skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've come to the conclusion that our stupid biological impulse to rub our genitals together will be the ultimate limiter on how far our species can go. We're just monkeys wearing pants, desperate to take them off and fling poo, procreate or rip someone's face off.

We need a Brave New World type future where babies are grown in a lab, neutered and handed a month long prescription of soma.
Ask HN: Are back-end developers a commodity?
I just started reading "React Quickly" by Azat Mardan ( https://www.manning.com/books/react-quickly ), and right in the Preface he makes the claim that:

"Most business value now lies in UIs. The backend is a commodity. In the Bay Area, where I live and work, most job openings in software engineering are for front-end or (a trendy new title) generalist/fullstack developers. Only a few big companies like Google, Amazon, and Capital One still have relatively strong demand for data scientists and back-end engineers."

I personally find this claim absolutely idiotic since I feel like I still see an enormous amount of job postings for backend roles. Do you think he's right?
Apparently the Dreamliner is doing better than anticipated, for it has begun turning a profit[1]. With the A380 being developed, Boeing couldn't just stand arms crossed. They had to develop a response --and in this case develop new materials to achieve better fuel efficiency --the discoveries thereof can be reused in future frames.

[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/25/boeing-soars-...
>Seeing about as many critical vulns in the AMT as in, say, the entire Linux kernel... yeah, I'd call that "awful code quality".

But that is not the case. Linux has had 400+ security bugs this year (as you point out, in part due to its greater attack surface) versus the 2 from AMT. I'm trying to reconcile this idea that "ME = BAD" in a practical way by comparing it to software that's in mass use and already being exploited. The tech press over time has needlessly over-hyped such security issues making it harder to put things in perspective. So far, I'm not seeing anything special about ME that would also not apply to many many other products.

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-238/...

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-33/p...

>Plus there's the fact that the original vulnerability was literally "you can get in by sending an empty password". A culture that lets a bug like that through cannot be conducive to good code.

I don't see the tech press not recommended OSX anymore !

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/28/root_access_bypass_...
I wish more people acted like you - looking for a compatible frame, rather than getting mad at the other side. For my part I feel there is something about “keep government off my back” that would resonate with “civil liberties”.

It’s ironic, in a sad way, that the liberal intelligencia, that very group of people who dedicated their lives to studying the use of language, rethorics, logic, psychology, history of philosophy, journalism, could not come together and form a cohesive argument in a way that speaks to the values of their opponents.
Sorry not sorry, echo chambers were created by suggestion algorithms and marketing. Algorithms prioritise same content on assumption that consumer want the same content (infuriating). And so many links nowadays are affiliated links. So the only way you can escape the echo, is to put a lot of effort, and no substantial majority will do it to affect the larger picture.
Typora reminds me of MacDown :)
If you believe this is "science", then we're on a different page.

For the record I do believe in science.

It's just that there are some types of research that use non objective and unproven measures to convey a message they wanted to prove from the beginning. This becomes more serious in the field of "social science" because by default "social" is very difficult to come up with an objective hypothesis with. There are many that do a good job of trying to stay as objective as possible, and there are those who actually started out wanting to prove a subjective agenda. I think this particular research is the latter.

Here are a couple of things I dislike about this research:

1. They used IQ as a measure. I won't go into details because this opens its own whole can of worms, but the gist is, trying to prove your theory using another meta measure that has not been proven to be reliable (and many agree that it is also determined by educational background, which is the very thing the authors are trying to prove, resulting in circular logic)

2. They didn't prove anything new. Instead all they did was make an obvious fact much more focused (using the "inventor" qualifier) so that it can be used by lobbyists. Everybody knows if you have better education you have more likelihood of success. Did you not know that? If you did, what does this research add to your knowledge other than as just another source of "research says" recitation some Buzzfeed article can use to generate their page views? Making an already known fact more concrete is a recipe for propaganda. Therefore I see this research as nothing more than a marketing campaign.

3. I do not trust any research results that present themselves as cause-and-effect when all they are is just a correlation. This is really misleading and in fact do exist in numerous "research" results sponsored by cigarette companies and fast food companies that try to use "research" as propaganda that unhealthy is OK because "research said so".
Who says they're smart enough? There's a very long history of aristocracies perfectly content to exploit the lower classes, and then got all shocked when the peons wanted the wealthy executed - assuming of course the aristocrats hadn't first riled up the ignorant masses with some reason to start a war.
> their mission is to extract the wealth from the poor and give it to the rich in the name of 'growth' and 'stability'.

