skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You're introducing a logical fallacy here too, by arguing that "all white turkeys are gone," which is absolutely not the case for hiring male developers.

I'm not arguing that either, but even if I was, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy as much as it would be an empirically testable fact, and if I was wrong it would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy.

> It is lowering standards if you have to transition from a working recruitment process to one which may not work, but ticks a diversity box.

I don't see how that lowers standards, it might just be ineffective. The salient point being that lowering standards is about standards (i.e. "fatness of turkeys"), not how many people you hire (number of turkeys).

Now if you want to argue about whether specifically recruiting women would be _effective_, that's a different conversation, but my OP stands on logical grounds.
I have had an SA account for years and never been banned. I don't appreciate being called a sucker and I think the price is fair for what I get.

When I use Facebook I am the product, not the customer. This means the platform is optimized to put my eyeballs on advertisements or provide data about me to marketers. It is not optimized to provide high quality conversation.
Incidentally, my experience with Lyft here in Canada has been pretty dismal. On average pretty terrible drivers. I have a feeling Lyft is getting all the Uber rejects. If that's the case, this is going to derail Lyft's Canadian debut pretty badly. I wonder if this is a common problem when they come into an Uber-dominated market.
One difference is that the multiverse emerges as a natural extension of many existing physical theories (string theory, inflation, many-worlds, etc). The deist perspective is a more ad-hoc solution: it doesn't have any evidence that supports it directly, just that we currently don't know the answer to this problem.
I don't think there are many insights about operating a business you can get from this article but the business owner does have some interesting views on how to handle your personal and professional life. Also its very interesting that so many web entrepreneurs played poker so much in their early adulthood.
> we only ever had 1 female applicant

Exactly! Is it possible that the job advert, or something else about the company, was disproportionately attracting male applicants and putting off female applicants? (disproportionately, compared to the demographics of existing qualified developers) Would your company be capable of noticing?

> The article makes a really solid point - invest in education and get women and minorities excited for the field

Yes, this is definitely good! It's very easy to disclaim responsibility, because “the talent just isn't out there”. But this way, you cultivate more talent, and (if you put the work in) you get goodwill from everyone involved.
I disagree; geeks particularly are a product of (and create themselves; it is cyclical) a subculture in which being outwardly confident on matters not rewarded by the broader social group, at least of age peers, is, in-fact, rewarded.
It was definitively the "technical interview with a non-technical manager", and yes, I do agree with you, but it's difficult to judge companies beforehand.
> seems to hate companies that are doing well for themselves

Wow. Can you back that up?
True enough...

I don't think my parents could've afforded to send my sister to Stanford back then which is roughly the equivalent to your average state school today (completely guessing here). They probably would've found a way though.

My point still stands though, means testing was intended to get the best and brightest into college even if they're poor, couldn't even imagine Reagan/Bush entertaining the idea of giving middle-class kids a free ride -- in fact I can even picture Reagan on the TV saying "Uncle Sam ain't your baby daddy!"
"clever compilers can reuse addresses of variables for as long as they are not written to"

Still chewing on this, but it would immediately strike me that relying on this behaviour in a software application, for it to be performant, would be a bad idea.
Hm, good point. I forgot about that because I have pre-check.

So maybe one of these instead:

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-microSDXC-Adapter-MB-MC256GA-...
"It does not bother you that dozens of serious contemporary, controversial topics, with severe consequences for our society, are regularly censored on websites like reddit under the guise of so called toxicity?"

I think you're gonna have to provide an example for this. An example of something that is being labeled as toxic, but wouldn't appear to be.
I'd look to see how the spiral array model can map these together.
Thanks! It looks like my insurance joke crashed.
Uber could (and eventually will destroy) Lyft in one fell swoop. They're just holding back to appease the government atm.
I've had difficulty getting Lyft's in DC. They may have to increase prices to encourage more drivers to fill demand.
... and ex-Uber drivers — meaning drivers who were kicked off Uber due to poor user ratings. This would explain what's going on with Lyft's intro to Canada right now. Awful customer service every time I've used Lyft.
If you don't copy it and don't wait on any synchronisation mechanisms, how do you protect the memory?
"It depends on the discussion"

You're gonna have to provide a context in which this wouldn't be a terrible and unacceptable thing to say, cause I can't think of one.
You're under the misconception that businesses should be run as charities and those businesses that are not are harming the world. This is simply not true.

Paying the market wage, meaning the best (lowest) price you can find that meets all of your requirements for quality of service, is still contributing to the global economy.

And by making your firm more productive, you are increasing the pool of goods/services that the world's consumers can divide amongst themselves. That's how for profit enterprises contribute to a rising standard of living.
You might enjoy this piece too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzkOFJMI5i8

(Steve Reich's Clapping Music...)
People maintaining their own cars used to be a prolific practice, but I think we're better off now with cars that require dramatically less maintenance.

