skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just use something like https://pullgrid.com/ where you can host it from your dropbox or google drive and distributed through webtorrent. Or use https://vid.me/ or https://bitchute.com/
Ask HN: Employment Agreement, Assignment of Inventions
Employer wants me to sign a non-disclosure/assignment of inventions agreement.

From the Inventions or Discoveries section: With respect to all inventive ideas originated or developed by me for Company’s business while in the employ of the Company or within a period of one (1) year after the termination of said employment, which relate to projects upon which I have worked during my employment, or to the business carried on or contemplated by Company, or as to which I have acquired information as a result of my employment, and all patents, copyrights or other intellectual property rights obtained on such inventive ideas: ...

Has anyone ever dealt with such a clause that wants to assign IP for stuff produced after employment? I think this is ridiculous. It's like a hidden baked-in non-compete/solicitation clause but much worse! I'm trying to get them to remove "or within a period of one (1) year after the termination of said employment" and replace with a non-compete clause instead.

UPDATE: I have been employed here for years. While auditing employee records they noticed some people where missing the agreement.
So, its jira for personal use
Won't happen.

Companies hide behind "code is proprietary information" ALL THE TIME, especially when it comes to government purchases. And the government agrees because they don't know any better.
2017 National Geographic Nature Photographer of the Year Contest
I think that's the parent's point: it's not "refactoring" if the external behavior changed. Though I generally agree with the down-voting of the comment as needlessly pedantic, given the common usage of the term.
Did Parallels advertise that the product would work on the next version of macOS? If not, you got wait you paid for.
Yes I am. The point of contention here is whether Occam's Razor means that you can generally discount conspiracy theories. My argument is that conspiracy theories are almost never right, so you can generally discount them as a whole unless there's specific evidence that makes a conspiracy a plausible answer. And in the specific case of this article, I asked who's supposed to be behind the conspiracy and why, with no answer. colordrops claims that Occam's Razor doesn't mean you should discount conspiracies and that you need to evaluate each one, which is why I reminded everyone that conspiracies are almost never right, with the implication that this means you generally can and should discount them (unless presented with specific evidence implicating a conspiracy).