skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And there is nothing wrong with it. Most people think being alone is equivalent to being antisocial. A common misconception that needs to be addressed. The person doesn't need therapy, they just want to be left alone.
This is so weird that it's amazing. I'm speechless.
Well, depends on what you do. Sure, it can be nice to be offline for some coding, but most work these days, even predominantly coding work, is a team affair and requires communication to work well. Further, being able to get quick access to docs, tickets, etc. is quite useful.

But also, if one is responsible for the functioning of significant amounts of infrastructure, then it's not so great to have to worry about internet flaking out in the middle of working through production issues.

But yeah if you were working on something solo, then bad internet wouldn't matter as much.
"(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering."

The manifesto's author has a degree in Biology, not Computer Science. He probably learned enough programming on his own time to pass a technical interview, but never learned the "softer" parts of a CS degree that address working effectively as a team.

Programmers without degrees miss bits of the standard curriculum, often rigorous algorithmic analysis, but deciding that empathy is irrelevant to such a communal enterprise is a unique deduction!
A 2011 Norwegian documentary series had an episode called "The Gender Paradox" that examined this very issue in depth with interviews with evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and sociologists. It arrived at the conclusion that employment disparities increase in many professional fields due to natural divergent proclivities when socio-economic opportunities become equal for the sexes.

ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
Style Guide: Indonesian fashion trend in 2017
The next generation Facebook design for storage is Bryce Canyon, available through the Open Compute Project: https://code.facebook.com/posts/1869788206569924/introducing...
I no longer use libertarian for the same reason I hesitate to use atheist. Head over to the relevant subreddits. Last time I visited /r/libertarian I saw people advocating the flat Earth, and /r/atheism is a hate sub. Like it or not those who use a term color it. I try not to self identify with terms used by idiots and haters.
You are here trying to persuade me, at least I assume that is the goal, you could just be here trolling I guess. To try to persuade by claiming you are as bad as everyone else seems, unpersuasive?

You seem to think there are two sides: for or against. I have the ability to be against EVERYONE, don't I? Neither side can be convincing, or one side can. As it stands, you are just as unconvincing as the other side, which is hardly a great position!

So, seeing as you have a strong opinion, as evidenced by about 400,000,000,000 posts in this thread, do you have any evidence to support your ideas and refute what you seem to think is a bad piece? Or should I continue to be unpersuaded by both sides?
Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.
> By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity

The key words here are "intended to". There's a difference between doing something and intending to do something. Unfortunately, intending to do something is sometimes not enough to actually do something - you also have to do it in the right way, otherwise you might intend to do one thing and instead do another thing.

> de-emphasising empathy

Not the best sound-bite, which of course means it will get quoted a lot. Happens to techies, not all of them are good writers, yet less of them can write a text that would be robust under hostile interpretation. The point, however, was to use data instead of feel-good anecdotes.

> making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own

What's wrong with making Google more safe for people working there?
I find responses like those given from the co-founder here infuriating for some reason - far more so than I realistically should. I've always valued transparency when it comes to business, so when I see people dancing around straight answers and then lashing out when people take issue with said responses it just seems so remarkably childish.
I've read this type of advice before, but I have a lot of reservations. Example, I've been sitting on this product idea for over a year. According to this, I should build the landing page as if it's ready, let people sign up, then present them with "Thanks, we'll let you know when it's ready!" This seems weird to me, almost dishonest. Are you sayng this is the message the website should convey? Or am i misreading?
Something nice about internet in PR is that its constitution explicitly prohibits wire-tapping, although I don't know if it has been challenged in court.

For consumers, there's gigabit internet (both upload and download) without any data caps for $70/mo [0] in part of the metropolitan area. They appears to have commercial offerings [1], but no pricing info is available.

I found this blog post [2] from 2015 claiming that getting internet speeds adequate for streaming a large event can range between $1500 and $3000.

[0] http://optico.criticalhub.com/plans

[1] http://www.criticalhub.com

[2] https://medium.com/@lherrero/como-el-oligopolio-del-internet...
Subreddit of movie-fake-UI: https://www.reddit.com/r/FUI/
> (1) Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author
does not appear to understand gender.

> I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1) ...
I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor
a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.

heh
Or maybe it's both? After eliminating incorrect biases, perhaps we'd find top leadership to be 60/40 male/female. Or even 40/60 (I'd be surprised but hey).

Maybe women have a higher avg IQ but a smaller standard deviation. Then what?

