skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All this is covered in Rich's talk. Your Cutter and Cuttable are different from my Knife and Cuttablito. When your program needs to talk to outside world, it all becomes messy.
This is bottom-up marketing, where you hope technical people will recognize your product as useful and pitch it to their boss for you.

"Hey boss, I found this thing called CloudFlare on HN, I think we could use it to help with these DDoS problems"
People don't need to be very skilled in order to talk BS and pick fights with others. And not all companies have a proper hierarchical structure where managers give a fk. Sometimes even "mediocre" knowledge of something is enough to keep the person employed because it's a niche technology or there aren't enough people applying. I've met a toxic person who never explained anything he did (always responding to "how did you fix it" with "dunno, just did some shit"), and I was too busy to check his commits. There was no code review. That same person used to answer people who asked him about X or Y with "dunno, don't care, it's not my problem". He bashed the people who used C++ smart pointers for being idiots who can't code without memory leaks.

We were working on legacy code mostly fixing bugs. There were no tests and a team of ~100 QAs (it was a gamedev company). There was almost no way to tell if the bugs he fixed didn't introduce additional bugs that nobody knew about. And everyone was working overtime to get the damn game shipped. This was the sort of company where the number of fixed bugs was an evaluation metric. Didn't matter that someone solved 20 bugs by adding a missing texture, while someone else fixed a very hard AI bug or a race condition. Team leads were not involved in employee evaluations and managers only looked at the numbers. They fired people on a whim to "teach a lesson". They shut down an entire office with no prior notice and asked the employees to sign a letter saying they were leaving instead of being fired.

Granted, the problem was mostly with the company, which is why the solution was to leave.
Especially the ones with the arm rests that go up.
I mean, Tech companies are not your friends just like GE, Boeing, Procter & Gamble are not your friends. The four horsemen of tech (Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple), are VERY large companies, and they should be treated that way. I don't think they are _evil_ as this article sort of implies, but they are not above the laws or regulations that other big companies face.

We just need to admit that in the end they are companies, who primary motivation is profit (like all companies), and we cannot implicitly trust them just because they make cool products. We need to have a healthy skepticism about what they are doing and what their goals are. I'm not saying anyone should avoid using their products, but just be aware that nothing really comes for free.
Just so. In the 1990s I was part of a group called the Space Access Society, which was a bunch of cranky but idealistic rocket scientists (and enthusiastic amateurs; John Carmack was a constant presence with his Armadillo Aerospace) trying to foster cheap access to space by any means possible.

These efforts were regarded with huge levels of skepticism / disinterest / dismissal from NASA and the mainstream aerospace industry, which consistently confused the second kind of viability with the first. When these people couldn't raise and/or manage the funds to actually implement their ideas, this was regarded by many as proof of the physical impossibility of cheap access to space. Most of the industry regarded them as crackpots.

Then Elon Musk came along and proved the crackpots right and the industry wrong. He could do this because physics was on the side of the crackpots and always had been, even if the market was not. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition; what he also needed -- and just barely had -- was the financial resources and organisational capacity to go up against the market and win.

There are aerospace forums[1] where one can still find smatterings of the old guard insisting that Elon Musk is just a smoke-and-mirrors phenomena; that spaceflight will always be intrinsically expensive because physics (in a hand-wavey, strictly no-calculations kind of way) says it must be so; that the only reason his rockets are cheap is because he's underpaying his workforce and working them to death; that it's impossible to re-use a rocket -- seriously, they're still saying this, even after it's been done three times already; that the Shuttle proved that reusability can never lower the cost of spaceflight, etc. etc. etc.

Some of these people have PhDs in aerospace engineering; some of them have worked on the space shuttle. No matter: they're in the throes of a cargo cult, and they're wrong. Physics are right.

Do the numbers. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.[2]

1: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php

2: http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Sicker when you realise she was on the phone the entire time.
Maybe on the first year he didn't do professional work with it, and only used in on personal projects?
I don't disagree with you, but human society exists because of our ability to control violence via intellectual rules.
Sounds a lot like the name of the Nintendo's gaming console.
(1) Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc. Effectively "printing money". Perhaps not entirely arbitrary, as it's limited to the number of bitcoins in existence in the "main" chain at the time of the fork, but good enough.

(2) There are a very small number of third parties that control the vast majority of hashing power
In the UK the offence would be Causing Death by Dangerous Driving [1], and it only applies to drivers of motorised vehicles. The "wanton or furious driving" charge that was used in the recent case of Kim Briggs's death [2] was used because the death was caused by a cyclist.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causing_death_by_dangerous_dri...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist...
An accident is an accident, is an accident, is an accident.

