society in any way - capable of setting their own rules and saying "you may enter if ..."
I'll do a donation, if anything, to show my support to what you are trying to achieve. I wish Matrix and anyone working on it the best.

Arathorn, links to matrix.org and riot.im on Patreon are all plain HTTP; is it voluntary? Thanks!
BrainBag from Tom Bihn, tombihn.com
Your post was a great read, and I might try doing something similar on my blog. A suggestion though: I typed in a query with an uppercase letter and it failed to find any matches. Perhaps .lower() your query if it's something you'd like to maintain? Thanks!
IRS Says It Will Limit Bitcoin Audits–But Only a Bit
A website to answer the question "what kind of dog food should I buy?"

It was a price comparison website that allowed you to quickly find the best priced dog food (unit price -- like $ per 1 pound weight) and it could be filtered by dog food ratings (you could compare expensive 5-star quality ingredient foods while ignoring any of the cheap 1-star ingredient foods). There is an independent website that reviews dog food based solely on ingredients, created by a veterinarian that I used for assigning SKUs to quality cohorts. I felt that most of the reviews on e-tailer website were heavily opinionated, based on anecdotes -- not data, and many were brand-sensitive ("I only buy so and so brand because all other brands suck").

The site was fully built, had some decent SEO, it integrated with 12 e-tailers, I registered and tagged all of the products for many affiliate marketing systems, I bought several hundred dollars worth of AdWords campaigns and iterated about 6 times. The scraper and display website took a few months. I spent a few days cleaning obviously erroneous data. It took a day's worth of time to sign up for all of the affiliate programs (effort staggered over a few weeks). I built a few scripts to automate the browser to search the affiliate websites for the correct affiliate links (some programs were much more customized than just adding a site-wide tag). I ran it for over a year and there was only one conversion that was paid by the affiliates, but it was too small for them to cut a check.

The idea, after the website was built and running, got some interest from a former CEO (now VC) and from a wealthy friend of the family, but I never followed up with either. I felt like all of the hard work of the product was done and the majority of work remaining would need to be marketing and generating inbound links.

I'm still convinced that there is a need for more price comparison websites that are unit-price indexed. Amazon doesn't have search by unit price and only occasionally has unit price. Things that come in packages of varying size (like dog food, batteries, household detergents and liquids) are hard to compare for value. I found two other sites with this idea, one was shut down and the other was focused entirely on supplimenting Amazon.

One problem I had is that the fine print on most of the affiliate programs prevented me from competing on many of the necessary AdWords search term keywords that I would have needed to advertise to get any real traffic. Basically, I felt my web interface was superior to both the e-tailers for finding the right product, but I couldn't compete for that AdWord traffic because my competition with them would drive up their marketing costs.
It's already being demoed in Microsoft stores, actually.
I've been around since the browser wars, and disagree with your characterization here. Standards don't serve marketshare, they are about interoperability and documentation.

A single user-agent technology shouldn't be standardized because that user agent has large marketshare. A tech should be standardized because multiple user agents want to use it, and be interoperable. The ActiveX comparison doesn't make much sense to me.
They don't provide backup codes.