I'm only taking issue with the sacrosanct idea that every mind is equal and that we should expect proportional representation in everything that's not obviously physically biased like sports. (How the brain isn't physical is still an open question.)
When I was studying in Taiwan in the early 80s, the island's high tariffs motivated travelers to carry suitcases full of stuff--Walkmans, cameras, Italian shoes, etc. Contact a guy in Hong Kong, he gives you a bag, a guy in Taipei picks it up and gives you NT5000, enough to pay for your ticket.

I never got up the courage to try it myself, but friends did. My girlfriend did it once.

Looking back, I realize how exceedingly stupid this was. Had there been heroin inside that camera, you were going to prison for the rest of your life. They didn't (and still don't) screw around.

I heard all sorts of stories. An Australian backpacker was caught at Korean customs with 50 Rolex watches stuffed in his shirt. He was sent up for ten years. Numerous young Americans and Europeans busted for drug smuggling were rotting in prison in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. At the time, with these countries technically allied with us against Red China, execution was not a politically feasible alternative.

This Mule thing is just another respin of an old practice. Best to avoid.
Just checked. Most of them are real

Edit: you seem to not know they are real, because you haven't looked into it. Because you don't think it's real. Maybe someone else told you when you asked, but you didn't listen?

Edit2: Howard Marks -- the investor -- recently said bitcoin wasn't real. So you're not alone in thinking x-real-thing isn't real!
In a way that I am not sure whether Chrome success (which is undeniable) happened because of its technology merits or its UX. It is hard for me to decide because significant part of UX interaction is supplied by extensions, for which I am not sure where they go. But I am OK with putting Chrome into the column of "good UX". I still feel it's rather exception than a rule.
His entire program might result in more discrimination and less diversity, but it's hardly a manifesto against diversity as such. A significant portion is concrete proposals to increase diversity.
Should Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail Block Facebook? (2008)
If anyone is interested in a sci-fi novel series that explores these kinds of themes for intelligent life, I highly recommend Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie. (I've left the statement above intentionally vague to avoid excessive spoilers.)
I am constantly amazed that "society" means America. Also, that all the examples are always how white majority countries have white majority X. What about China? What about Indonesia? What about Malaysia, where there is a lot of racial diversity?

Americans think their country is the world. Trust me, you are definitely less than 5% of the world population-wise, even if you are ~25% of nominal world GDP.

It is really sad how insular Western culture has become, and weird in an industry and era where the biggest tech IPO was Chinese.
> China is still getting the "developing country" discount from the USPS.

I thought imports from China was cheap because it was subsidized by the PRC?
I ride to work (and just about everywhere else) in Tokyo. Tons of hills, pretty minimal bike lanes (but those are increasing, recently).

Coming from car life, though, it's unbelievably good. There are two factors that I think make it work so well:

1. Hills are negated by electric assist bikes. Those are super-common here, mornings are packed with moms taking preschoolers to school on them. Mine evens out even steep hills to an exertion level similar to a regular bike on flat ground. (You of course can exert yourself when you want, and go faster.)

2. Technically, you aren't supposed to ride on sidewalks, but this is absolutely ignored by all, per common understanding. You can always ride on the sidewalk, as long as you exhibit common sense and courtesy and ride more slowly and safely. This means when a road feels too dangerous, you have a slower safer option.

My own commute is about 50-50 road vs sidewalk. I hope I never have to do any other kind of commute.

I'm originally from rural Northern California, and even though I did ride my BMX along miles of dangerous road, I wasn't allowed to, and wouldn't allow my kids to, either. Too many blind curves with very little shoulder, and pretty fast speeds.

But I think most cities could be as awesome as Tokyo is — which for me is for all practical purposes just as good as when I lived in the famously bicycle-friendly Amsterdam — if they just made judicious decisions about "share the sidewalk" in addition to "share the road".
I thought that was the least interesting part, didn't some people start leaving stuff out for him so he didn't have to break in.
> Most filesystem images aren't intended to be ported directly between machines in general

You don't have external hard drives or flash drives...?
Modern.

Made with love.
Dude in Saudi gains 3mm+ users in 2 mths without funding, real team or marketing
Not too sure how they would do retention successfully though but I would be celebrating with the growth nevertheless, 1 billion total pageViews for their web app, wow.
Now I've realized what I thought was so funky. It's a rather semantic issue.

Markets aren't just a pipe or a screen where stuff goes through, at least in economics. The market isn't just the market mechanism, but rather that mechanism plus the collection of all possible buyers and sellers at any given time. If all we have is Sally and Bob talking over the phone with their portfolios in stocks and cash, that's the market.

