skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. This is why it's a pretty good idea to move to Silicon Valley when you're young, rent out the cheapest room you can find, get a job at FAANG and bank 75% of your salary. After 10 years you will have a nest egg and resume that allows you true freedom in what you want to do going forward.
> You'd have to figure out the value per visit to reach a conclusion along the lines you're attempting to make

Fair enough. One can roughly adjust those figure by dividing by the number of times the average Facebook user visits Facebook each month. This is nothing existential. But it's still, likely, over a billion dollars of lost revenue.
When the discussion consists entirely of people saying they just avoid talking to women entirely, yes, that seems much more likely.

I’m not saying they’re happy with it, but prefer it over self improvement? You bet. People usually hate trying to change themselves.
It's worth elaborating on a central point; the idea that 'preventable deaths are unacceptable' only makes sense at ordinary human scales. In someone's day-to-day life, they aren't reasonably going to be in a situation where letting someone die will be the best alternative.

The situation changes completely at the level of the decision makers of countries and large cities work at. /Everything/ is a variant of the trolley problem and all resources could in theory be used to save a life. Not accepting a risk of death can do more harm than good and realistically infrastructure; it just obscures the cause and effect.

Eg, we'll never know if someone died because their doctor was late because a train operator made a mistake operating a train. The cause-effect chain is too convoluted. But statistically speaking, something like that will happen every so often. Deaths from inefficiency are just as bad as deaths from direct accident; and if the scale is large enough that they can reasonably be detected then they need to be considered too.

Obviously most of the time a high standard of safety is going to be best, but trains are a high-risk environment moving 100s people at speeds they were never meant to move. True perfection over 30 years is probably not a required standard. Great goal though.
A sample of the population of people who take transit every day is different from a sample of the population in general. When walking down the street you might occasionally run across people who you're not comfortable walking near, but it's relatively rare. Increase the volume of those taking transit and you'll note that only the volume of people you're comfortable riding with will rise.

The massive disincentives to take public transit has slowly built up this self-fulfilling prophecy.

(As a brief supporting empirical note, up here in vancouver I rarely run across such folks when commuting in from New West, while I often run across them in downtown buses. There is a much higher volume moving people in from new west than moving local traffic in downtown)
I still have no idea what the right way to test things is

At my company, we use cucumberjs (https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-js) to write scenarios for basic front-end testing. I wouldn't go overboard and start writing test to measure padding or font sizes, but you can easily see isolated scenarios and write automated tests to simply verify that a react component actually put the right element in the dom or to check conditional class names.

We also unit test many of our Redux reducers which is pretty simple with any unit testing library. Just create an initial state and expected state, call the action creator, and deep compare the new state with the expected state.
It's true, of course, that the price of labor just comes down to whatever the employer and employee agree on (barring things like minimum wage and other "market distortions"). But it's also true that some people have ideas about fairness, and may be off-put by a pricing strategy they deem to be unfair. Thus, salary calculations like this, assuming they're known to potential employees, could definitely affect a potential employee's willingness to take a certain salary at a certain company.
> It's classic Tragedy Of The Commons.

It's not a tragedy of the commons unless something artificially prevents banks from charging a profitable rate for loans. If no other bank is doing business there, and if any bank which does do business is allowed to make a profit, then certainly one will. Indeed, that's what the 'loan sharks' are doing: providing desired services at a market-clearing rate.

It seems to me that a public bank will end up having to be subsidised from the general fund to cover its losses, which in the case of American Samoa probably isn't very large.
You couldn't add the rest of the title, which mentions that this is 5%? That's a much more relevant figure.
Try passing 1.1.1.1 if you want a no-js version of the infinitely scrolling website.
That doesn't make sense. Both deposit and borrowing opportunities exist at some price. Low risk deposits can be sold at a low price and high risk loans can be bought at a high price. If anything, what a bank naturally would want to do is to sell low risk local deposits, taking the cash to buy high risk loans elsewhere in order to collect the risk premium. The same happens in reverse. There is no inherent reason for money to move net-net, unless there is unequal demand for deposits and borrowing. For a place like Samoa, they probably need more borrowing, so banks wouldn't be extracting any cash, but rather bringing it in.
> Corporations have rarely (if ever) been meant to further public good. They have almost always been for "unrestrained pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all other concerns".

That's wrong. Corporations don't have an independent existence; they're legal entities created by law. The laws that allow for corporations were not written to better allow for the "unrestrained pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all other concerns," they were written because corporate legal entities were judged to be beneficial to the common good of the home country.

What they're meant to do is distinct from what will naturally do when their behavior is unchecked.

