skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes! Men and women actually work better together than groups composed of just men or just women [1] [2]

The thinking is, men prefer taking risks, while women prefer to limit risks. In cooperation, men can push women to see the benefit of a risk (and in turn she gains more experience of risk), and women can push men to hold off of risks that might be detrimental. Women are good at synchronizing group thought, in that they make a space for others to talk and they generate talking points by asking important questions, while men generally like taking the floor. So for the man who does not take the floor of his own accord, women are more likely to create a space where he can talk.

Personally, in an environment like WeWork, I can see men and women having more conversations and opening up the place a little.

1. https://www.td.org/insights/women-and-men-working-together-m...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/01/gender.world
> An induction generator produces electrical power when its rotor is turned faster than the synchronous speed...

Yes, that's called overdriving the motor.

>> An induction generator usually draws its excitation power from an electrical grid

> Which is not what they want in a car

You can generate very nice sine waves using modern electronics, tri-phase is also not a problem.

> Also they do want good torque at zero speeds, while it can be done with induction motors it's not ideal

Triphase motors have fantastic torque at zero speeds, see also every (diesel-)electric locomotive ever produced.
Pennsylvania’s New Map Helps Democrats. But It’s Not a Democratic Gerrymander
> “Is this text secondary? Let’s use a lighter color.”

Please no. Light grey text on not very dark grey background? Can this design trend just die?

See: http://contrastrebellion.com/
As a programmer who usually has to do all of the UI work himself, I definitely appreciate this! I've been on exactly one team during my career where we had a dedicated graphic design person. Alas, it's seen as a waste of money by most management types in my industry (govt contracting).
You don't have to be a teetotaler to hate that. Just think how often they clean those taps. (One startup that I worked in Chicago would be closed down by the health department becuase they never did)
I wonder how much of this stagnation can be attributed to fewer people performing "real work"... that is producing something that actually adds value. Just thinking of the sheer number of people and resources used in advertising, movie CGI, useless chat apps, etc. that are basically a net negative to real economic output, it makes me think that maybe these people are the ones getting paid with the productivity gains of those who produce real output.

Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed character... and where do you think this money comes from?
> Colleges and universities are ground zero (and a symbol) of a (newish) culture that loudly, strongly, and explicitly rejects and condemns much of the rest of America

I believe that this is a conservative charge. For what it is worth, I work at a college and I don't find that to be so. Of course, it may be the college I work at and I am sure that a person can find college faculty with almost cartoonish views on society.

But, while most of my colleagues are mildly liberal (although there certainly are conservatives), they seem to me to be quite mainstream. I can't recall ever, since I came here in 1990, hearing even one instance of rejecting and condeming much of the rest of America.
IPFS is really trivial to install in most OSes and distributions. If you don't want to run it as a daemon via terminal/systemd/whatever, you can either run the browser extension together with ipfs-desktop and it's GUIs all the way down.

https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-desktop/
And how measure a societies level of either. Few would disagree that conformity was stronger in Japan than the US, but it’s got to be hard to measure.
There was just a post on a related topic, technological unemployment, on SlateStarCodex. Quoting the conclusion below:

Here are some tentative conclusions:

1. Technological unemployment is not happening right now, at least not more so than previous eras. The official statistics are confusing, but they show no signs of increases in this phenomenon. (70% confidence)

2. On the other hand, there are signs of technological underemployment – robots taking middle-skill jobs and then pushing people into other jobs. Although some people will be “pushed” into higher-skill jobs, many will be pushed into lower-skill jobs. This seems to be what happened to the manufacturing industry recently. (70% confidence)

3. This sort of thing has been happening for centuries and in theory everyone should eventually adjust, but there are some signs that they aren’t. This may have as much to do with changes to the educational, political, and economic system as with the nature of robots per se. (60% confidence)

4. Economists are genuinely divided on how this is going to end up, and whether this will just be a temporary blip while people develop new skills, or the new normal. (~100% confidence)

5. Technology seems poised to disrupt lots of new industries very soon, and could replace humans entirely sometime within the next hundred years. (???)

This is a very depressing conclusion. If technology didn’t cause problems, that would be great. If technology made lots of people unemployed, that would be hard to miss, and the government might eventually be willing to subsidize something like a universal basic income. But we won’t get that. We’ll just get people being pushed into worse and worse jobs, in a way that does not inspire widespread sympathy or collective action. The prospect of educational, social, or political intervention remains murky.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/19/technological-unemploym...
It's funny you consider this running them over. I'm sure from their perspective you are hardly a blip on the radar.
The examples are mostly low contrast: a wasteland of white and preferably off-white empty space, also white and preferably off-white and preferably borderless boxes, lightly colored and mostly grey text inside them. When did combining dark text on a light background and light text on a dark background become nontrivial advice?

