skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When I say cost neutral, I mean from a productivity standpoint. The 2x junior+senior accomplish the same amount of work as the senior would by themself.

It takes about a year for a junior+senior combo to be more productive than a senior alone. And another year before they're not a noticeable cost on the senior. 2x senior to a junior definitely brings the junior up to speed faster, but I think it's less efficient use of the seniors cause it also introduces a synchronization cost between the seniors.

I like to stagger the juniors so they're not at the same level; the +1 junior can take some part of the workload of mentoring the fresh junior. Plus it starts them on practicing mentoring early in their career. The fresh junior still has two mentors, and there's a clear pecking order.
I've paired a lot and see a lot of value in it but I disagree with most of this, honestly. Agreed on onboarding, but only if that's what works best for the incoming engineer. Two junior engineers pairing rarely increases productivity in my experience and putting some arbitrary number on it like "4 hrs/week" seems dogmatic.

Horses for courses - pairing works really well for some teams and is painful for others. The presence (or lack) of pairing in a company wouldn't be a signal to me, rather I'd take it as a good sign if the team is fine with pairing whenever it makes sense but doesn't have any specific rules about it.
I guess what I don't understand is why we don't have more human-free systems for food payment. All of 15 years ago, I went in a company cafeteria in Tsukuba, paid a vending machine, and took the ticket to the cook. If I had been able to speak any Japanese back then, I probably could have customized my order there. But here in the US we're still hiring fast food workers to take standardized orders.
Why? It's not hard to do if you start a fresh project.
Your question assumes it hasn't happened already...
Also applied when I started work in 2001. Having 3 months experience as an intern I think helped - making me appealing to smaller companies who needed someone to get stuck in rather than the big companies that spend the first 10 weeks in a training course. (Those companies were not doing well in 2001)
I've been on the web since BBS's, and continue to be well-satisfied by the web content put up by volunteers ... the voices of real people motivated by interests, hobbies, passions, fandom, technical areas. I care about a diversity of voices and strictly what people -care- enough to share.

Those with some professional or profit-driven or political/ideological motives can well afford to advertise on broadcast media. They may put up expensive websites and dream of wealth - can't stop 'em. I quit TV because of advertising, and so I really don't appreciate them following me around and whining. STFU or GTFO.

P.S. Want some money from me? Support micropayments.
You're already 10 years in. Completely different.
Just because you have coverage doesn't necessarily mean that you have written good tests.

That being said, we do something similar where we require 80% coverage.
Do you mean matter replication (no we won't as this violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle similar to the transporter), or something akin to a very complex vending machine that can make things from Ramen to Fajitas?
Besides the ideological issues, is the HTML tag for AMP emails seriously going to be
<html 4email>
(html lightning-emoji4email)?

I wish they implemented this as a separate MIME type so emails could specify multi-part messages with text/plain, text/html and a text/amp (just for gmail).
When I first got into programming, as a high school intern in the early eighties, I was told a programmer stays at a job, on average for the years. I haven't heard this number change at all.
While I'm sure there are many jobs where people stay along time, the average length of stay is still fairly short.
Boredom and wanting to work on something new is probably the biggest driver
Not across the system, though. It only works in Safari. For system ad-blocking, the easiest option is via DNS based Ad-blocker services like Adguard Pro or Adblock (both are paid apps and available on the App Store).

There's also the VPN option. PIA, for example, comes with its own system ad-blocker (MACE) although it's nowhere as good as Adguard Pro (which allows you to use custom DNS server).
That formula works well if you think you have a thousand serious moves to make [1].

I would say, come to know this and you will be fine: Happiness = your natural state

[1]: https://www.rootsnwings.in/pdf/15TrippingOverJoyMay05.pdf
From the wikipedia link in sibling comment:

> The 1976 House Report states: A "typeface" can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system, and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work" within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101 [H.R. Reg. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess 5 (1976)].

Emoji might not be "text," but would you consider them to be used for "composing other cognizable combinations of characters"?

They're definitely cognizable, and the original proposal to add them to Unicode straight up calls them "characters" repeatedly.

> The proposal for encoding of Emoji symbols as Unicode characters covers the Emoji symbols that are in widespread use by DoCoMo, KDDI and Softbank for their mobile phone networks. These symbols are encoded in carrier-specific versions of Shift-JIS (as User-Defined Characters), and, in the case of KDDI, in a carrier-specific version of ISO-2022-JP. There are mapping tables in use in the industry between these character sets, with both roundtrip and fallback mappings. These symbols are also supported in web mail services by Yahoo! Mail and Google Mail. (Yahoo! Mail currently supports a subset.) (The original proposal also included nine symbols defined by Google, but they were withdrawn from later versions.)

https://sites.google.com/site/unicodesymbols/Home/emoji-symb...