Citation needed. Even if you mean it as obvious hyperbole, I’d like to hear some evidence for how central banks “extract money from the poor.”
Your 7-day-old account is being almost exclusively used to push pro-GOP messaging and anti-Obama rhetoric.
These are like the chocolate/wine/coffee-are-good-for-you studies. They make people feel good and want to share them. Studies saying that men are better at certain things would not evoke the same pride and sharing urge in this cultural moment, at least among the desired demographic.
Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to pretend women don't want to fuck guys in sports cars?
Yeah, but factual reporting isn't necessarily fair reporting. Professional media also had an agenda, and the same set of facts can be presented in many different ways.

Facts can be simply omitted, emphasized or underplayed, interpreted in both a positive or a negative way. Not to mention facts are only as good as the sources.
Some people take it as the "truth" because he has power, nothing more. They're used to taking their talking points from their superiors, be those the ones in their religious hierarchy, their social circles, or their corporate environment.

If the President said gravity didn't exist you can be certain Fox News would be explaining why to its viewers.
If the wealthy had any interest in self-preservation, they would advocate higher taxes on themselves or some sort of UBI. But I'm sure Sam Walton's kids think they deserve everything they have.
> Getting closer to frictionless payments.

Pardon my ignorance. I see this mentioned a lot. What do you mean by frictionless payments?

> Getting access to a number of services that we currently use banks for - without using banks

What services in particular? And what's preferable about using blockchain technology for these services?
Well, I will not buy an Intel CPU anymore. I also try to avoid Intel in all other chip classes like networking chips where Intel is suspiciously active. Sometimes I wonder if their name is giveaway that people just don't realize. Soon I intend to move to an Intel-free single board computer for my day-to-day computer usage. Now, for other people I can't speak.
Great list! Several of those resonate with me. Thank you. I've been able to isolate the things I love about my job, and the things that contribute to my burnout. I can make changes to influence them (not completely change them), but I'm not sure I have the drive to anymore :-/
It's a pretty well understood and accepted fact at this point. It's been a major talking point in economic and political circles for the past 5 - 10 years.

The sources below are from a quick Google search. They mostly reference income stagnation and are about the US. But income stagnation leads to wealth stagnation and there are similar trends world wide. Thomas Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century is largely about this issue, as is Robert Reich's documentary Inequality for All. There are those who challenge the conclusions drawn in both, but few seriously contest the data they point to.

[1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/02/349863761/40-y...
[3] https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/incomes
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-pro...
I used my terms woefully imprecisely and you were right to point those inaccuracies out.

Incidentally, [3] is very close to my field of research back when I was doing postgraduate studies in economics, but as you mention, it has close to zero applicability.
I'm looking forward to releasing documentation, creating proper release versions and fixing some various bugs for my open source project Quiet Modem. I'm also hoping to blog a bunch about how it works. Hard to believe I started working on it over 2 years ago.
Sometimes it's because HN is like a bunch of angry bees, and sometimes it's because your comment sucks.
>"The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn't lead to a Balkanisation of society and allows ways of finding common ground," he said.

From a libertarian point of view: given his background and beliefs, I think Obama is missing a crucial element that allows and enables the reconciliation of those with different beliefs: liberty. The way you have a "multiplicity of voices" and a "diversity of views" is through tolerance: the tacit acknowledgement that while you may find what someone is doing odious and reprehensible, if all parties are consenting and voluntary, they ultimately have the legal right to engage in what they are doing free of interference.

The sticking point is that "tolerance" also means tolerating the liberty of those commonly perceived as religiously conservative. This comes even to my own reluctant consternation as a transgender individual. The example that comes to mind immediately is the gay wedding cake cases. I think it's heinous to deny service to someone simply because they are gay. But is taking government's hands off private business a lesser evil than fighting over the apparatus used to do so every four years? One government administration violates the rights of Christians in order to protect gays, then the inverse occurs under the next administration, gays losing fundamental liberties and the right to self-determination. All while nobody ever seems to ask why either should be forced to live a certain way in the first place, why the government is involving itself in private matters ranging from business to who you choose to marry.

