skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Former Intel Data Center Boss Diane Bryant Joins Google Cloud as New COO
"...how can we explain a 19:1 pay differential for workers with similar training and tasks?

The answer is to look at who controls the pilot's union: very senior pilots. The airline management is mostly interested in what percentage of its revenues are paid out to pilots; the distribution of the money among the pilots does not affect profitability. The very senior pilots on the other side of the table say 'We need the most senior pilots to get $300,000 in pay and benefits.' The airline's response is 'The only way that could work is if we pay the new pilots $16,000 per year.' The group of senior pilots responds 'We can live with that.'"[0]

[0] http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
1. Say: “open the (pod-)door hal!“ ?
rule of thumb is 3x your salary is your cost to employer
> Norway uses its fund not to directly pay out dividends but as a source of revenue for its famously generous welfare state.

That wouldn't work in the good ol USA because the rich would use racisim and sexual panic to turn people against the welfare state and divert the money for more tax cuts for the rich. In this country the only bennefits that stick around are direct benefits that are mostly targeted at the upper middle class, such as the mortgage interest deduction or 529 college saving fund.
This incredible Megaman cosplay is so affordable you won't believe it is true
Original title: "Reverse engineering YouTube demonetization algorithm"
Until those natural resources are exhausted or otherwise no longer valuable.
If the United States wanted a fund the same size proportional to population of Norway's it would need 65 trillion dollars, which is about the same size as the total value of the top 60 stock exchanges in the world.

The NYT article made me think it was a good idea, but this comment inspired me to run the numbers myself. It's impossible to run a UBI with this type of system in the United States without total state ownership. Why would they publish something like this?
This is one thing that worries me as well. Fortunately, none of my smart home stuff is cloud connected.

Most smart home problems that tend to be solved by using a cloud service could be solved just as well by using a VPN. I do this with my Hue and my Wifi cameras, both with great success.

The challenge with a VPN is setting it up. Router manufacturers generally either offer OpenVPN, which requires a 3rd party app, or PPTP, which is horribly insecure. A router that could generate a secure IPSec configuration and push out a profile for the smartphones would make it a lot more usable.

Even then, it's still probably going to be more work than using a cloud service.

Maybe IPv6 will solve the problem as all of these things can have publically routable addresses. What could possibly go wrong?
On the other hand, the consensus reality that Russia hacked/stole the US election, and indeed the state of social division in the US itself, by purchasing a monetarily insignificant amount of low quality ads on Facebook, and unleashing a few thousand "trolls" on the internet, is quite strong among the left, mainstream media, democratic party, and liberal universities.

This in the face of multiple billions in ads and propaganda spent by left leaning organizations, and millions of citizens on both sides doing the work of "trolls" for free just by being themselves on the internet, often egged on by an inflammatory click-baity domestic media machine.

But no it was all Russia and Putin. The absurdity of this "consensus-reality" is quite astonishing really.
There are plenty of operating systems that use C++ on the kernel side of things. Some things, like exceptions, are frowned upon and rarely used -- if at all -- but there is no shortage of C++ kernel code. Just not in Linux.

When it comes to Linux, one could say that most reasons to avoid it are historical, but this does not quite paint the awkward truth -- namely that, for most of the kernel's lifetime (since back in 1991), C++ compilers simply did not have the level of maturity and stability across the breadth of platforms that Linux required. Linus Torvalds' stance on this matter is pretty well-known: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus .

Today, when x86-64 and ARM are the only two families that you need to care about in the following ten years or so (maybe RISC-V but I rather doubt it), it probably makes sense to look at C++ for operating systems work, but the runtime is certainly heavier than back when Linus was writing about it, too. A modern C++ compiler has a lot of baggage; C++ was huge back in 1998, now it's bloody massive. IMHO, all the reasons why you would want to use C++ (templating support without resorting to strange hacks, useful pointer semantics and so on) are reasonably well-served by cleaner languages with less hefty runtimes, like Rust. What these alternatives do lack is the amazing level of commercial support that C++ has.
I think somebody should make this for many subjects in math
They criticized blockchain, but still said it was useful. They didn't act like it had no utility, that's a strawman. When I see IBM advertising blockchain in the middle of football games to an audience who has no fucking clue what that means, or how little it is used in production, I know it's hype.

The blockchain is a useful protocol, but what you are describing doesn't even require it, just a few trusted sources, which blockchains have to fall back to, anyway, with trusted oracles.

Their larger point might be that as much a blockchain advocates love it, there's not a single mainstream application outside of Bitcoin 8 years later. Someone yesterday compared it to the hype behind torrents changing everything, though torrents might be more practically useful.
Have they not heard of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations? *

IIRC, prior to Smith's famous book, the wealth of nations was viewed in terms of gold kept in the coffers of the kings. This was increasingly a source of puzzlement because it was failing to explain why some nations were thriving and others were not. This seminal work has been credited with being single-handedly responsible for transforming our understanding of wealth as "gold in the king's coffer" to what we now refer to as GDP. Wealth of a nation is measured by its productivity, not the money in the bank.

