skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The conflict of interest (companies are also advertisers) is powerful, and it appears to be exerting a significant effect on the directional reliability of aggregate reviews for any company large enough to be a major advertiser. Companies can badger Glassdoor into removing negative reviews, and Glassdoor will ask few to no questions before taking summary and unappealable action in the company's favor.

The negative reviews are pretty much the only interesting data points on the site. Take them with a grain of salt, sure. But you have to take the positives (especially large cohorts of positives over short time intervals) with the whole freaking salt shaker. The aggregate scores offer some directional guidance, but bear in mind that you are not looking at the total sample size of reviews; you are looking at the sample size after the company has culled and gamed what it can, which is often quite a lot of the original pool.

This is sort of like the directional reliability of eBay scores, now that there is a short decay on past reviews, and pretty much anyone with 10 minutes on their hands can get negative reviews expunged.
I look forward to finding some time to read through some of these changes this weekend, but what this really makes me crave is a similar bot to track changes that are made to Conservapedia.com – The Trustworthy Encyclopedia™ – which I find very entertaining. Do yourself a favor and peruse some of the revert wars that happen over there.
from the article:

"In a paper, published today in the journal Scientific Reports, the researchers describe patient-reported benefits lasting up to five weeks after treatment, and believe the psychedelic compound may effectively reset the activity of key brain circuits known to play a role in depression."

"Functional MRI imaging revealed reduced blood flow in areas of the brain, including the amygdala, a small, almond-shaped region of the brain known to be involved in processing emotional responses, stress and fear. They also found increased stability in another brain network, previously linked to psilocybin's immediate effects as well as to depression itself."

The phrase 'reset' is being bandied around a lot, but it sounds like the scope of the therapy is much smaller than the concept of 'resetting your brain'. Not to say that there isn't a negative impact like you say, but I think the compartmentalization of the brain is more complicated than "good memory/bad memory".

Imagine a drug that just reduced the impact of memories with (for lack of a better wording) 'chemical metadata' categorized as being a negative experience or negative feedback. That seems to be the goal with these types of research into the chemical intervention of PTSD and depression.

> Presumably at least a percentage of negative learning is useful. That goes away when you "reset" your neurons in this manner.

Well, maybe not. The learning that was the result of using the negative feedback is already in-place. It may be more difficult in the future to recall the negative feedback that lead to the learning taking place, but I have a hard time thinking that all the learning that is a result of that negative feedback will be nullified post-facto, since it was already positively reinforced.

I guess we'll see!
2 used to be true, but is less and less with every release. Won’t say it is false yet, but PG 10 is getting there. What is still left to do?
>The money they were getting was a pittance, all things considered.

Go a little further down the rabbit hole, you'll have your answer
NSF taking proposals for collaborative computational neuroscience
I've attended a talk he gave about torture at my university, and in that, he attacked torture from both the effectiveness and moral angle. There are apparently a LOT of people who push back even after accepting torture is worthless at getting information because they think the person being tortured deserves it / has earned it.

EDIT: grammar.
My California Lyric Video Dre Anders and the Collective
The reporter asks a rhetorical question of whether self driving cars should be stopped. Did he ask the car companies whether they should have been stopped selling a machine that helps kill tens of thousands a year and pollute the global environment?

I mean, lets get a damn perspective here: traditional non-silicon valley companies continue to make and sell things which poison and kill people and because of that, there is a greater concern about them. But he doesn't like SV because it's companies created anarchic platforms that allow unsavory people to buy and publish propaganda? Seems somewhat hypocritical for a writer of the NYT to decry freedom to publish on platforms.

And if we had a completely decentralized internet, none of these issues would go away. Rather, we'd be talking about how no one can stop the Russians using Bitcoin to pay for publish and propaganda on whatever decentralized platform has the most eyeballs.
I have always wondered if you included both what was cancer causing and what it would cost the company/location to get rid of it on the sign it would be even better.
MIT profs ask to create computer science schoolat MIT
Perhaps you don't know anybody who uses BTC on a daily basis, but we are certainly out there, and there are probably a lot more of us than you think.
What does it matter if the paperwork takes 3 weeks (which doesn't mean "you have 3 weeks of work to do": it's a 1h meeting with a notary, mailing two form and one bank transfer) if the business runs for 10 years?

Which means that unless you're in the business of flipping LLCs, "way easier" seems like a made-up concern to me.
Aori: an AdWords tool to automate and optimize campaigns (Uses SKAGs method)
> The money they were getting was a pittance

Or at least, the money they told you they were getting was a pittance.
It is how war is usually conducted, and perhaps there is a justification for total war if something poses an existential threat.