But maybe given characters in a font that were more pictorial in nature, the House Report would have had something else to say about it. Who knows?

Another question in there is the first part, are the forms related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system? Maybe not? The sets of smilies in each company's emoji font totally are, but other items like poop are not.

Anyway, I took a quick look for any legal opinions on the copyright of emoji sets and didn't come up with much. I wouldn't be surprised if they're copyrightable, unlike the text portions of fonts, but it's pretty disappointing if the expressions of these common communicative symbols are locked up behind copyright.
"Copyright is brain damage."

"Copyright has become the single most serious impediment to access to knowledge."

"Today we recognize that knowledge is not only a public good but also a global or international public good.We have also come to recognize that knowledge is central to successful development. The international community, through institutions like the World Bank, has a collective responsibility for the creation and dissemination of one global public good—knowledge for development."

"What the academic publishing industry calls 'theft' the world calls 'research'."

It's far beyond time to recognise that 1) Copyright is not the solution, copyright is the problem, and 2) that creators of valuable creative works need to get paid, somehow.

The intersection of these two statements gives a corollary: Payment for access to knowledge is a net harm to society. Which means that we must find an alternative method of finance. Salon's misguided plea here is not that solution. A general tax, proportionate to wealth and/or income, strikes me as about right.

The quotes above, respectively, are from:

Nina Paley, artist and animator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQAxWZc

Pamela Samuelson, copyright legal scholar, UC Berkeley
http://sfgate.com/opinion/article/Aaron-Swartz-Opening- access-to-knowledge-4224697.php,

Joseph Stigletz, Nobel laureate economist
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195130529.001...

Edward Morbius, Space Alien Cat
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4p2rwk/what_th...
> No one wants to train junior devs.

Many dev shops want junior devs, and that's a great place to get experience if you get placed on-site with a good client. Also cash cow businesses where tech isn't their core competency (media, fashion, pharma, etc.) will hire junior devs.

Basically if you're spending all your time trying to get hired by a startup or by FAAMG then you're going to have a bad time, but if you focus on the types of companies that actually hire junior devs then you shouldn't have too much trouble at least getting interviews. It's obviously still very difficult because you're pretty much useless, but if you're at least willing to put in the time to do the hiring homework assignments then you'll get taken seriously as a candidate.
Notes doesn't do HTML at all, at least not in the client. (The webmail client, running in the browser, does use HTML.) It uses a rich text format, and has to translate HTML to the nearest Notes rich text equivalent.
What properties do you write tests for, though? Presumably you're touching the code because there's something wrong with it. How do you know how much of it is wrong? How do you know that all callers are actually thinking the current behavior is wrong, instead of one caller misbehaving and another caller expecting it (possibly because someone noticed and worked around it, and now that workaround is going to break)?

Tests are simply the implementation of knowing what the code is expected to do. If you don't have any basis for that expectation, writing tests is meaningless - either you test the current behavior of the code, which doesn't help you change anything, or you test your imagined behavior of the code, which doesn't help you validate anything.
Funny it was 21 on the other side of the hill today. Was warm last week.
Depends: if B declares that it is compatible with both versions of A (because it uses methods that did not break), then you sure can upgrade whenever you want (and potentially start using new methods that contained breaking change).

If the change is breaking for B, then yeah, you have to wait until B upgrades (or you can upgrade it yourself!). During that time, other projects that don't depend on B can go on using the new A.

The alternative is "stop the press, everyone is upgrading to the latest A NOOOOOOOOOW", which if the change is not automatable, might either be non-realistic, be pretty large in scope, or require you to never make drastic changes in A (which is tricky if A is a 3rd party you don't control). You can also just have these long-running transient state where somehow A is always compatible with everything no matter via compatibility wrappers.

It's tradeoffs. I like our world where we don't have to migrate everything at the same time all the time, even with drastic changes. Works quite well for us, with thousands of repos and 10s of millions of lines of code. We enjoy the flexibility. It makes certain cross-project efforts harder. That's the tradeoff.
The Marketing Genius Who Convinced Americans to Brush Their Rotting Teeth
That says (nearly) nothing about the representativeness/randomness of the sample you got.

And, please, when showing graphs for comparison purposes: make the Y axis scale identical, or the results are quite visually misleading.
And technical leader-ship, to train your employees and build right culture that delivers :). I would put that first though.
Up to 100 'Social Clubs' Roam Disneyland Each Day
Have you visited the privacy checkup page lately?
https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup

I'm not sure why people keep saying that Google and Facebook is selling user data. Does that mean that if those companies started to actually do it, it wouldn't bother the claimants as they consider it being done already? Seems to me like an important distinction to make.