Unfortunately the IOT market is in a bad situation because products are advertised as not requiring any maintenance but they aren't reliable enough to live up to that.
LCDs still have their own inherent "gamma" curve which is actually a sigmoid shape. They just emulate CRT gamma for backwards compatibility and hide their own low level details in the process.
So your argument is "anything you can legally get away with is morally acceptable"?
I have considered a spiral version.

You could see the Coltrane diagrams as viewing a spiral head-on, so that the spiral nature of the structure is hidden by occlusion.

This would solve the problem of the arbitrary nature of representing only five octaves.
Moderators of T_D prevent that. Unless you subscribe to the subreddit, you're unable to vote, and despite constantly rallying against "safe spaces", they instaban anyone who goes contrary to the group.

That, and I find it impossible to believe that someone who is able to post that online would know that it is an unacceptable position.
Most Companies Organize Themselves in One of Two Ways
Since neither has any explanatory power that is not already contained in the phenomena they are offered to explain, they are equally complete failures of parsimony, differing only in which aesthetic preferences they appeal to.
Link to the original source is buried within - http://elonka.com/friedman/FriedmanTombstone.pdf
Thank you. I am thoroughly entertained and encouraged by the positivity that I received from everyone.
Exactly. Giving a massive benefit of the doubt that their complaints can be non-partisan, some alternative terms that might be more correct to their concerns might be:

- Polarizing
- Extremist/Fundamentalist/Zealotry
- Trolling

However, these sorts of things are legitimately "toxic" to a welcoming discussion environment (ie a large social site's revenue stream), but it's being conflated as being "toxic" to society in general, which itself is an extremist perspective. :-P
I think Stallman mentioned it on his book "Free as in Freedom" -- that's where I got my inspirations from.
Show HN: Free Indicator Alert App for Cryptocurrency (MACD, RSI, Ichimoku)
Gamma still exists! Check out this really nice article for more info "The rehabilitation of gamma"

https://poynton.ca/PDFs/Rehabilitation_of_gamma.pdf
Wait...you go to some third party to get milk? What kind of freedom is that? You have to rely on the will of the shop owner to remain open and to have fresh milk stocked.

For me, personally, I would just milk one of the cows that live on my property. Now, that's real freedom.
Stop Being Productive (2014)
I had a citation for only 22% of mergers meeting their revenue goals. If you have someone more likely to have quality guesses than McKinsey, then please share yours.
None of those articles mention the content of the posts.
I'm... not sure what you're getting at here. Rust is chock-full of "monadic concepts" like that, including the entire sets of `Iterator` and `Future` combinators. (Note that even without do-notation these have the composability problems I mention- you can't, for example, `break` out of a loop from within a `.then` callback; you have to break the loop down and reimplement it yourself with recursion. This is what the async/await "sugar" helps with- makes normal control structures compose with async code.)

What I'm talking about is a single Monad abstraction to tie these all together. I mention do-notation because it's one example of something you would built on top of such an abstraction, and one way to bring together the seemingly-disparate collection of `?`/`yield`/`await!`. In Haskell, for example, you can use do-notation not only for IO, but also for async code, and list comprehensions, and early returns, and a host of other things.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/
Here's a generalization that yields an infinite family of similar observations.

Step 1. Take any "torus knot with n marked points": which for our purposes will mean homeomorphism classes of embeddings from a circle with n marked points, to the torus.

Step 2. Draw it on paper.

In the case of the Coltrane drawing, n = (5 octaves * 13 notes per octive) = 65. The author exhibited 3 non-homeomrphic embeddings of this circle into the torus in the three images below the protractor picture. In particular these are embeddings generated by iterated Dehn twists on the unknot. You can classify them by winding number.

The image right below the aforementioned ones also shows an embedding of a circle with marked points into the torus if we choose to identify the 2 'c's. This time there's only 13 marked points. This suggests the following. To a circle with marked points, one can associate a canonical family, labelled by integers, of circles with marked points as follows: take any covering map of the circle, and declare the union of the fibers over the marked points to be the new marked points. In the case of the music scale analogy, we take the circle with 13 marked points, and this in particular gives a family of circles with 13 * k marked points for any positive integer k, and the musical interpretation is that k is how many octave one chooses to have. In the images mentioned above k = 3 and k = 1 are exhibited.