But you need to consider this in the context of actual reality, where nearly all "war" is really a police action taken extrajudicially by ultrapowerful states against guerilla groups or civilian populations in order to ensure the dominance and power of wealthy global interests. Every war in the cold war was like this.

The doctrine of the acceptability of mass slaughter of innocents is how the people with weapons have chosen to use them in these non-existential "wars" but that isn't a justification for that choice.
Your scenario is just as contrived as the first one. It assumes a complete and accurate knowledge of the situation as well as a perfect ability to execute on your decision to harm the shooter.

If your only means for investigating the nature of human relationships is via intellectual contrivances then you will always produce results which reaffirm your preexisting beliefs.

The first point to understand is that violence is a dicey business and never produces as tidy of outcomes as the intellectual justification for it expects. The second point to understand is that the pursuit of morality via intellectualization is counter-productive at best.
Modern "rational" terrorists for example the IRA deliberately chose bombing targets mainly for economic reasons as mass killings of "civilians" turned off their supporters not least those in the USA.

I am not sure that ISIS et all are rational by mainstream muslim belief
[2016] Categorizing images with deep learning into Elasticsearch
Since you bring up the "Trolley Problem" I'd like to share a recent Radiolab piece on the subject[0]. There are apparently competing parts of our brain, and whichever is the "loudest" (most active) is what determines our actions. The tagline of the episode is

>Most of us would sacrifice one person to save five. It’s a pretty straightforward bit of moral math. But if we have to actually kill that person ourselves, the math gets fuzzy.

Basically, a more primal part of our brain is likely to scream "NO" when faced with a decision of being the one to directly end another human's life. When there is distance between the decision and the action, more "rational" parts of our brain have the upper hand.

[0]https://www.radiolab.org/story/driverless-dilemma/?utm_sourc...
Amazon and Target are themselves a great example of this - Target.com used to be run by Amazon.

https://www.geekwire.com/2011/target-finally-parts-ways-amaz...
What the two replies (at the time of writing) to this comment have missed is that maintenance and avoiding errors are not the same thing!
Orlando Pirates Football Club Now Has an Official ESports Team
Is there a particular line of business of Goldman Sachs that you believe is either vulnerable to people's opinions of it as non-competitive with Bitcoin or factually imperiled by the existence of Bitcoin a technology?
So You Think Investing Looks Fun?
What I've never seen in any rich-text web editor is an ability to have more complex numbered lists. So often I want to put in a block of content (e.g., a small code example) as part of a numbered list item, and then resume the list after the block . But they all restart me at "1."...
A Product Manager’s guide to planning for the team
>Not tweeting (much), not instagramming (much), not posting on Facebook (much)

It's not a spectrum. You are a user and you are rationalizing your cognitive dissonance. Just delete it, those things are completely useless/pointless and you're being tracked regardless of whatever precautions you take. You are on it, or you are not.
Some orgs, but not a majority, are larger than 10 and still my friend. Here are some:

- ProPublica

- my local farm co-op

- REI

Just trying to say it's not a law. I do agree with your point though.
> As a longtime user of the internet, from the 90s days of Usenet

A big difference from those days is that most of the major troll communities actively shunned people for what we'd call doxxing today.

It's quite striking how as folks became more and more interested in the outside world, it became more and more important to attack people.
This is quite cool.
If they are fighting how will they become Googlezon ? :-)

I don't think Google saves itself by being a federated shopping platform (aka the Uber for Amazon). It would do much better by continuing to attack Amazon's AWS offerings with its own, after all if Google can keep Amazon from making a profit on their infrastructure it goes back to be a cost/liability at Amazon rather than an Asset. That cuts into profits eventually.
Just last night I was talking with a friend about how good Amazon is compared to any other of the tech companies. They weren’t blamed for the elections, they haven’t gotten mixed up with terrorists, their “personalized” recommendations are sometimes so cutely wrong its actually pleasant to see.

I mean they still probably have too much power, but more in the sense of Walmart in the 1990’s. Amazon might be a monopoly, but at least they don’t undermine democracy (yet). Google as I am typing this is undermining the electorate.

That being said, my praise of Amazon is really more praise of Jeff Bezos. If he dies, or has a change of heart, we could be in trouble.