In comparison, are Uber selling software? Rather than using software to sell a service?
That divide is already occupied by authentic Mexican restaurants. At least in California, there's no air available. The only thing Chipotle has to leverage is scale enough to push into markets, but the competition is already there.
That was part of my hypothetical, that you actually believe amp for email is good.
It pretty much all comes down to the basket of goods that you assume that will be purchased.

If your basket of goods includes a few acres of land these estimates will dramatically underestimate how much more expensive NYC is than low COL areas.

If your basket of goods includes a lot of world-class arts and dining NYC would probably end up being less expensive than a lot of low COL areas because you would have to do a lot of traveling out of the low COL area for that.

People have widely differing preferences of life-style so it is very difficult to come up with a single number to describe COL differences that applies to very many people.
Because Japan's demographics made it imperative and conversely our importation of cheap labor subsidized or delayed the need to introduce automation to offset costs.
That was part of my hypothetical, that you actually believe amp for email is good for users.
As a marketer my fear is Google sees what FB is doing to monetize the feed format and it is moving to turn email into the next algorithmically controlled feed it can turn into a dynamic auction.

There is already a Gmail placement for AdWords ok the GDN. However for the most part, if I as a marketer send emails to my customers, I can be more or less certain they will get delivered if my deliverability is high.

What I see Google doing here is gradually exerting control until they tell brands "hey, you know those messages you used to send to customers for basically free? Now you need to pay a dynamic price we control in order to get any "organic" reach."

And just like that they will have turned one of the most valuable, scalable and cost effective marketing channels into another large revenue stream for themselves that gives them even more leverage over marketers.

Kinds of genius when you think about it.
My son and I built a small game together a couple of years back with Phaser 2. It was a really pleasant experience. I don't do game dev any more, but will probably take a look at Phaser 3 in the next few months and probably build another tiny game out of it just for fun. Glad to see such an excellent project still kicking along.
I am just a typical SAAS startup and if we know anything it's that you should trust the numbers over individual customers.

Anyway, I think I am going to tackle the issue from the other side though and go with ProductBoard. It's a product management tool with feedback on the side.
This is the warning I was talking about.
I can't recall ever having worked with a junior programmer. All of the jobs I've had involved working with people who were amazingly good at programming. My career probably underlies the old joke... "1 in 3 people can't program well. Look left, look right. If they are both good programmers then you're the 1 in 3."

Most of the programmers I used to work with no longer program. A lot of them "retired into management". I was offered management jobs several times in my career and I turned them all down. I know nothing about management. I can barely manage myself. But management seems to be the likely fate of programmers in their late 30s / early 40s. Management pays more. And nobody wants to hire old programmers as they are "not a good culture fit".

Old programmers have the best war stories though. So there is that.
To automate is human
Or just read a "Learn FancyNewLanguage in 14 Days" book.

/s
Lufthansa Cargo to transport 800 tonnes of red roses for Valentine’s Day
I think that has already been answered by http://www.n-gate.com/hackernews/ rather conclusively.
It should just be budgeted in as part of their total cost
As a fellow marketer, how will you feel if email, an incredibly high performing and cost effective (essentially free) channel, turns into a auction where you have to pay a dynamic price to get any reach similar to FB?

My fear is this is where this is heading.
Once they're trained up to a point where another company is willing to pay them more for a more senior position, you could give them a raise? Congrats! You trained a junior dev and they turned into a senior dev.
The point I was trying to get at with the hypothetical is that its quite possible that a lot of Googlers are good people with good intentions and that they are trying to do good.

The hypothetical tries to demonstrate that if Googlers are good, they would behave in a way that is indistinguishable from the behaviour you are seeing and attributing to evil.

Basically I find it very hard to believe that Googlers wake up in the morning and think how best they can screw over the internet to make a few more bucks for not themselves, but the company they work for. Maybe I'm an optimist.
Millionaire Slammed Over GoFundMe Campaign for Instagram-Famous Dog
You're probably either not using the right ad-blocker or fail to configure the ad-block properly. If you just want a content-blocker that works in Safari- I find Purify works the best. If you want a full system ad-blocker which works in most apps- NYT, BBC, Chrome though not in the YouTube, Instagram, Twitter apps- it would have to be a DNS based Ad-blocker like Adguard Pro.
This (and the current Nanny Visa they mention) seems very similar to the indentured servitude used to bring over people during the early days of this country. Is there something I'm missing that makes this less odious?
Coin-operated vending machines for food was actually somewhat popular in the US in the early 1900ds before fast-food. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automat
Show HN: Clip Grip- Add a handle to any container
The risk you run here is internally over-emphasizing events that happened more recently as more important. That could make them more relevant to your recent experience but not necessarily something of more value than the problems you were solving earlier in your career.