When web pages had a proper structure and color scheme (compare www.gnu.org now and in 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040113091408/https://www.gnu.or... ) they were more readable.
It works well the other way too. Go to a bookclub about a topic you're interested and you might be surprised to find how much in common you have with people who you otherwise might have thought were completely different (different career, family, gender, nationality). I haven't made any friends that way but often the talks we have feel like everyone is old friends in the moment.
At the opposite end of the spectrum – which we call ‘strong linkage’ – it’s possible that productivity growth translates fully into increases in typical workers’ pay, but even as productivity growth has been acting to raise pay, other factors (orthogonal to productivity) have been acting to reduce it.

At the same time, non-purely technological hypotheses for rising mean-median inequality include the race between education and technology (Goldin and Katz 2007), declining unionisation (Freeman et al. 2016), globalisation (Autor et al. 2013), immigration (Borjas 2003), and the ‘superstar effect’ (Rosen 1981, Gabaix et al. 2016). Non-technological hypotheses for the falling labour share include labour market institutions (Levy and Temin 2007, Mishel and Bivens 2015), market structure and monopoly power (Autor et al. 2017, Barkai 2017), capital accumulation (Piketty 2014, Piketty and Zucman 2014), and the productivity slowdown itself (Grossman et al. 2017).

All of the non-technological reasons, to me, boil down to globalization.

I'd love to see the productivity-wage divergence chart in China and other developing countries. I wouldn't be surprised if the divergence is inverted in those places that have seen unprecedented wage growth over the last forty years.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think productivity and wages have diverged as much as people think, it's just that a national analysis is insufficient in a global labor market.
>carrier strike groups are lethal enough to topple a small country.

The carriers are deterrents, not weapons. They will be among the first major casualties of any true, open warfare. Carrier-defeating tech has been out for years; therefore they're only ever useful for policing actions - not full, symmetric war.
Agreed. I'm certainly not knocking extrovert-tailored work environments for their own sake. I am expressing frustration that the huge differences between extroverts and introverts are nearly universally ignored, especially, it seems, in tech workplaces. I hate to be reminded that such insensitive places still exist.
Show HN: Finder-like multicolumnar JSON explorer with jq in the browser
"West" is frequently used to mean "developed world".

Same goes for Australia/New Zealand, for example.
The web already is decentralized. Most HTTP requests are fulfilled by a computer that is part of a CDN, not by the publishers computer.

IPFS is like Wikipedia, Uber, AirBnB. There have been encyclopedias, taxis and hotels before. But now it's easier to participate.

My computer has this article cached right now. So if my neighbor want to read it, he could get it from me. The infrastructure is just not there yet. IPFS will add it.
Yes, this was meant to be a response to cpburns2009, woops. Was in a rush and originally posted it as a parent level comment, deleted, then reposted under what I thought was the right thread. Looks like I still need more coffee.
Perhaps not individually, but if the society is a democracy and 51% of people are employed picking up golden eggs, they have more negotiating power.
It can be both privilege and meritocracy. Think of the movie Gattaca. The people with enhanced genes were privileged from the wealth of their parents, but also genuinely better in some areas because of that. The same thing if parents are able to afford tutors, or to spend time helping their child out in homework they will get better grades and do better. The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.
You're right - there's a huge business in rent-takers who's role is connecting charitable organizations with these foundations and helping them get funding. Pretty similar to those streamlining government programs.

It's surprising (and a little depressing) how much money goes to for-profit in the funding cycles of "not for profits"...
Have you ever tried Gboard? It's way better than the first gen of swipe typing.
This is a good point and shouldn't be downvoted. (I assume that was for tone?)

We shouldn't expect that a productivity improvement purely due to capital should result in higher real worker compensation [1]. If the lawnomatic can mow one lawn per hour, and an upgrade permits it to mow two lawns per hour, then the labor of pressing its activation button isn't somehow more valuable.

[1] Technically, it should result in employers bidding more for workers, but in a way that's far less than proportional to the total gain in output.
That shot size is 43ml so 5 shots totals 215ml of 40% spirits. In the UK a single is 25ml so it's equivalent of 8.6 'singles' / 4.3 'doubles'.
To me, the attitude reeking of entitlement is that you shouldn't have to pay more for a worker who is providing more value for your business. And regardless, someone who is more productive is providing more value. Don't believe so? Simple test: Are you now bringing in more revenue, producing more product, or reducing the cost of your product? Then more value has been produced.