While I agree we need to do something about the current trend towards concentrating money in the hands of the few, clearly at the expense of the many, this is not the way to do it. This in no way protects the productivity that gives rise to these riches. In fact, it is likely to undermine said productivity.

There is no limit to how much people can spend. If you just cut everyone a check, whether you call it Basic Income or American Equity, the money will get pissed away. It will not get invested in a better future.

We have to find ways to address the underlying structural problems that are causing the 1 percent to effectively bleed the masses for more. We also must do so without creating perverse incentives. This is a case of "the cure they are recommending is worse than the disease."

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
The barrier to entry is that they're building a marketplace. Building a marketplace from scratch is hard: no driver wants to drive for a network with no riders, and no riders want to ride a network with no drivers. To make it work you basically have to pay drivers to drive empty cars until your customer acquisition gets enough riders that the market is self-sustaining. That requires a lot of capital. If you follow that game plan in one market against a national monopolist, they'll cut their pricing in your market to drive you out of business. So really, you need enough capital to mount a credible attack in enough markets that the monopolist is better off accepting duopoly profits than burning what it would take to put you out of business. That's a lot of capital to raise and a lot of hassle, and you don't even get monopoly profits if you win. As a result, you'd probably have trouble raising the money. That's the theory anyway.
AWS Serverless Application Repository
LinkedIn certificate blunder leaves users LockedOut
The BEST “No Makeup” Makeup Tutorial EVER
That seems like an absurdly high number of employees for what's basically a taxi company, especially considering their drivers aren't employees.

That's roughly as many employees as Apple had in 2005, a company that was making laptops, desktops, servers, wireless routers, portable audio players, and entire operating systems.
There is definitely a difference between state budgets and federal budgets: fiat currency.
I have worked probably 20 days over 8 hours in my 10 year career. My team hardly ever works more than 8 hours these days.

Depends what you do, but if you're a "normal" software company you should be able to get away with this. Work smartly - don't waste a bunch of time, recognize how much actual work your people can do in a day - and let them go home to recharge.
Let's just make it legal to equip your car with a flamethrower on the back as long as the flames don't go out further than 20 feet while your car is stationary, and it only activates when an inbuilt radar detects a tailgater behind you.
Even if they manage to kill their competition -- and I'm not expecting they will -- I don't understand what their endgame is. I don't see what their moat is. Ridesharing companies are not hard or expensive to start. They'll have a hard time extracting monopoly rents, and there isn't much of an economy of scale they can reap.

And once autonomous cars become part of the picture, I think they're in an even worse position. Suddenly they're not competing just against would-be moguls. Now they're up against the car companies, who have strong brands, deep pockets, and the ability to make cars at cost. Imagine, for example, BMW extending their leasing business to on-demand car use. We also have existing car rental companies that will be eager to get in on the action. And that's not counting the zillion other outfits with strong brands and a taste for expansion. Apple, for example. Virgin. Amazon.

I just don't see how this ends well for them. At best, I think 10 years from now they'll be the next Groupon: the hot startup everybody everybody loved but now nobody talks much about and is trading at a fraction of their peak valuation.
It’s energy producing companies that worry about sustainability, not energy spending. Energy spending endeavors only worry about profitability. So it’s absolutely misguided to scold bitcoin over it’s use of energy and not do the same for instance to people heating up their apartments or driving cars or insert your energy spending activity.

Increasing efficiency of bitcoins proof of work will simply bump the difficulty so energy use will remain the same.
Outside of monitoring everything these devices store to flash and send across the the network, how would anybody notice? If an enterprising hacker gained control of these you may need to analyse side channels like ultrasonic messaging too.
It's essentially a weird labor market protectionism policy, and really no economist argues protectionism is good.
> Never claimed them to be.

"The cheap, affordable, practical house has been invented: its called a trailer park. The question is simply how to market them." Perhaps I misinterpreted?

> In my view, its no worse than the deals given on a Condo with $hundreds in HOA fees. Trailer Homes tend to be much cheaper than most Condos packages too.

Not saying condos are worth it, but this isn't a fair comparison. Condos make sense in some circumstances-- they do retain some equity so you're not just hemorrhaging rent money, and the community shares the cost of significant repairs. If you can get a decent one and live in it for a few years without getting hit by a special assessment, they're a viable alternative to renting long-term.