We've all had accidents, and we know what that feels like.

Negligence, maliciousness and depravity all have clear definitions.

There's no clear rule for discerning human intent and emotion, retrospectively, but it's outlines are often detectable through residual evidence. It is often obvious when an event required careful planning, contrasted against chaotic incidents that couldn't possibly be replicated if you tried.

Sometimes, things are curiously a little bit in between. Most of reality is imperfect, and we have to accept that.
Right, it's that being in a car is treated as a special case where you can kill someone and the legal system mostly doesn't care unless it's blindingly obvious that it was intentional.
Social Media Guidelines for the Times Newsroom
Directly proportional to the probability of everyone having a computer and the tech understanding to get a bitcoin wallet.
There is the UDP source port, which is where the reply will be sent, and a 16 bit ID number associated with each request. Randomizing both of these gives you 32 bits of entropy, which would makes spoofing attacks a lot harder. There were a lot of systems vulnerable to such attacks before source port randomization and ID randomization became common to mitigate such attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_spoofing

Of course, for this attack, you may only need to get the source port to match, since if it's the DNS resolver that has the bug, it may parse the whole response before noticing that the ID doesn't match. And some NATs may break source port randomizaiton, since they allocate their own source ports to keep a table of their source port to the internal IP and source port; if they do so in a more predictable manner, it may be relatively easy to spam them with packets, or you could just spam the whole 65536 bit range with bad packets.
Outsourcing is another example. I was at a really stupid company in 2000-2003, and they were sure they wanted to outsource. The reasons kept changing, but they were sure they wanted it because all the cool kids were doing it.
Or the same Amazon for that matter.

I suspect it has to do with the kind of things I order, and where I'm located, but Amazon deliveries have always arrived within two days for me (sometimes one day). Exceptions being when I order stuff that is not eligible for prime, but I know that at the time of ordering. Their customer service has also been excellent in my experience.

That said, I haven't had a terrible experience with Google yet, but I've barely used their support. I'll find out soon, because my Google-purchased phone started the infamous bootloop the other day.
Maybe it "works" on some other metric that is being selected for. Masturbation "works", but not if you're trying to have a kid.
I feel the same way as you, and the unpredictability and unreliability of AMZL has really turned me off of Amazon lately. They're constantly lying about deliveries, saying they handed a package directly to me when they left it at another building or claiming they couldn't get through the gate when they lost the package or missed the deadline.
It already has a kernel, except it uses the host OS's system calls instead of its own drivers. Once you have a runnable OS that runs as a separate Unix process in its own address space, it is actually possible to port it over to bare metal by providing all the modules that the OS would normally provide: memory management, graphics, device management and HAL, keyboard/mouse input.

See https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano for something that can run on bare metal.
Agreed, ban manually-driven cars as quickly as feasible.
Sidewalks aren't flat, and they don't have priority at junctions.

This makes them unsuitable for commuting or serious cycling.

To make it a viable form of personal transport it's better to keep cyclists on the roads.
Twitter Is Crawling with Bots and Lacks Incentive to Expel Them
Its very different, few skill sets carry over from engineering, at first it seemed like I wasn't doing anything useful at all.

The challenge is not going back and doing technical work that someone on the team can do because it feels good to 'get something done', and it isn't possible to just edit some code in an engineer reporting to you and recompile them so that they work 20% faster than they did before.

There are a lot of bad managers. You'll hear all sorts of horror stories. But there isn't a book that explains good management, there are 100's of books and they are all different because how management makes sense to a person is unique to that person. When I first started managing I would read books that people recommended. Sometimes there was something useful, sometimes it was opaque. Some assumed you had no understanding of others emotions, others assumed that what others were feeling was as clear to you as if they had an emotional status monitor hanging over their head.

Three things emerged from the mess;

1) There are always two people in a manager/employee relationship and that pair is unique, and the tools need to be appropriate for that pair.

2) People who work for you, are notoriously bad at telling you that you suck. Try to cultivate relationships outside of your group that can give you a different perspective of how things are going.

3) At the end of the day respect, responsibility, and a clear understanding of what is expected is the most effective way to keep people happy and productive.

So to summarize, yes the new role was challenging and what was more, frustrating, in part because the tools I had learned for developing new engineering skills were not applicable. It isn't a job for everyone, this is for sure.
I believe the punishment should act as a deterrent. In the same vein that DUI laws will strip you of driving privileges, extract high fines, and possibly jail. And it's in the same frame of thought, exercising poor judgement.