I think it's somewhat analogous to patents, which are rights created by law for the express purpose of incentivizing invention and encourage eventual public domain use.
I think that’s the Apple/Microsoft philosophy.
> If you have income and have and pay any recurring bills (even utilities, etc.) you have credit to exploit;

None of the three major bureaus track any of this information, so in practical terms they do not factor into a credit history. Income is not collected by itself and placed on a credit report. It's not a weak credit history but non-existent.
Why would a SF company pay the employee in Kenya more than they need to? They aren't trying to help out Kenya. They are trying to get the best workers they can for the cheapest that they can.

If they don't do some form of adjustment by location, they will either end up paying more than they need to for people in locations with low wages or they will get outbid when trying to hire people in locations with high wages.
>They can't have too short a route or too fast an interval, it doesn't work when you have huge variance due to personal cars, lights etc. impeding them.

Lots of cities have found ways around this. Express buses with dedicated rights-of-way in Pittsburgh, for example. Or Chicago's 146 Outer Drive Express and J14 Jeffrey Jump routes are also good examples.

Too often the biggest problem with buses getting around isn't the buses. It's cars driving, turning, or parking illegally in bus lanes.
It means they didn’t have to make any effort whatsoever to get attention and help of their male peers. Interpret this as you wish.
Unless you know more than us about their deficit, we can't really say how big this was. If they were spending 101% of revenues, for example, 35% off their deficit _is_ a blip.
I read the description, but I’m not entirely sure of what the purpose is of this hackathon? What would contestants be trying to build?
Hey jchw, Dana from GCP here. No promises on the timeline, but I can tell you that adding a request in the issue tracker (https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-go...) will at least put it on our radar so we start working on it sooner.
> I would define an employer market as the set of all the employers that a given employee is willing to work for, should he receive a competitive offer.

Isn't that a mostly circular definition? The competitive offer from a less desirable employer would simply be higher than it would be for a more desirable employer.
Yeah, I've used Digikey for a few odds and ends too. I wish Amazon would just deal with their seller issues. Per-seller labels to at least track which seller's goods are counterfeit and/or problematic would be a good start. A big fat warning when refunds/returns aren't handled by Amazon would be another.
> The “grid units” that spontaneously emerged in the network were remarkably similar to what’s seen in animals’ brains, right down to the hexagonal grid.

Could someone with more experience in ML explain what this means? In what sense do NN cells have positions or geometry? What are the NN heat maps below the quote showing?
Thanks, that was a nice write-up.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/1375+Bird+Ave,+San+Jose,+C...

If you go to street view, turn around and it's the house behind the green construction barrier. According to other realtor sites, houses in the neighborhood average $1.16 million.
> Isn’t this just a market value?

No.

> SV companies with a global presence surely don’t pay the same in their Bucharest office as they do in their SV office?

That's because local offices have limited hiring pools, because a person living in Bucharest can't practically work in an SF office, and vice versa.

> So does opening a physical office in a remote location suddenly make the idea of having “local pay” valid again?

For positions which must essentially be filled by on-site workers in that office, yes.

> And if not: should all global companies pay equally around the world to anyone who provides the same value within the company?

Rationally, they should offer as low as they think each employee will accept, but be willing to pay based on realized value (net, of course; people in different areas, even remote, may impose different costs.)

Otherwise they'll either be overpaying for value from high-cost regions, leaving money on the table, or missing out on talent thst would produce value in lower-cost regions thst take other offers, both of which reduce profits.
I'd think it's obvious that they can't invest their money profitably if you don't let them do that.
From whose perspective is this written? The employee? The employer? Current employees? Future employees? I'm not really sure.

On all four of those options, there are arguments to be made in either direction, and I think the idea it is a single, one size fits all question is misplaced.

Part of the allure of remote work is reduced cost, and longer runway. On the flip side, remote workers get to offer a discount in return for vastly larger employment options despite some additional problems created by a lack of physical proximity. That even with the discount it is more money than locally available is a double win. A universal change would also change hiring. I doubt many people would hire equally qualified, equally paid workers remotely versus in-house.

I think that proceeding from an unclear perspective makes the conclusions less relevant, and misses some of the nuance of the question, on all sides.
No reason why React couldn't be implemented in WASM. I'm less bullish than you are about WASM, though, since DOM interaction is going to be the bottleneck no matter which way you slice it.
There is an aspect of this that is not just strictly about carbon/$ and/or carbon/watthr.

There is an aspect of creating a viable alternative in California to the 'charge what you feel like monopoly that leads to annual increases even as costs to produce go down':
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/08/pge-customers-face-hi...
There seems to be some confusion.