There's a simple further generalization of all this: we can replace the torus with any topological space. For example, doing this on a higher genus surface or a non-orientable surface would both yield probably interesting-looking diagrams.
Yes. It provides protection against monkey wrench attacks.

https://xkcd.com/538/

Of course the TSA is not so unsubtle as to actually hit you with a wrench, but they have other ways of making your life miserable.
Study: Renters in high-rent cities are as NIMBY as homeowners
The US has: an old, stable, trustworthy democratic government (trustworthy in the sense that the people trust elections and the courts, i.e. “the system”, not necessarily any single president or party), a huge population, an astonishing amount of natural resources (relative to population - both land and what’s in it), and excellent natural barriers.

It’s near the top of the world in any of these categories alone, but if you combine them, it’s pretty much impossible to beat (unless it collapses from internal tensions of course).

Edit: Also, in the grand scheme of things, Silicon Valley isn’t even that important... most of the startup-y companies could turn to dust tomorrow and the world would go on, with less Instagram photos but with the US still on top. Sure, there are some companies that actually do stuff (Intel, Cisco, Apple, etc) but most have foreign or open-source alternatives anyhow.
> Your friend might have to consider roommates, a cheaper place, or staying with their parents. If they're renting their own apartment six months a year to afford it, then they can't.

Yeah, I was like "huh, what's even the point?"

I live 3 blocks away and pay less than half for a two-bedroom with the best landlord ever.
On the other hand, the Caesar cipher was supposedly really used by Caesar, and not with the intention of unrelated readers figuring it out. According to Wikipedia:

> It is unknown how effective the Caesar cipher was at the time, but it is likely to have been reasonably secure, not least because most of Caesar's enemies would have been illiterate and others would have assumed that the messages were written in an unknown foreign language.

So perhaps it’s best to think of it as a real cipher that was obsoleted by technological advances... much as modern ciphers can be obsoleted by advances in cryptanalytic techniques or computer hardware.

For a more modern example you could consider Navajo code talkers in WWII. As I just learned (you might know way more about this than me :), the code talkers weren’t just translating their messages into the Navajo language; rather, they typically spelled out English text using one code word per letter. Thus, what they did can definitely be seen as a cipher, in more than just the vague sense of a way to keep a message secret. And the list of code words could be seen as a key... but only to some extent. If they had just invented a word-per-letter code in English, the enemy would have been able to write down the words, and perhaps ultimately decipher the code using frequency analysis, which was a well-known technique at that point. Much of the code’s security rather depended on the use of the Navajo language, which was tonally complex, had few speakers, and had no published dictionaries at the time. These are all factors that don’t follow Kerckhoff’s principle: if the enemy had obtained Navajo speakers and proceeded to decipher the code, rekeying with a new word list wouldn’t have brought back the original level of security.

Of course, the scheme would not stand up well to modern computer-based techniques, and if used today would have to mostly be considered a toy cipher. But in its original historical context it was not a toy.

(And on the flipside, there are other historical ciphers that are just as obsolete thanks to computers, but did follow Kerckhoff’s principle with respect to attacks available at the time - such as the Enigma machine.)
> You can actually care about your employees, see them as human

Amazon doesn't. That's the point.

You are wildly oversimplifying the iron law of wages. It does not say "it is morally acceptable for employers to treat employees as badly as they can possibly get away with."
Sorry, but this idea of "Sticks and Stones" hasn't been true for a long, long time. You may be able to shug off terrible, racist, bigoted slurs hurled at you, but people who have that slung at them day after day after day might not be, and I'm not going to blame them for not wanting to take it anymore.
I imagine that after the current Dalai Lama dies, the Chinese government will proclaim they have found his reincarnation in a boy that they control. In the linked article it appears they have already done so with the Panchen Lama.

Seems pretty obvious and a clumsy attempt by the Chinese government to subvert the religion. Maybe it'll work and prove me wrong.
In fairness, the OP was comparing the merit of a deist creator to the merit of multiverse as an explanation of the cosmological constant.

Does the multiverse theory predict something which can be confirmed with follow-up observations or that is falsifiable in some way? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I've heard a similar criticism of simulation theories. Unless we add some more specific information to the theory, it's not really a scientific theory for that reason. How would a simulated/created universe look?
I mean, if he is spending the money on space-tech, he is putting it back into someone's wages. So would it be better if he put it back in the pockets of the 500,000 workers who are already contributing to the economy (and they are already making slightly above market rate for their labor), or would you rather him invest in these new jobs?
> It seems like every time I like a photo and look the posters profile

No offence intended but could it be that well-proportioned, model-like subjects are more likely to have their profile viewed, so it's a case of sample bias?

While no, I don't have any hard data so my points are anecdotal, I tend to be disinterested in subjects that are more model-like as the point for me is to look at everyday people getting their kit off. And from what I can tell those everyday people make up the lions-share of self-posted content.
> These people are just as noxious in real life even if some of them hide it when their identities are known.