Being inattentive, with a 2.5-ton vehicle, at 10m/s should be treated as being over 0.08% BAC. Yet, only one of them is treated as a criminal violation.
Because nearly all US police have a perverse incentive to issue easy-revenue traffic tickets. From the article:

> The New York City Police Department, for example, issued more than 96,000 citations to drivers in 2012 for excessive window tinting, which wasn’t an influence in any fatal or injurious crashes.

> By comparison, according to a October 2013 Transportation Alternatives report, the NYPD issued fewer than 12 summonses a month in 2012 to drivers who failed to yield, one of the leading causes of injurious crashes in New York.
We aren't just talking about some random FB ads. These were targeted specifically at undecided voters in swing states based on data from hacked voter rolls. It was a surgical operation designed to shift the balance while leaving a small footprint. It obviously wasn't the only factor, but given the extremely thin margins in the pivotal states, it's not unreasonable to wonder whether it could have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Whether or not it was the case, there should not be any question whether the elections of the world's supposed shining example of democracy might have been decided based on a foreign mafia state's disinformation campaign. Any companies that may have been unwitting accomplices need to own up and begin working on defensive measures immediately.
Depends on where you live. If you live in the UK you can get reliable 1-day delivery (prime in the UK guarantees 1-day delivery, and if you're in a city, same-day delivery on certain items). There are advantages to high population density I guess.
How will MPTCP effect the efficiency of RF mesh network architectures?
Honestly I did a fair few days of research and whenever the UK is listed as an option, the figure 200,000 gbp also shows up.

Looking more into this, looks like there is a special 50k gbp if the money is coming from local VC's or government grant.

In my case I have a side product that is fielding licensing inquiries, and I'm looking to bootstrap (figure that's just as time consuming as fund raising).

I don't have 200k gbp in the bank, and I'm not willing to nor see the need to gamble with family and friends' money. So to me the UK scheme falls into the category of "major capital requirements".
As pointed out in the article, it can be a crime, depending on jurisdiction and local laws. The problem is prosecuting that crime in the same way you'd process a murder with a knife, because the public doesn't see them the same way.

Honestly, I get that. Driving a bike on a road with cars seems dangerous. I do it, and I don't want to die, but it's not the same as walking on the sidewalk or sitting in my yard. If there were bad choices made by the driver, then sure, let's prosecute. But passing a biker going 15mph on a 45mph road doesn't seem crazy. Going 72 in a 65 doesn't seem crazy. I like to think I'm an aware driver, and I haven't hit any bikers yet, but I've seen myself be two distracted moments away from hitting one. It's not crazy that I would be checking my maps app at the same time a police siren comes into view, leading me to miss the biker who'd just turned into the lane next to me.

The problem seems to me that we've built both physical and social structures around roads being for cars. It needs to feel comfortable to bike while taking up a whole lane, both for bikers and cars. ("Drive at the speed bikers go" isn't reasonable, imho.) Bike lanes help a lot, and having a lot of bikers around helps a lot. But we can't just start with "killing a biker is deliberate murder", because it's simply not. It's old attitudes being applied to a new world, and I'd rather find a way to bring people into the new world than punish a few of them for making a mistake.
Double your investment by 100% safe Investment method
> 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.

What charges do you think he should have been brought up on? Manslaughter?

If the father and son were in a car that had the right of way, would that also justify a manslaughter charge or is it only egregious because they were on foot?
Yes, I think they are very reliable. I worked for a London Startup that currently has 100% negative reviews and I regret not looking at them before I joined.

From what I've seen, a lot of good or decent places tend to have a general positive rating, and the really bad ones are going to have multiple negative reviews.

Take individual reviews with a grain of salt, but as a group I think it's fairly accurate.
The Thoughts of Chairman Xi
> Then the company will hire a firm to write them positive reviews

One company (Series D, 300+ employees) that I worked at did this, sort of. It was less a hired firm, and more the CEO posting.

> and the BS positive ones like 'it's a challenging place to work, the people posting negative reviews are used to workplaces where they need less initiative blah blah blah.

Absolutely. There are a few key phrases that are huge red flags for me. Consistent "themes" showing up on Glassdoor along the lines of "people who can't stand the heat need to get out of the kitchen" or "people are used to the old ways and need to grow up" or "this is a fast paced work environment and not everybody can handle it" are red flags that the company is trying to influence their Glassdoor rankings. It's like the opposite of sandbagging... if they make enough of the same comments, then Glassdoor will pick up a theme that provides an "excuse" for the company's legitimate bad reviews.
Good for Google. What about a Prime-like service including videos, movies, and music for 20-30 USD per year?
"I was just texting in my phone. I didn't mean to run over that lady."