I have also found increased risk of bikeshedding. The higher you go, the more likely you're working cross-disciplinary with ego-intellects. That also leads to suppressing dissent (hierarchy relationships more than experience-based), leading to worse decisions.

Please don't listen to the HBR articles, they're generally very terrible and often can be summed up by survivorship bias.
That's one of the many nuances here. You have to think about other things. When is illusion of control going to be harmful? When is the illusion going to crack? When is the illusion going to stick and become reality? When is increased control equivalent to removal of boundaries? When does it turn into abdication of parental responsibility? When does it reach levels of neglect? When is withdrawal from child's life going to make the child feel deserted?

There is no way to resolve these ambiguities upfront. You have to listen and observe. That's why parenting resembles conversation that is unique for every parent-child relationship and that evolves over time.

Following advice in this book or any of the many similar books is going to result in crude, clumsy parenting. Particularly so when authors argue for a side in order to stand out or to keep the book focused. That's why these books feel so artificial and kind of extremist.
That isn't reverse. You still need to figure out what you need your self then get person to do your job 10 times better.
Do you think the nature of the employer-employee relationship is civil to begin with?
Debugging and assessing abusive behaviour is far easier with some level of history.

That might be a few minutes, hours, or days. Weeks, months, years, not so much.
We all know that interviews are terrible. Wouldn't that be the problem? Then students from top-tier universities achieving the same interview score as student from lower-tier universities is meaningless. The interviews fail to capture what matters.

The best jobs I had and also jobs I performed the best I got through credentials and experience, not scribbling on a whiteboard.

If you went to top 10 school in the world, you worked hard (at least it used to be this way). I don't need to look at specifics of what you did but I know you needed grit, good work-ethic, personal time sacrifice, etc to get through. Unless you're super smart. In either case it adds to your personal brand.

I think that's what perpetuates the system. Given unlimited time I'd be happy to give everyone a shot. But time is precious so stick to what you know? I know how things are in the Uni I went to. If a CV landed on my desk form someone who did the same course, I'd put them on top of my list.
Inside the Two Years That Shook Facebook
I almost said "like the EFF" but stopped short because I don't think that the EFF gets involved in individual patent troll battles unless they have a tangible negative impact on digital civil liberties for everyone.

Am I totally out to lunch on this?

https://www.eff.org/issues/patents

Note that there's an important difference between publishing a position, general advocacy work in the interest of the public good, and being a reliable financial contributor to the legal fees required to defend yourself against a patent troll.

I heart EFF regardless, because if nothing else they unapologetically offer a progressive template for how the digital world could be. They challenge us all to be better versions of our digital selves.
Boredom and wanting to work on something new is probably the biggest driver

I have to disagree with this point. Switching jobs is a very stressful and scary experience. Most people don't want to jeopardize their income without having some very strong motivator. In my experience, the most common reasons someone changes jobs is:

- Promise of a higher income

- Low perceived stability at the current job (employees want to secure a new job before they're layoffs)

- Toxic work environment
Because the two agents in this game both benefit by inflating titles, without direct perceivable cost.

The CTO/lead gets a better title to inflate their ego and (possibly) future earnings.

The company gives the employee something the employee values but costs the employer nothing.
Ask HN: Hyperledger Fabric Platform, Is it worth investing time?
We are web & mobile applications team. We are diving into Blockchain based projects.

Currently, we have picked Hyperledger Fabric a permission driven Blockchain network.

Is anyone working on Hyperledger projects?

How do you see it's future in coming years or months?
Can we get a '(2015)' appended to this article title, please?
The average silicon valley programmer is not taking advantage of the rapid gain improperly values. On the contrary, they can't afford to buy so they rent... And their rent goes up every year as values skyrocket.
I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic comment or not. I don't want even more obnoxious emails from marketers. As someone else pointed out the only interactivity I want from email is unsubscribe. What you described is everything that's wrong with the internet and Google on particular. I don't want any needs marketers have to be part of decision making process for new web standards.
While I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, the equation would seem to imply that happiness + expectations = reality and unfortunately I don’t think it quite works that way?
Don't forget the cross promotion with popular video game franchises and soda brands.
Yeah it'll be interesting to see what happens with their new Freight business. That has the potential to be a real disruptor as I don't think any other tech companies have tried to tackle that space.