Social media has little to do with this; it's merely a purifier for the underlying contention. Instead of keeping to ourselves and those who agree to associate with us, we've become preoccupied with adjusting an oversized commons to fit the whims of a winning team every four to eight years, hammering in all those who don't fit under the new order. Part and parcel of living in a plural society, is that not everyone will agree to the level where you can ever have such a commons.

The "common ground" that Obama is seeking, effectively, is a consistent application of "leave me alone".
I think experiencing art/entertainment is a little different. You may not love every part of a painting, but still appreciate the work overall. With a TV series - you may not love every episode by there may be gems of writing in acting after your "cut off" point.
Gasoline on the fire. What could possibly go wrong?
I agree with much of what you said, yet I just don't see it as all that bad of a situation.

I still think there is a lot of upward mobility even in that scenario -- the smarter people I know earn good salaries and have nice lifestyles. Nicer than their parents, in most cases, mainly because consumer technology constantly gets better and cheaper.

And there is still opportunity for risk takers to start their own companies, and it's really not all that hard with some traction to get acquired by a bigger player.

Of course, people with a lot of capital get rewarded for holding onto it / being conservative with it, but that's just common sense, not throwing good money after bad.

It's like we're all supposed to say, "Yeah! Late stage capitalism is so awful!" and nod along, but it doesn't feel awful to me at all. I have a 2016 Mazda that cost $18k and it's just awesome for the price. I bought a brand new iPhone SE for $150. I bought a 50 inch TV on black Friday for $200.

My parents as kids didn't have running water in their houses.

I'm not all about materialism, but I'm really at a loss for what exactly I'm supposed to be feeling outraged about. I don't even really make that high of a salary, just average middle class.
At Yale, Campus Debate Turns into a Social Media “Cesspool”
And I'm sitting here being happy that my "stock fortune" approaches four digits.
Oh, of course it is.
>You sound extremely bitter, and extremely pompous with your "all the other devs are just dumb, I'm the only one who can see through the hype" attitude; especially your comment about younger developers.

I didn't say anything about "younger developers". Which comment are you referring to specifically?

Also, I hardly think I'm the only one who can see through the hype. Check out the rest of this thread. Most of the replies, including the parent post to which I was replying, could be characterized as anti-microservice.

Tech fads are rarely about good developers. They're normally about non-developer technical managers and/or bad developers, who are sometimes more self-aware than they appear at first glance and are consciously seeking diversions. Good inexperienced devs may be taken in by the first fad or two, but they generally come to realize that it's same shit, different day within a few years, and their skill level limits the direct damage (though their adherence to the fad may set the stage for additional indirect damage).

It was not my intent to offend or accuse anyone by criticizing this particular tech fad, and I'm sorry that you appear to have taken it personally.

---

I don't think we disagree about "microservice architecture" as a tool. Like all tools, it needs skilled practitioners to be used well. "Microservice architecture" is a bad descriptive term for a tool because it's too broad to have much specific meaning, but I accept that some people could use it to describe something decent, which I've already stated.

As my post said, however, I was discussing "microservice architecture" as a fad, which, let's be honest, is the case across the vast majority of cases in which the term "microservice architecture" is used.

People who aren't blindly chasing buzzwords are more likely to think of their architecture as a holistic entity built from a variety of useful and specific components rather than a zipped-up incarnation of a single $HOT_TREND, and are thus more likely to describe it descriptively, e.g., "we try to employ a reasonable separation of concerns", "we have a handful of independent services on the back-end", etc.

These things show a thoughtful, specific consideration of principles rather than literalist word-thought, and it's a good guideline (but, like all guidelines, imperfect!) for whether or not someone has processed what they're discussing or whether they're mindlessly mimicking the people they consider authoritative/influential.

It was not my intent to offend reasonable, thoughtful engineers who have implemented what they call "a microservice architecture". I meant only to indicate that this terminology is a red flag for a tech fad, under which many unreasonable, thoughtless "engineers" are seeking cover.

My personal recommendation would be to consider the terminology lost and not develop a new buzzword to replace it, as that will surely become lost too (see also: "SOA"/"service-oriented architecture", the previous incarnation).
How did you get your remote job?
I haven't asked for an extended holiday. I'm worried about making such a big ask of my boss (our culture is not very progressive) and then coming back only to quit. What do you think?
I’m of the belief that BitCoin is also effectively unlimited supply, since its minimum denomination can be changed via consensus. The supply is limited to 21mm full “coins” yes, but the precision is configurable according to consensus. Currently it’s 1mm Satoshi per BTC but that can be changed even without a hard fork.
>we can easily go to their twitter to confirm

Unless the tweet has been deleted (which it often will have been if it's damning)
> We're approaching a state (at least in developed countries) where productivity is so high, that you can literally park your money in 500 of the biggest businesses and you're almost guaranteed a 7% annual return (if you hold stocks for the long term).