I don't think so. A lot of people, and this is especially true with Twitter, get noxious because they found an audience there to "amuse" and entertain, which might amplify the temptation for "troll behavior", especially when that audience is of the same political/cultural leaning as the speaker. Social media inflate egos. Some people who might feel insecure in real life find a community there where they can feel like someone, not by doing something positive but by being mean and condescending to whom they deem their ennemy.

However social media didn't create these divisions, they just amplify them.

IMHO Twitter is a proof that even with real identities, people will engage in toxic behavior provided they feel supported by a large audience. Of all the social media I found Twitter to be the nastiest of all.

By contrast, aside from a few brigading, Reddit communities are often isolated, self contained and don't "leak". It takes a user to actively go on a sub to see its content, while Twitter is constantly pushing stuffs to its users, even the nastiest ones.
> which brand themselves as strongholds of free speech and in practice are often used for hate speech.

Um, hate speech is free speech.
> extremely rare, and per-sub, not reddit-wide

from your list, it's the only thing it's not correct:

there's a site wide shadow-ban that is only done by admins. that means if you post something, nobody will see but for you everything will show up as normal. subreddit moderators can approve your comment and it will show up. this started as a measure against spammers but it seems like normal users get shadow banned too.

now there's normal ban, where you can be banned from a subreddit (you can't post but you can browse) and there's a reddit-wide ban (your account gets basically deleted).

and there's also AutoModerator "shadow-ban" which makes use of reddit's auto moderator to delete a user's comment as soon as it get posted.
If you want to interpolate between colors, anything-RGB is wrong, even for the best value of "anything". You want the LAB space, or something along those lines.

If we interpolate between one RGB color to another color of equal intensity, the intensity along the interpolation will not be constant.
Oh come on.

When we talk about him, personally, that's his wealth. He can give it to charity, use it to improve the world or burn it on pleasures. It's his money that society agreed to give him - it's society that owes him. I know the system has many flaws, FED etc. but this in general is how money works. You give something, and in exchange you get right to receive something.

When we talk about Amazon he decided to optimize for customer, not employee satisfaction. I'm not a fan of what Amazon is doing currently (as an e-commerce) but when you sum amount of welfare it provided over the whole humanity, it seems quite possible that it is a very positive number - I'm assuming unhappiness of employees counts negatively towards it. Apart from the whole economical aspect, creating work places and opportunities for other companies to create them, just looking at cheaper prices, let's say employee A earns $500 less than he could. And that per one employee we have 10,000 customers in similar living situation that saved $20. The net result for people in this life situation is $200,000 - $500.

And then there's difficult problem of general optimization function if you want to do whatever best you can for the humanity. Given GCRs associated with all of us living on the same rock, if you think about humanity as a whole and its future, it may turn out that space exploration has extremely high priority and it would be EV+ even if we would have to scarify lives of most of those currently alive.
> The stated goal of Blue Origin is to stop all mining and manufacturing on Earth, to move it off-world, and leave Earth a peaceful place to live and generally hang out.

Wow, I hadn't heard Blue Origin's vision stated like that. I think it's a great idea. Elon Musk gets a lot of press for his "Mars backup plan" vision; why doesn't Blue Origin promote their vision more heavily?

Here's Bezos talking about it: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/interview-jeff-bezos/

And interestingly, it's a vision he has had in some form since at least high school: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-bezos-th...
I hope I never have to do something like this to keep my beloved 2015 Macbook Pro alive.
They're not exactly trivial to find - but they are trivial to use. Why not use one if you are concerned?
> I'm sure they're reasonable about upgrading and/or paying for additional usage if you go over the limits.

I certainly hope so, but we've been bitten by surcharges before when we had a mini-DoS on our system...

Besides that, there's a big element of trust here. I'm going to trust these guys with my most important secrets. I expect a trustworthy, transparent and simple solution that doesn't surprise me. Pricing is an element of that.

> This sound like standard developer cheapness.

I'm sorry, but this is just mean. I'm happy to pay, but I want to predict my costs. I understand usage-based pricing, but for a secret management system, I really don't see how this applies.

Sure, there might be outliers who might spin 1 billion micro-processes each connecting to their system, but I think it's the wrong approach to base your pricing on those. At least not until you're the scale of Amazon. Or even Digital Ocean.

I think I'm exactly the customer they want, but my 2 cents advice is to simplify pricing. Charge more. Fine. Just make it simple and clear.
> Freedom of movement no more guarantees your right to purchase a ticket aboard a private, commercial flight, than freedom of speech guarantees your right to post to a private, commercial forum.

It is the government that prevents you from flying on the private commercial airline. Not the airline owner. If the government was preventing people from posting certain messages on private commercial form, that would certainly be a violation of the First Amendment.