That is not an accident. These are not accidents. The very phrase "accident" leads to the sort of thinking you're espousing here.

These are collisions. These are deaths. These are manslaughter. These are negligent homicide. These are avoidable.

If you're operating a vehicle and not paying attention, not driving according to the road conditions, aren't keeping your vehicle in proper mechanical shape, or don't have sufficient training, you're a hazard and shouldn't be on the road. Period.
So they give you two products and a month of prime... what response did you want on the customer service end?
A company I used to work for had a bad review posted (not by me). It was taken down 2 days later.
Facebook to Take Food Delivery Orders Directly on Its Website
I don't really understand the article.

The article suggests they are advocating for a blanket law. Are they saying that anytime an accident happens involving a car and a bike where the driver was at fault it should be a criminal prosecution? Is that the type of society we want? Do we expect accidents to never happen and want to criminalize anything less than perfection?

We have manslaughter laws that allow for criminal penalties when a person's negligence rises to a level of criminality. Accidents happen. Accidents that result in terrible injury and death are tragic. But humans aren't perfect; we get distracted--by things other than cell phones. Not every accident is criminal in nature; and for that we have a civil system that--while focused on monetary compensation--is simply the best we've come up with beyond demanding blood satisfaction.

I guess I wish I understood the debate better.
Same is in Wall St. "Greed is good!"
> They weren’t blamed for the elections

Trump has taken some shots at Amazon (primarily b/c Bezos owns WaPo), so they have been "in the mix" w/ respect to the current political climate.

> 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, if you read some other threads on HN, there is a strong sentiment that Bezos is "shaking down" North American cities to determine which one is most willing to bend to his will for a secondary headquarters

It's not all rainbows and ponies in AMZN land.
>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.

Users have the ability to think for themselves. Laws are not code. Nobody with a brain expects them all to be followed all the time (i.e. speed limit). If decide to talk on the phone at a dumb time and cause an accident you certainly deserve more punishment than the person who happens to drive by a bored cop while talking on the phone on a mostly empty highway.
In a similar spirit can anyone recommend a browser that works well with a remote control ?

I've got an Android TV, but all the browsers are a bit meh with remote.
They still do.

We have customers running Linux instances just for Postgres.
This is ridiculous. Sidewalks are not thoroughfares - cyclists on the sidewalk put themselves in grave danger at virtually every intersection.
Seems more like a brand-father, though.
Dude, the head of Goldman Sachs said he'a doing God's work: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/goldman-chief-says-h...
It could be really interesting if it could return different coloured versions and provide a way to explore this different style.
Laws like these are very dangerous.
Well the first problem is that is a crime to allow a foreign national (which includes companies) to purchase political ads in US campaigns (Federal Election Campaign Act). If Russia efforts to buy ads on Facebook were sufficiently masked maybe Facebook wouldn't be responsible, but some indications are that some of these ads were purchased by clearly Russia entities.

Second potential problem is that it is alleged that Facebook employees were embedded in the Trump campaign's digital efforts. This would not necessarily be a problem in and off itself, but there is a lot of rumbling about stolen voter data that was used for microtargetting on Facebook. If Facebook had knowledge of data that was illegally obtained by a hostile foreign intelligence service, there could be some additional culpability.
My summer project: a rock-paper-scissors machine built on TensorFlow
Turbo Cars Should FEAR This Man – Drag Week 2017 CHAMP
I look at trends by job titles and I look for consistent incidental remarks, not negativeness or positiveness.

Example of the first: when evaluating one employer there were many negative reviews, but mostly from a particular high-churn part of the company; the experience of easy-come easy-go customer-facing support may not tell you much about the experience of someone even one level removed from that position. The odd positive review was usually a higher-level tech, and even if they had a negative outlook on the company or its future, such reviews would still add "but don't listen to these guys--they just couldn't hack it."

Example of the second, same company: it's very easy to get hired by this company but training is limited and you could just as easily get fired for poor performance -- i.e., the company's hiring requirements were significantly less than their actual on-the-job skill requirements.

So I applied to this company based on mostly negative reviews. I was aiming for a higher position, and I was confident in my ability while having very little evidence of it: if their hiring requirements had actually matched the job I got, I would never have gotten it.