Also these partnerships mean nothing. I remember at Oracle an exec telling us how many “partnerships” he announced with Apple/Samsung/whatever at SAP. They whole point of the partnership wasn’t to “collaborate”, it was to release a press release. What do people think happens in the end?? That the most brilliant engineers of each company fly to a secret location, get into a room, and then diagram (“ideate!”) a solution on a whiteboard like it’s an episode of Numbers or Law and Order: Criminal Intent??
What the CIA’s Tech Director Wants from AI
I have seen fantastic developers promoted to horrible managers.
As others have stated management isn't coding. Leadership isn't management.
Understand that it is your job to guide and lead your team not write every line of code or decide that every line written isn't what you would do.
You must build trust both up to your management and down to your team. This can be very difficult to juggle as the impedance miss match can tear you apart.
be honest and transparent, this doesn't mean be a unfiltered asshole to everyone.
Understand not every decision made is binary there are shades of grey.
If you find that "politics" is everywhere and you are constantly in an episode of Days of Our Lives then find another job or move back down to development. I personally don't deal with politics or like where everyone has an agenda but I will help solve problems for both my team and for the company and I will help forward ideas I think are good and get behind the decisions made above me and do my best to execute on those decisions.
It absolutely can be a crime.
Popcorn Time Creator Readies BitTorrent and Blockchain-Powered Video Platform
Considering the insignificance of the vote, if the other party leader doesn't deserve my vote I don't care if they fit my ideology better than the rest, I'm not going to give them or the larger political system any validation. It's about integrity and indifference in the entire system.

The 'everyone should vote' activists so often operate on the assumption that this is the system, it's the only option, and if they can just convince people of the right strategy to work the system they'll be motivated to vote. Without considering a rejection of the system itself and the options the system produced, where discussing individual strategy is a meaningless exercise.

Do better next time, offer better people, and maybe I'll be motivated, or better year propose fixes to the electoral system as part of their campaign. But I've already been burned in Canada where Trudeau made promises to update the electoral system...then he completely backed out of it after being elected. Which does nothing to convince me the utility in taking an active interest. Even if they are offering things I care about, if that comes with zero integrity about following through then again the individual strategy is meaningless.
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the value of all of the bitcoins to the total assets under management of the large banks? Many of them manage over a trillion in assets. Bitcoin is designed to be a replacement for bank accounts and credit cards in a sense, just without all of the centralized authority and meat powered overhead to keep everyone trusting it. Its kind of crazy that it has worked out so well. While there have been significant investments on hardware to power the network, I'd have to assume the cost of maintaining the network is pennies compared to what a bank spends to manage assets. That is the real disruptive power of bitcoin.
Why would I order from Target, Walmart or others and then wait unknown amount of time for delivery, when I can order anything I need on Amazon and have it in my hands in two days delivered for free, or sometimes even same day? I think Amazon spend great amount of money into delivery infrastructure and it works: I rarely shop now anywhere else, because I hate uncertainly: when I paid for something, I want it in my hands NOW. I doubt Target, Walmart or others will able to provide this. They are not ready for online shopping. Amazon is. And alliance will fail at some point in future, when all these stores will decide to deliver goods themselves to avoid middle men. So no, sorry. I don't get it!
This Is the Week Wall Street Went Nuts Over Cryptocurrencies
I think you'll find more people use GBP to speculate than to buy "stuff"; in that sense, it's fairly similar to BTC.
SWEEDZERLAND – Switzerland, the new paradise for weed?
Not a startup, but a small UK Ltd selling software services to a German company.

At the moment, selling to the EU just requires filling in VAT and EC Sales List tax forms. This paperwork is all automated by accounting software.

If selling from a UK Ltd company ever becomes a problem, it is a simple matter to create a company in an EU country so I can continue to sell services and products via that. Having residency isn't required to setup and run a company in many EU countries, so I suspect I'd be able to continue working without worry.

The only issue would be transferring over income from a foreign country in a compliant manner. If that becomes expensive, then it might be worth moving residency to a different country. But rushing to make a decision seems rather silly when the decision depends on details that haven't even been talked about yet.
Except very trivial cases, any piece of software contains bugs that need to be fixed needs to add features based on new user stories and also must to adopt to the constantly evolving hardware. Linux is a perfect example of this constantly evolving and never finished paradigm and if anything it can be used not to support but to invalidate the "finish your program" philosophy.
I think the Unix philosophy would have you pipe those beeps to another program that does your calendar integration.
Target has big problems with their online ordering. I've ordered items from them, had the order lost and no contact from the company at all. If you go to a local store where you can also have items delivered, they have no order info, and can't help you. There is a reason why Amazon is popular.
yep causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving" is how its put in the UK
I think it's even degrading dog trainers. As if all they said was bla bla.
In between profit and liability is break-even. For a company with a mantra of "your margin is our opportunity", break-even is an acceptable outcome.

As long as companies can make money on float, sheer volume can be its own profit center.
Its quite different with Wall-street tho.

In Bay Area with your freshly mint MBA, over the weekend you could put together power-point presentation, pitch it on Monday as a "big shot with incredible idea and amazing connections" and get funded by Friday.