Now, you're right that no money entered the market when Bob bought that share. But if someone who had no interest in either buying or selling stock handed either Bob or Sally $11, that would be $11 going into the market. If Bob took those $11 as a loan from Chad while Chad himself had no interest whatsoever in what Bob would do with it as long as he paid them back, that would be money going into the market.

Also, I reckon I changed my initial position. But I'm also rather drowsy right now.
A 2011 Norwegian documentary series had an episode called "The Gender Paradox"[1] that examined this very issue in depth with interviews with evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and sociologists. It arrived at the conclusion that employment disparities increase in many professional fields due to natural divergent proclivities when socio-economic opportunities become equal for the sexes.

ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
you can apply a microsoft internship first.

I do device driver development as my day job. boring boring stuff. I wanna out.
Ask HN: How much you want for reviewing 200 lines of the code as an expert?﻿
1. $10 - $50

2. $50 - $100

3. $100 - $300

4. $300 - $500

5. > $500

Mostly the question is related to JavaScript, React, Angular (Web devs).

But feel free to mention your language as well.

Thanks for the answer!
Why only as big as a galaxy? Why not the entire universe?

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/infinite.htp

(Geoffrey Landis, the Melancholy of Infinite Space)
> Yet all of a sudden when it comes to mental pursuits (which are physically based in the brain and supporting chemicals), somehow then we're all equally capable and the huge biases that exist when using other organs don't exist. And not only don't exist, but so obviously don't exist that anyone suggesting so is met with "I'm literally shaking".

It's not "mental pursuits," it is that our society rewards men the most for excelling in fields which are created and controlled by men. When the majority of CEOs, leadership and top government positions are taken by men, it's going to be easier for men to keep gaining and holding those positions. Women will and do face more discrimination trying to enter these fields purely because they are women.

By creating a space for women to excel, by trying to fight the pay gap, and by trying to get women into leadership, we are not discriminating against men.

I'm not saying that our society, as it stands, should reflect the population perfectly. I am saying that our society needs to change to treat its population equally. And in doing so our tech companies, governments and other industries will change too. For the better.

> Same for pointing out if you're hiring for diversity and lowering standards for "diverse" hires, you're making it worse for everyone.

No one is "lowering standards" for diverse hires. No one. Why are you even implying this?

> And as he mentions, this diversity usually isn't. Hiring a bunch of people with the same views but making sure their skin tones or gender identity fill up a big list... Doesn't give you any useful diversity of thought at all.

All I got from his manifesto on this was he wants more people who think like him. His manifesto argues for less diversity, if anything.

> Being intellectually dishonest and acting existentially offended when someone points out the obvious is why the left is losing out

It's not taking offence, it is surprise that so many people are still willing to argue for inequality and are blind to the extreme imbalances of our society.
I ain't tryin to refute the rest of this, so you don't have to worry about that but this bit..

"And why is it always engineering? Why not coal mining? Why not nuclear engineering? Pig farming? Deep sea fishing? Plumbing? Carpentry? Why the incessant, unrelenting insistance from all corners that 50% of engineers MUST be women and no other profession?"

I've never personally advocated for 50/50 because I have no idea if it will or could ever happen, but for the rest, the answer is simple..

The tech industry is my home, it's what I know, and I feel like I have experience there. I have no experience in fishing, or coal mining, or pig farming, or any of that other stuff.

Doesn't it seem obvious that folks in tech would care about other folks in tech vs spending their time talking about industries they may or may not have experience in? It seems self-evident, so I have no idea why this point is ever brought up in this context.
Eyes take 30 minutes to properly adjust to the dark.
I think Asians are generally shorter than me. But if a 6'2 Asian is standing next to me, I don't think that particular person is shorter than me.

It's perfectly reasonable for him to say the 50/50 ratio might not be ideal, and maybe biology plays a role, while still believing his colleagues are competent.
That criticizes a 1989 paper. The snippet that I used and you just quoted are from a 1999 paper by the same authors, and the critique you linked on cyclehelmets.org isn't addressing the updated language.

The critique also doesn't challenge the conclusion, it's challenging the specific degree, getting into the weeds on the numbers and the subtler points of methodology. It looks to me like the page you linked even provides links to other papers that came to the same basic conclusion that helmets reduce risk of death, in the event of a crash.

"Government agencies withdraw support for 85% claim"

That's a pretty misleading statement considering it leaves out the fact that the NHTSA and CDC both still quote Thompson 1999 and both have strong and unambiguous pro-helmet recommendations.