Buying into a trailer park only makes sense if you consider all of your income disposable and intend to die there. They're poor investments. There's no such thing as a good or bad deal on something so worthless.
You only need a phone number linked to the FB account during setup. Once 2fa is turned on you can unlink the phone number.
> As long as Uber can keep the cost per ride lower than other competitors, it just needs to wait for the burn to end faster on the competitors side before turning break-even

Uber have joined loss leading with scale, a combination that works if one has access to an endless spigot of money. The scandals have impacted Uber's fundraising. Time for eyes to match stomach.

I predict, in addition to lay-offs, we'll soon see more Didi-style hand-offs of offshore ride-sharing markets. Southeast Asia to Grab et al seems reasonable.

Disclaimer: this is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell anything based on this Internet comment.
This is a ridiculous comment.

It's strange to be on a crusade against increased security for the average user.

Is 2FA the final answer? No. But are you more secure with it than without it? Yes.

We're talking about normal people here that could have their lives ruined if their accounts are compromised.
You can disable mouse-wakeup, so that the only way to wake from sleep is a keyboard press.
That is going to be really challenging for users to use this as a currency in the USA.
Nobody needs hyping anything. Bitcoin was a viable currency until its price started appreciating stratospherically. There is no sense in spending BTC right now, since you can get x10 gains just by holding it. You don't spend stocks right?

I really don't get these snarky comments on how this is a bubble and BTC will die and what not. Just don't buy it and leave it to others that like to have x10-x100 gains in a year.

For me it's quite straight forward that BTC value will appreciate over time. There is finite amount of BTC in this world and Y people. Unless some systemic factor (eg. criminalization of use) or technological factor (eg. crypto is broken) rears it's head it's fair to say that an asset designed to be deflatory in price will increase its price over time. It's not going to be a straight line, and I really hate these massive growth spikes (not sustainable, plus they play with your emotions), but we're well ahead of the times when BTC and/or crypto could be called just a fad.

Not with wall street actively pursuing legal means to invest in BTC.
I'm guessing since the device isn't his (and the similar disregard shown for, you know, doing any work) he's not all that bothered about it getting greasy.

Hate to be whoever has to prep it for the next employee though...
If the tractor sells for more than you paid for it — or, in your specific example, the boat you traded it for is worth a larger number of dollars than you paid for the tractor, at the time of the trade — then yes; that is the very definition of "capital gains".

Just because the gain isn't in actual dollars, doesn't mean there wasn't a gain. If the gain is somehow denominable in, or reducible to, a number of dollars, then for tax purposes it is a gain.

You realize those gains at the time of the sale or trade. That's when they're taxable.
see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12576124

and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9837442
even if lyft's burn-to-revenue ratio is higher, their burn is still lower that uber's, and it's going to cost a lot fewer incremental dollars to prop up lyft's burn than uber's for a few years.

some interested parties (waymo/alphabet) might be happy to foot that bill.
Yeah, that's what I do also. conda-build makes it easier to use your code downstream, but doesn't obviate the need for build scripts in general.

However, if you're using conda, you might be able to at least simplify your build scripts, even though you can't eliminate them.

If you are okay with requiring your users to have conda, then you can exploit that fact to simplify your CMakeLists.txt in some ways. For instance, find_library, etc.. can be replaced with hard-coded links to ${CONDA_PREFIX}/lib/...

(I'm not saying that's necessarily "best practice" for all projects, but it's a nice option to consider, especially in the early phases of development.)
Well, it's not a spectacularly bad idea under those conditions. But it's not like companies don't already pay for drilling, mining, and grazing rights on federal land. Right now the money doesn't go into a special fund, though, and in any case it's not much divided over 340 million people.

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is significant because there just aren't that many Norwegians.
PayPal does support (at least some) 2FA methods as my first YubiKey (~6 years ago?) was a "YubiKey VIP" that worked with PayPal (6-digit codes). There was also a "Symantec VIP" mobile app that you could use (very similar to Google Authenticator) instead.

PayPal also had their own security device you could get. I think it cost $5. Not sure if it's still available.
The programs you're talking about have more to do with the FBI than any particular party.

Edit: they were in place during Johnson's administration
> Expect this to increase as people become more used to hailing cars from inside of their maps applications which act as aggregators.

I feel like the prices I get from within Google Maps are both vague and higher than the prices I get from opening the actual apps, so I never actually use the Google Maps integration and just end up checking both apps, which is pretty annoying.

I think the Maps integration is basically a customer acquisition tactic, not something they expect most people to actually use.
Did you read the article in the post you're replying to? I don't think "herd mentality" is what the US far-right rejects.
No, this is not true. Please come to SF and look around.

Talk to the working class (uber drivers, janitors, &c) about their lives. They work very long hours to just barely scrape by. Housing and medical care are very expensive compared to wages.

Take a walk outside. Unbelievable numbers of people living in misery on the streets. There are entire tent cities sprouting up like mushrooms.