Meanwhile to be selling the same BS on the stock market you actually had to had a stock, who got on the NYSE/NASDAQ board first, and that means there has been actually a physical company with employees and everything in place.
Thanks for continuing to take such an interest in this! It seems like you don't like and won't ever use the project, which is perfectly ok with me.
It all only makes sense when remembering that these are the same people who somehow lost an election against Donald Trump.
I think the reason that article doesn't run in the NYT is because it's accepted wisdom. A much more likely article is "You may hate Wall Street, but you'd miss it if it was gone."
Heroku CLI down
Essentially every major institution is like this, the NY Times and the rest of the media included. We should probably be less fixated on which particular groups of corporations are 'good' or 'bad' and deal with the underlying problems.
It would be a total non-issue if they did come out saying that openly though. Probably it started off with Google's "do no evil" motto; I can't think of any tech companies that promoted themselves as a force for social good rather than a pure business. Except maybe Apple under Steve Jobs.
> The clock movement supplies one unit of energy to the pendulum for each oscillation. A torsion pendulum oscillates about 8 to 20 times more slowly than a swinging pendulum. This represents a major savings in energy, enough to increase an 8-day running time to 64 to 160 days.

This is way cool. Just looking around real quick, the first of these models were made in 1900: https://clockhistory.com/0/schatz/model-names/standard-400-d...

I wonder what how this was discovered, measured, and tested. Making prototypes and measuring how long it lasts is obviously too time consuming.
There is a whole class of rhetorically attractive analogies comparing programming to the building of physical things like furniture, bridges, and buildings. They usually overlook that software requirements vary greatly and can be quite complex, while the physical requirements of a chair are not going to vary much across chair designs. Modification of software requires no physical resources and can be executed at scale (e.g. package managers), while modifying the design of a chair once it has shipped is impractical. Software errors can certainly be consequential, but I'd much rather encounter a bug in a messaging queue than a defect in the chair I'm sitting on or the bridge I'm driving over.
I order by price, so that means not ordering things like paper towels from amazon. Their grocery and household goods are often more expensive than just going down the street.

Also target has amazing returns. You can return online orders to the store - not like you can do that with amazon. I believe Walmart is the same.
Nobody mentioned burden of proof until you, and it’s a weird ass straw man. OP was pointing out how he felt in a specific situation.
It isn't just cyclists, but pedestrians too. The best way to murder someone in America is to run them over with your car and say it was an accident. The other person, being dead, can't testify otherwise.

There's a particularly egregious example of an NYC taxi driver killing a child when the pedestrians had the right of way[1]. No charges other than a minor traffic ticket.

[1]: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/cabbie-mowed-m...
Kubernetes Implementations: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – The New Stack
Like the article says, "Criminal law punishes bad intentions and bad acts, not traffic accidents.”

Accidents happen. There is no reason to ruin two lives instead of one, by harshly punishing another person.

If driver A takes the .002% chance they'll cause an accident while driving on the phone and drive B takes the same .002% chance, it makes no sense to throw B in jail and let A off with a 50 dollar fine just because driver B actually hit someone. Drive B should be liable for all medical costs and lost income.

But society gains nothing by punishing her. It's just a way to make us all feel more control. Accidents only happen to bad criminals! Good folks like us would never have an accident!
You also grew up reading Snow Crash wink

Some things just don't make sense to me. Why are the default settings for something like Facebook public? Why not friends by default?
They don't know to care. That's why I think we need public education. As companies who make these "IoT" devices go bust and the various Internet-enabled cloud widgets the general public has purchased turn into bricks people will get an "education" of a sort.
Hackaday’s Open Hardware Summit Experience – BeagleBoard.org Blog
You probably already know this, but in case other readers don't, the depth of color on keto sticks is NOT a measure of "how deeply in ketosis" you are.

The depth of color indicates how concentrated ketones are in your urine, which is impacted by (1) the amount of ketones your body is producing, and, very importantly, (2) your hydration level (i.e. how diluted your urine is).

For newbies, if the stick is pink AT ALL, congrats, you're in ketosis. Don't make the depth of color a big goal.
> they shop there because I can Prime myself anything in 2 days or less and if it's messed up I can talk to a human being and find out why.

Really? Amazon is often very late with Prime deliveries in my experience, only hitting the 2-day mark maybe 60% of the time. And when the miss the delivery (which I am paying $100/year for!!) there are no options presented for customer service or support, just "check back here in 3 days and if your package still hasn't arrived we'll present you with more options".

Meanwhile I can call Google any time and get great customer support for the products I pay for. I'd vastly prefer the Google delivery experience that I'd expect them to create compared to what Amazon Prime is now.
TL;DR: can you connect to this website with an IETF experimental standard that hasnt been upstreamed into the linux kernel and only started using function pointers in 2015?

No.

http://people.netfilter.org/pablo/netdev0.1/papers/Shaping-t...