Cyclehelmets.org says they are not helmet skeptics, that their beef is only to correct the science. Is that the same goal you have? Do you think that people should or should not wear helmets? Are you policing what you think is bad science?

I ride bikes a lot. I've crashed a lot. I've seen other people crash a lot. I've seen head injuries and concussions with and without helmets. I honestly don't really care to debate the science at this level, because I didn't perform any studies myself and I don't research helmet effectiveness or policy. Do you? Do you ride bikes and want others to ride bikes? Are you upset about mandatory helmet laws or something like that? What does this debate mean to you?
I personally wouldn't mind if my parents had me "designed" to be smarter or to look better so I really don't see the problem with those "designer babies". As long as it doesn't hurt the child in its future life I'm fine with it.
Google give very very few results. Feels like someone wanted to invent something and put it on a phobia-wiki then it became referenced from there. Could be wrong though.
Replying with a standard maga-snowflake quip is also not an argument.
I've had buyers remorse, I bought the coffee on the train then regretted it. But that was entirely my own doing, I didn't need to buy it.

Sure, if your supplier has a monopoly on the essentials of life that's a different matter, but I don't think we are anywhere near that.
I don't deny that some people believe they can't ride without protected lanes the whole way. But this belief is the problem. The whole beauty of cycling is cheap, lightweight, simple machines with a tiny footprint on existing infrastructure (or no infrastructure at all).

If you have the budget and political capital to do a massive infrastructure project like protected bike lanes on all blocks of all roads, then BRT or light rail are probably better uses of that capital.

Right now, bicycling is in this catastrophic failure mode where people believe it requires a massive infrastructure project, but accomplishing that infrastructure project is no more tenable than blanketing a city in rail.

>You want to get more people out of cars you need to provide good safe alternatives.

Yes! And if we are going to do a massive infrastructure project and shrink roadways to provide alternatives, we should get the best bang for our buck possible. I remain highly skeptical that bike lanes are it. (In temperate cities, where ebikes are allowed, maybe).
>Calling a company "Airmule" seems to be a particularly bad choice, since the term "mule" is commonly used to denote a person who carries smuggled drugs (sometimes concealed inside their body).

No kidding. One has to wonder how the founders can't be aware of that. Perhaps it was intended as a tongue-in-cheek name?
If you're not sure what this piece is about and suspect the joke is on you, welcome to The New Yorker's brand of humor. I feel this way about most of their cartoons as well.
I like the idea but in the world we live in (post 9/11), it is a major security violation.
Risk of a death penalty for accidentally smuggling heroin? They couldn't pay me to take this flight.
Besides the quite unnecessary personal attack on the founders ("One is a hardcore gamer, the other is a former backup dancer for Gucci Mane, and the third loves beer more than you do. I’m not making this up–this is what they say about themselves on their Web page") I feel the writer did nothing to back up his claim. The "clear as mud" answer from the founder "same as all OBCs" was a really weird thing to leave up to interpretation of the reader. Nowhere did the writer enlighten me about the actual rights of an On Board Courier. I found this article really lacking in substance, sorry.
Im honestly a litte off foot here. Is this irony?

Can somebody tell me that this ment seriously?

In case its not irony, the harm never originated from the discussions- the "discussions" the had on eugenics and various other horrid things, where the same thing we have today. People wrapped in echo-chamber bubbles, glueing "evidence" to the wall of these echo-chambers.

Its actually easy to identify such discussions. They are not aimed at research for a remedy. As in a real, root cause remedy. They want to wrap it in a social construct, or declare it a fact, so it can be put on a podest.
These discussions end not in further research, but in "we have the facts/rules figured out, now lets make history" atrocities.

Such pseudo discussions happen on the left and on the right side. You know that you are in one, if you cant press a certain point without hostility.
"So what is the root cause?"(Repeat in left discussion)
"What can be done to fix that?" (Repeat in right discussion)
Or maybe IQ itself favours only certain types of intelligence and the test is fundamentally flawed because it simplifies intelligence into something that distorts our understanding of it?

How long did we think women performed more poorly with spatial reasoning tasks? Then we realised cultural gender inequality was the culprit, not biological traits [1].

The original author continues to propagate the harmful idea that women aren't making it because of biology, when there is no evidence to support that biology is the reason. And you seem to believe the same thing, despite the science in this area changing and even reporting the opposite results.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/06/why-judy-cant-...
I remember reading that USPS loses money on every cheap Chinese package - it's a legacy agreement IIRC.
Maybe they aren't trying to people like you, who are likely smart enough to know this service is highly suspect. Maybe they are trying to appeal to the average "bro".