I think this has been true for a long time. Maybe even the whole 20th century, if you average out the Depression. I think the main difference in the last 20 or 30 years is that the instruments for making that investment have gotten dirt cheap, in percentage terms.
What about a dumb phone? My girlfriend uses a Nokia 150, the most distracting thing it offers is snake. You would lose functionality like maps though.

Apparently the most irritating thing is not having threaded text messages.
A small percentage of bank accounts should be randomly swapped each year, and the owners of the swapped accounts become part of a reality TV show to follow how they dealt with their change of fortune
you seem to have growth all mixed up.

The previous historic rate was 10% growth. That was revised down to 7% (you seem to indicate its grown). going forward, we are probably looking at 5% growth going forward.

developing countries have much higher rates of return.

its true you can collect a lot off interest if you have 3 million $. but if that is all you do, inflation is going to tear you apart. you might be fine, but the next generation you leave everything to wont be so well off. a few generations and its nothing to write home about.

so if you want growth in a developed economy, you need to be entrepreneurial, and you need to take risks. thats the spirit of capitalism.
> In effect, late stage capitalism becomes the anti-thesis of the spirit of capitalism - devoid of competition, free innovation, and upward mobility.

The notion that competition, free innovation, and upward mobility have ever been the spirit of capitalism is not based in any historic evidence. It was evident as far back as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations that the true spirit of capitalism is the eventual concentration of wealth, formation of mono- and oligopolies and creating barriers to entry through influencing regulatory agencies (government) with wealth.

The 3 notions you stated are mostly an idealistic lie sold to the naive, young, and temporarily impoverished millionaires.

My view may be a tad biased, since I'm only alive as a product of communism (without all the freebies my parents received, as far as education, free housing and benefits, I would likely not exist right now)
There seems to be a silly meme, often directed at "reductionist" engineer types that taking a measurement makes you understand less.

Nope. Feynman phrased it well:

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one - million - year - old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"
Cooking, cleaning, meditating, and generally making sure my life and home are peaceful and promote baseline happiness.

Taking time to study some beautiful theory that is also applicable to my interests in programming: category theory, logic, and proof systems.

Continuing my daily work with fun technologies like Nix, Haskell, Ethereum, Racket, and so on.

Going away for a work retreat with some remote colleagues.
If it is, it's pretty shitty posturing. The fact that your most sigificant recent product is effectively EOL if one customer cancels is not the sort of thing you want other potential customers to hear. Even if emirates does re-up on the 380, they're going to have a hard time convincing other customers after this.
If you have to ask that, you can't get a reservation.
I dunno, vim works pretty well for me.
The answer is fairly simple. Media companies compete in ‘access capital’, which they earn through cooperation and partnership with entities they report on, such as government and private interests. Anyone who has worked in media will assure you these relationships make or break a media organization’s survival and success. And these relationships also harbor bias.
Same boat. Nearly 3 months now. You are not alone :)
> So you're saying that it would be better if everyone was poorer individually, as long as they were more equally poor?

No, it's not at all that simple; there's both disutility associated with inequality and utility associated with absolute material position; how those net out is more complex than either “everyone getting more is better regardless of distribution” or “more equality is better regardless of how much per everyone gets”.
The article mentions the larger carbon footprint of men. It is alos mentioned in the study:

> One of the obstacles identified by prior research is that compared to women, men are less likely to be eco-friendly in their attitudes, choices, and behaviors (Davidson and Freudenburg 1996; Lee and Holden 1999). Women display greater concern and willingness to take action to help the environment, and this effect is robust across age groups and countries (Cottrell 2003; Dietz, Kalof, and Stern 2002; Levin 1990; Zelezny, Chua, and Aldrich 2000). In contrast, men litter more (Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini 2000), recycle less (Zelezny et al. 2000), have a larger overall carbon footprint (Reaty and Carlsson-Kanyama 2010), and feel less guilty about living a nongreen lifestyle (Tiller 2014)

That implies that women's consumption is also either less or has a smaller impact