The alternative, which sadly has been taken all too often, is that management pockets that difference.
Also don't give up on the first dud of a meetup. You need to check out a handful to find a good fit.
I'm not arguing that this is the way it SHOULD be, but as far as I can tell the difference stems from a perceived difference in "area of effect". For example, an assembly line worker's job is to physically make as many widgets per hour as possible at high quality. Maybe the limit of human ability is 100 widgets/hr. If the company CEO replaces half of the workers with robots that can make 1,000 widgets/hr, the workers won't benefit from that because they're still making 100 widgets/hr, while the executive just 5x'd the factory's output, which is likely to be worth a bonus.

That's simple enough, but there's a problem with this line of reasoning. What if, rather than replacing the workers, the CEO gives half of them a WidgetTool3000, which allows workers to make 1,000 widgets/hr with no extra training or effort? From the executive's position, she just did the same thing: She adjusted the process to 5x the factory's output by adding a piece of technology. But half of the workers are now producing 10x more widgets, so shouldn't they get a piece of the newly created wealth too?

(Here's where I toss in the disclaimer of "this is how it works, but I'm not going to comment on the morality of it")

The answer is no, according to corporate tradition. The market has already determined that the value of a worker with a set level of training and ability is $X. Amplifying the worker's output doesn't change anything about the value of the worker (in fact, nothing has changed about the worker at all. He could be swapped with someone not using a WidgetTool with no loss in value for the company) - the WidgetTool is what has created the extra value for the company - it doesn't matter who uses it.

On the other hand, it sure as hell feels like crap to be the guy making 10x the widgets for the same pay.
I wasn't being sarcastic; I have seriously considered, especially recently after a couple of terrible work experiences, completely changing my life and getting away from tech forever. My young son loves working with his hands, so I've been considering picking up some power tools and such and learning something completely different. :)
>meanwhile we pretend western society is mostly meritocratic

The poor kid was raised by a single mother in a 100sqft apartment. You don't expect a prize winning plant if you never water it, right?

This story says nothing of the merits of the rich kid. You seem to assume the rich kid is a layabout wastrel, because he was born from a poor lineage.

I think the mother of this kid would have been conflicted if she were alive. She wanted the best for her offspring, and he got it, but not due to her efforts. Your jaded prejudice has derailed what other boards might have made into a thoughtful discussion.
Ah, thanks. Now I understand.
Grew up a huge lego fan. I sent this link around my office, wondering if anybody else would think it was as interesting as I did. Everybody is now buzzing with cinder block mania, with no prior cinder block / brick laying experience :)
Cheers man! It's based off market cap
Matching DNA to a diet doesn't work
Did that research make any attempt to distinguish between extroverts and introverts in the workforce? Because if it didn't, it is irrelevant to the post chain you're responding to.
But why should management then expect to see increases in revenues? If labor is not going to see increased wages, then why are they now doing more work?
You might take a look at the OpenCourseware for the MIT Urban Studies and planning department: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/urban-studies-and-planning/

A classic is Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities. There was a fairly recent documentary on her as well. This book is a bit of a Rorschach test though. People who rail against cars highlight her opposition to Robert Moses' highways. But opponents to large-scale high-rise construction highlight her general opposition to urban renewal projects.
I agree with this. In 2006 I was a huge fan of JIRA and it just felt like such a well designed app.

Now it has some kind of Designer disease, where it looks beautiful (truly, I love the style and fonts and colors), but I simply can't find my way around it. And I get very frustrated trying to do basic things because the app is also really slow (clearly 500ms+ per request). It's clear that it's still a server-side app and not a SPA which is the kind responsiveness everyone expects nowadays.

So our two person team went back to using Excel. Jira just takes too long to get things done with.
Theoretically this can be true. I.e. you can write anything (good or bad, correct of quirky, fast or slow) adequate to your skills in C so being proficient enough you can potentially end up with a C program that would solve the same task faster than a functional/mixed program in Scala.

In practice, however, real-world Scala programs usually run approximately as fast (or faster) than real programs real humans write in C as far as I know (and can be developed/modified much faster). And they are less prone to crash, expose a vulnerabilities, produce wrong results or have portability problems. But they indeed tend to require a way more memory than you would probably fit in if you'd go the old-school way using manual memory management, sharing and re-using memory regions as much as possible.
The claim is that the Chinese J-20 is "ready for mass production" and "combat ready", but the reality is likely different. It's also not at all clear how good are the stealth characteristics of the J-20.

From the Wikipedia article on the J-20:

"In October 2017, Chinese state media reported that the designs of J-20 had been finalized, and is ready for mass production as well as combat-ready."

...however...

"As of March 2017 there are still a series of technical problems that need to be tackled, including the reliability of its WS-15 engines, [the aircraft's flight] control system, stealth coatings and hull materials, and infrared sensor."