Wealthy people typically have a larger carbon footprint than those who aren't well off. Think flights, buying a car more frequently, etc.

If everyone has the same carbon footprint, the tax is strictly neutral. If people have different footprints, money flows from polluters to non-polluters.
It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their part.

Base cost of living on what goes into the employee's pocket.

* Austin tech workers saw the biggest jump in salary last year - Recode || https://www.recode.net/2018/2/8/16989150/annual-salaries-ris...

* A ranking of the highest tech salaries in the US, adjusted for cost of living — Quartz || https://qz.com/1195354/tech-salaries-in-austin-texas-are-eff...

Texas doesn't have an income tax... cool, you don't need to pay as much as SF to get workers who are every bit as happy. Moreover... if I paid my guy in Austin the same as my guys in SF, it'd be like giving him a massive raise and showing a lot more favoritism.

If I just have rate X to spend on salaries, then the only people who I get live in cities where rate X is a good deal. I need flexibility to hire from anywhere, attract talent in Seattle, Boston, SF, Chicago, Geneva, Sydney... you get the idea.
> I always failed to use it when collaborating with others without finding myself with a huge amount of duplication with JIRA, Trello, or whatever collaborating tool is being used.

You could always try to convince everyone else to use org within a git repo. I'm serious: a decentralised VC system with structured text files is basically the centralised-project-tool killer.

And it's free. And it means everyone using emacs!
Also, express buses. Split the city up into zones, have local bus routes within the zones (maybe with some overlap) and have one or a few stops in the zone be feeder stations that let you transfer to inter-zone buses that zip around post-haste. Set it up sensibly and you'll have a quick transit for everyone. Take a hint from zoning (one bus zone covering an area with a lot of office parks) and you'll be able to scale bus volume more accurately during different times, i.e. less buses there on weekends and after seven or eight.
But it is a strong argument to people to take the initiative to live where transit is feasible rather than live where it's not and complain about it.

I live a 10 minute bike ride from a park-and-ride bus stop where I have several bus line options to get to work, my bike+bus commute is faster than my driving commute because the bus takes the express lanes (and can legally drive on road shoulders in some places). I do a full bike commute some days, but it takes about twice as long by bike as it does by bike+bus, so I don't do it all the time. If I didn't want to bike to the bus, there's a local bus that runs a block away from my house that I could take to the park and ride.

But I didn't end up with this transit accessible commute by accident, I purposely chose where I live so I could take transit.
"regulatory burdens push their prices up artificially.."

That has been known to happen in California with PG&E and CPUC. Doing a quick Google for PG&E rate increase:

https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu...
"Falsifying" is a strong term...
They probably just released some alternative stats
I'm in full agreement with you here.

This, plus seeing some of the "social media star women engineers" on twitter calling out the "White dudes" on some guys just for trying to have conversations with them.

This #MeToo movement gave power to a minority of women that know how to use it in their political advantage, while creating a bigger separation between women and men in general.
Things get over-stated because there would be nothing worthy of publishing otherwise. It's the same (f'd up) model that drives the MSM, etc.

The Internet...access to all the information in the world; most of which isn't new or worth knowing about. Bring a shovel. You're gonna need it.
What lets you pay them less is not their lower costs, it's the unavailability of higher pay in their area. So if you're going to do it, size it that way and, ideally, call it what it is.
Sometimes it's not even the passengers... it's the driver.

Riding the 152 in Chicago one snowy night (about seven years ago), the bus suddenly stopped and the driver made everyone get off into the snow because it was the end of his shift. When we asked when the next bus was, he said there wouldn't be once because he was the last bus of the night.

I ended up walking about a mile to the nearest Blue Line subway station, since the Blue Line runs 24/7.
This is pretty cool. But I've seen it done at a handful of companies. Where they have component libraries written in house. All those companies never open sourced their work - and it seems to me that it's a lot of reinventing the wheel
I don't mind paying remote workers based on their localised market rate. I have a problem with workers being rated based on their postcode (zipcode) though. I work in London. I commute in. Many of these pay calculators underestimate my wage potential by a large percent. That's BS and just attempting to get cheap developers for low pay.
How can it direct you to the nearest Chipotle if it doesn't know where you are? It must know who you are at least at the time of the query
This is an essay by the creator/author of How To Design Programs (currently at Northeastern) that lays out the pedagogy well:

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Thoughts/Developing_Dev...

The speaker in the talk linked is a previous Ph.D. student of the author above.