It's bad, in absolute terms.
You should not publish other peoples' private keys; dumb as they may be.

While you should be commended for letting users know that they should use e.g. key strengthening (or, preferably, random numbers) for their private keys, you should not leak what are, whether by chance or intention, the private keys of other peoples' (bots'?) accounts.

There's nothing illegal about being an idiot.

It may be illegal to leak others' financial account information.
Driving ferraris gets old, I'd much prefer to be inventing decentralized file storage.
Hey, ipfs dev here.

In filecoin (as in sia, and most other decentralized storage networks) the client who is storing data has control over who stores their data. It's a market. So for example, if a well known company decides to offer storage through filecoin, they can publicly attest to their miner IDs, and you can choose to make deals with them for data storage (even at a slightly higher price if they want to charge it).

Separately, we are working on schemes to allow miners to only serve a clients data in situations they approve of (authorization/authentication). This would address the problem of the data being 'public'. If you can control who stores your data and who can access it, it has the same attack surface as any traditional cloud storage provider.
No. Biometrics aren't passwords. They're identification. Just as your picture identifies who you are.

As for the later part I feel that, again, the DMV already takes our biometric data, and I would think the same could apply for people in India. Someone is issuing passports, someone has to create valid means of identification. I mean how else is the government dispensing welfare, social aid, or making sure they're accounting for taxes properly.

Looking at how the Aadhar authentication process works indeed the biometric data is being validated by the government.
Rust comes to RISC-V
Interesting to see which discussions hit the big-time, and their follow-ups.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=instapainting&sort=byDate&type...
Not even close to the scale of Enron. Even mentioning them in the same sentence is preposterous.

First off, Enron was publicly traded. Uber is private.

I will just leave this here.

>Between 1996 and 2000, Enron's revenues increased by more than 750%, rising from $13.3 billion in 1996 to $100.8 billion in 2000. This extensive expansion of 65% per year was unprecedented in any industry, including the energy industry which typically considered growth of 2–3% per year to be respectable. For just the first nine months of 2001, Enron reported $138.7 billion in revenues, which placed the company at the sixth position on the Fortune Global 500

>the company used accounting limitations to misrepresent earnings and modify the balance sheet to indicate favorable performance
What's the revenue model for Alexa? I see all these companies designing Alexa integration into their IoT farting widget, often for uses that don't involve buying stuff from Amazon. Do manufacturers pay a license fee or something?
Archiving for a Leaner Database
> C++ was huge back in 1998, now it's bloody massive.

I don't think any "run-time" feature was added since, though. It's all either OS support (<thread>, etc, that you wouldn't use in-kernel anyways) or template stuff that has 0 impact on runtime (and actually sometimes helps decreasing code size).

https://istarc.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/stm32f4-oop-with-emb...

https://www.embedded.com/design/programming-languages-and-to...

https://hackaday.com/2015/12/18/code-craft-embedding-c-templ...

If some guys are able to run c++ on 8kb microcontrollers, there's hardly a non-political
reason it couldn't be used in-kernel.

See also IncludeOS: http://www.includeos.org/
with today's privacy and security concerns, for any new project, would starting from a position of anonymous trust despite the increased resource requirements really be a downside? I ask as an outsider to the industry. I do understand that blockchain tech doesn't need to be slapped onto everything, but from my perspective it seems the benefits generally outweigh the detriments - at least so far
> they can lay off a ton of staff, and license their logistics software to a lot of companies.

I have a feeling this isn't as easy as you think. There are some great talks on Uber's microservice architecture and it's pretty insane. They could create new services, but I have a feeling their existing infrastructure is very custom. They've got over 1,000 microservices and it's actually difficult to get an exact number.
> Thirty-seven pages long, it detailed a list of questionable behavior at Uber, including spying on competitors and using special laptop computers and self-destructing messaging apps that would hide communications.

It doesn't seem like a good thing that using self-destructing messaging apps is considered by our court system to be "questionable behavior". It is akin to the argument that using encryption implies guilt.
"That would never work" protest citizens of country whose military spending surpasses that of the next eight countries combined.
I've thought of something similar, but much less fancy. I just keep an OmniOutliner document where I log repairs, maintenance, specs for things like air filters, and that sort of thing.

If I'm alive when I stop living here, my plan is to print out the log and have it nicely bound, and turn that over to the next owners as something like a ship's log, but for a house instead of a ship.

I'll also leave a thumb drive with the OmniOutliner document, exports of that document in various formats [1], and a PDF of the print out.

[1] Probably HTML, Word, OPML, and RTF.
Robert Sedgewicks Algorithms II on Coursera covers a few graph search techniques
Does a set of timestamps have the same informative value of the geolocation history of a user?

Would you affirm this in a formal risk assessment?