The Russian Su-57 is equally questionable:

"In December 2014, the Russian Air Force planned to receive 55 fighters by 2020.[41] Yuri Borisov, Russia's deputy minister of defence for armaments stated in 2015 that the Air Force would slow production and reduce its initial order to 12 fighters and retain large fleets of fourth-generation fighters due to the nation's economy."

Both China and Russia are almost entirely dependent on their 4th Gen fighters at this point, and I expect the F-22 and F-35 will easily handle the J-20 if necessary. Regardless, 99.99% of potential adversaries are 4th Gen.
Looks like a cool tool, but I just wanted to add that I'm a man with at least 50% female friends, so restricting me to only making friends with men is a shame.

I think we've moved past the whole "not being able to be friends with someone of the same gender" thing (nevermind the fact that people of the same gender can date!). There are probably better ways to tackle people using the app for dating.
If by "real work" you mean force time distance, then suuuure. The entire software industry does very little "real work", since it doesn't take very much force to move the keys on a keyboard only a little bit down.
Good analogy. Oppenheimer was a young, brilliant, and ambitious scientist with the money and power to pursue a huge project. The famous Oppenheimer quote upon seeing the result of his work is "now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I don't think modern tech-bros have his level of insight or introspection, but fortunately the stakes are a bit lower.
When whisper networks let us down
This Design Generation Has Failed – Mike Monteiro
Gmail IMAP is slow as hell. A self-hosted IMAP server is quite fast.
> On what grounds could he get more

I’d say he could get more if the other half of the switch paid back the amount he presumably benefitted by. Should the two values equal out though?
I was only drawing attention to an alternative meta-ethical philosophy. You can't talk about murder objectively because murder is subjective. In a legal context, jurisdictions differ over what circumstances make a death considered murderous, just, accidental, or even causal.
I'll hop in. Net value-add across the entire chain doesn't imply local value-add. And it's deeply short-sighted to be fine with certain sectors of people collapsing so long as the GDP has a net increase.

Two individual actors agreeing to a price doesn't make the price fair, and it ignores the larger economic/political arena that surrounds them.

Following the MRI example: nobody in this thread is suggesting that those don't provide value.

One poster is suggesting that such expensive operations should be subsidized through other mechanisms that take the larger economic/political arena into account (living, capable workers provide more value than sick/dead ones).

The other poster is suggesting that a low-wage laborer doesn't deserve to have an MRI because they can't individually afford it. The latter is a weak argument intellectually (let's not even _try_ to develop new mechanisms that include more people), morally, and economically (assumes that markets are free, efficient, and devoid of history).
Good point abot the psychological costs.

Re: safety net -- I had some cash saved up from a previous exit, but certainly not enough to not work again. And the first year of Susa Ventures was pretty stressful because I was taking $0 salary, not sure how successful we'd be at fundraising, and getting staler and staler on the coding side (which makes going back to sw development jobs harder). Having a financial safety net definitely helped though.
I went to school from 7 to 9 and then again from 15 to 18. It depends on the subject but on average the depth should be in the same ballpark. He definitely knows more math and physics than I do, maybe chemistry as well, I think I'm better at history. On languages, he's probably better at German than me (note it's our native language), I'm probably better at English than him because I use it more, I don't know how much high-school French he remembers but I assume not as much as I learned in the last few years, I speak Dutch (well somewhat) he doesn't. We're both not very musically inclined.
Your experience mirrors exactly the ones I've had at a WeWork on the East Coast of the US. Ours was cleaner but amenities we were paying for were randomly missing or not working.

I gave up talking to people after a while. Nobody seemed particularly interested in socializing in the common areas which in retrospect I understand and I got some abrasive reactions from just trying to start conversation. Perhaps they were forced to work there and would have preferred to WFH.
So the fact that I'd prefer an open plan office over private offices is? What? I'm lying?
> People are noisy, people whistle, walk around talking loudly on their phones.

In my experience of coworking spaces, it is the same one/two people that ruin the space for everybody else. What is missing from co-working spaces is some kind of housekeeping rules and enforcement (in lieu of mutual respect).
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that. It's amazing how oblivious some people are to their bias.
> The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.

I think you've just completely upended the meaning of meritocracy to suite your argument.

Next you'll be arguing lootboxes make games more fair.

>Think of the movie Gattaca

Was literally a movie about unfair privilege. people in it were granted privileges and opportunities based on their genes whether they had accomplished something or not.
Possibly because he was so catastrophically wrong about the form of the society that would inevitably follow from state socialism?

In a sense he was partly right i.e. almost all state socialist societies transformed in a very similar way. It was just that they transformed into totalitarian dictatorships rather than stateless utopia.