Northeastern, Brown, Northwestern, and Waterloo all use the approach in HTDP as far as I'm aware, even if they don't use the book itself. Racket just happens to be the language of choice (or rather X Student Languages are, not even Racket) because they fit the pedagogy well.
I'd like to know how implementing a template parser in JavaScript is more "Real JavaScript (TM)" than an actual function call (i.e., `React.createElement`).
The psychology of waiting for a parcel
> Back in the day, there were a few more women in CS :)

I actually think this is probably wrong. Back in the day there was a higher percentage of women in CS. It's possible that in absolute numbers there are as many women today in CS as there was then. That's because there's probably a lot more people in CS overall.

I also think it's likely that back in the day most college-educated programmers had EE degrees, not CS degrees, so what you'd really want to look at is the percentage of women in CS and EE, not just in CS.
Why? Golden gate transit buses are public buses paid for by tax payer dollars and fares, like every other bus system. They are not private systems. What an odd time we live in, when being proud of our public civil infrastructure gets one labeled an elitist. Should I be ashamed of our schools as well?
Does she have any demonstrable creative output or is she just a bureaucrat whom one can ignore?
I’m on a 5k iMac with zero problems on latest OS X.
I use react-router for native and there is a react-router-native package. You "shouldn't" listen to randos on the internet when they are demanding what you use or don't use.
Was expecting an article about the French Revolution. Disappoint.
That's hardly a problem. Since they can run JS, they could just add the TypeScript compiler itself into Excel and compile code on demand (and cache the results).
It depends on the use case.

eg if you have multiple web servers and a lot to keep cached then it’s more economical to have one machine with a lot of memory than each web server.

Another would be keeping the cache consistent, a single instance of Redis offers atomic operations and strong consistency. E.g ensuring rate limiting is correctly applied across a service’s instances.

Another would be decoupling state from apps which is especially important for serverless/FaaS where app memory is frequently cleared.

If latency is an issue it can be mostly resolved by using a 2 tier cache, an in memory cache that is backed by a Redis cache. Redis pub sub can then be used to keep the in memory caches in sync. Stackoverflow is a good example of this architecture.
There is a Greek movie based on the exact same idea. Its the "Alps" by George Lanthimos (later known from "Dogtooth" movie).

I don't about Japan, but that movie had a quite depressing ending (not to mention that the whole thing was kinda creepy and unsettling).
Racing is traveling, traveling is an essential human skill done by virtually everyone.

Please, let us not get into bad faith argument even deeper. Nobody here is arguing against talking to people. The question is about the safe and dangerous modes of talking to people.
Academia as in attending school, or going into teaching or research?

I am considering this to bolster my skills and career options, either for ECE or full CS degree. I don't have the accomplishments you do. Instead I see academia as one of several possible solutions to change a dead-end career.

However the million dollar question is how I can survive college full-time when I also need a job to pay all of my bills. Financial aid options are not as flexible as they were when going for your first Bachelor's degree. And then there's the problem of time management in your 30's and beyond...
I find it much more intimidating to take buses versus rail. For example, unlike most rail systems, buses will skip stops unless a passenger requests that the bus make a stop. Well, when I'm riding the bus for the first time or at night, it's quite easy to miss when I should request a stop. Meanwhile, if I take a train, I know the stations will stop at every station in its route and their are prominent signs at each station so it's much easier to figure out when I should exit the train. Plus often the same bus line may have different types of routes, such as an express route, so if I'm not careful making sure whether the bus has an X at the end of its name, I sometimes end up taking the wrong route that skips my stop.
> It costs less to live in some places... if someone was willing to pay me SF wages to live in suburban Texas... cool, I'm all for that. But it's stupid on their part.

No one is paying you to live in Texas, they are paying you to do some specific work. If you can produce as much value as the guy who lived in SF, and will accept 95% of the salary that applicant would, but the employer passed on you because you won't except 80% of what they’d pay for an SF developer, and they hire the SF developer instead, they’ve lost money.

Location pay when the job isn't tied to a location is irrational and involves the employer losing money.

Would you subsidize other employee lifestyle costs? Extra pay for a larger home, or more expensive car, or more frequent international travel? If not, why should you pay more for the same job because the employee lived in a more expensive region, when the job is not tied to that region?
Light rail is... well terrible. Build a real rail system separated from car traffic to avoid slowing down public transit to match the speed of private transit.
Journalism seems like it could be a good example!
>Bring your ideas for groundbreaking eSignature implementations and compete to win $10,000+ in prizes (along with fame).

clearly some sort of project that uses docusign.
So, creepy.
Bing Maps Releases Location Recognition API (preview)