skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'll be completely honest, as your standard "data scientist" who hopped on the bandwagon and came from having a PhD in academia in an unrelated field, I cringe at these articles. I'm not entirely sure why. I think it may be two-fold:

1. A little bit of the selfish "oh no, the secret's out, at what point is my salary going to drop when the demand is met by the dedicated Master's degrees and bootcamps?"

and

2. These articles seem so incredibly corny, it's almost embarrassing. The "hottest job"? Ahhhh, stop it. But these things go in an out of phase, similar to back in the day when "anesthesiologist assistants" (CRNAs, AAs) were the hottest thing for Bloomberg to talk about. It will not last forever.

The irony is that I probably only knew "data science" (always in quotes) existed because I read one of these cheesy articles. I mean, we all know that statistics have been around forever, but that there were dedicated positions where you could run stats, build models, and then deploy them all in a single role was foreign to me.

So it's a combination of a potentially irrational fear of self-preservation, and laughing at the state of affairs where some basic stats work will pull in that kind of money.

I tend to have fears about the future, always wanting to hedge myself so I don't become outdated. In the data science sense, I see the field becoming super super broad and eventually saturated with new supply, so I debate on whether I should pivot into management of analytics in general or not. I.E. getting my hands off the keyboard. Ultimate goal would be to help define, strategically, how statistics/data mining/machine learning/yada/yada/yada are used at a company.
That's exactly what I'm saying - the goalpost for what "doing well" is has moved, we now expect more of ourselves because of the visible relative affluence of our immediately previous generations. We don't see how the baby boomers started, but we see how they are ending, and that's set the goal for our own success.
Seeing is not simple: you need to be both knowing and naive
This looks like great work, but I must be wired wrong, but I hate material UI usability on the desktop. I found myself to be much more productive with more traditional approaches. I don't mean component look/design which I don't really care, as long as I can identify a button, but more the trend to organize things, well "differently". For example, the play store developer dashboard is a nightmare to use, it takes me forever to find functions X or Y. I don't know, "in the old day" I could find where function X would be located very quickly, now I have to search the UI in all places and expand everything until I can find it. Also actions available only when hovering something with the mouse are sometimes hard to discover, especially for keyboard users like me who "tabs" through all controls in a page.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348502 (2017)
Unrelated to the article, but when I zoomed in to 150%+ in Chrome, this image [1] turned into this image [2]:

https://www.contextis.com/media/images/made/media/images/con...

https://www.contextis.com/media/images/made/media/images/con...
For example, You may note that Scott Forstall doesn't work at Apple anymore.
The above comment makes no mentions of who is doing what to whom. I think the idea of “us” doing things worse than I could imagine is just as scary as the other way round. You are indirectly part of the responsible bodies and may face the backlash without having been able to not only do but even know anything about it. Imagine for exemple being a Russian citizen whose quality of life is diminished due to political/economic sanctions as a result of your country's espionage activity being revealed.
I had to write a JavaScript program on graph paper (with no computer on hand) as a college test. Then the professor would type them out afterwards with you and try to run it. Whenever I hear about this whiteboarding issue I think of that. It was actually kind of fun in a weird way though. I drew nice curly braces.
I have seen HSMs in a concrete fireproof room, inside another concrete room, inside a regular room, inside a nondescript building. This one required the use of 3 persons (one to authorize entry past the 2 guys with rifles, one to unlock the vault rack with the hsm, another to authenticate to the HSM to perform work).
"Realtek, which means that the authors of the worm were somehow able to break into the most secure location in a huge Taiwanese company"

err, no. The companies gave the US access. as for all the 'unknown windows vulnerabilities' it exploited, I wouldn't be 100% surprised if Microsoft left the vulnerabilities for what ever security agency that made it.
Maybe a better source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/the-facebook-...
Steve Wozniak Recounts His Efforts to Engineer the Apple II Floppy Disk System
In 20 years, a virtual WMD may well instantly obliterate millions of people.

I'm already unsure of what the most possible damage someone could do with over-the-air automobile firmware updates is today, just to take one example. What would it be like if someone put out a virus that at 11:32:42am on March 3rd, 2036 causes every GM, Ford, and Tesla self-driving car to lock all the doors, floor the accelerator, and let the chips fall where they may?

Consider not just the immediate impact of the crashes, but the fact that you just completely obliterated emergency services (they couldn't hope to serve but a tiny fraction of the victims), choked every major road and most of the minor roads with wreckage, wrought a catastrophe so large that while I don't predict what the effects would be, we're talking something more defining for a generation that would handily compete with both World Wars combined for psychological effect, with the Great Depression tossed in for good measure... it would be astonishing.

I'm not even sure we couldn't get close to that in 2018, to be honest. What if by some horrors the Stuxnet authors were set the task of making this happen? How close could they get?
Honest question:

Is raw intelligence or wisdom more important for success in biotech? It seems to me that raw intelligence is useful when studying systems that are either designed rationally or can be understood easily from a mathematics perspective. On the flip side, I think experience is important when dealing with biology which is often messy and not easily understood because so much is still unknown and everything is the result of an accumulation of random variations.
I've read contradictory claims. Another commenter mentioned changes to their personal blog to be compliant.
> why do they have to be so freaking smug about their favorite techniques?

Because they haven't yet spent 30 years watching those techniques being used successfully only to read that, in fact, they obviously don't work at all.
https://beta.cent.co/
I had a feeling that in Europe, a lot of those jobs run under Data Analyst. Data Scientist roles at small companies can go in that direction but most that I've interacted with strictly don't do Excel anymore where possible. Mostly because they found out that turnover is very high if you hire Data Scientists for VLOOKUPS, so you'd better give talented people other tasks to keep them.
Choosing the Right BBW Dating Sites for Hookup
"You are given two eggs, and access to a 100-storey building. Both eggs are identical. The aim is to find out the highest floor from which an egg will not break when dropped out of a window from that floor. If an egg is dropped and does not break, it is undamaged and can be dropped again. However, once an egg is broken, that’s it for that egg.

If an egg breaks when dropped from floor n, then it would also have broken from any floor above that. If an egg survives a fall, then it will survive any fall shorter than that.

The question is: What strategy should you adopt to minimize the number egg drops it takes to find the solution?. (And what is the worst case for the number of drops it will take?)"

http://datagenetics.com/blog/july22012/index.html
You also cannot transpile Proxies, since they do not have an equivalent in "old javascript" as they are a feature in such a level that cannot be built with previous tech.
I'm afraid to say that typically you need to self fund your MVP to get your foot in the door if you don't have a network you can hustle within

Also, I've seen that roboticized, motorized lawnmowers already have quite a few offerings. do you feel you have the resources to compete? perhaps you can work for one of these firms instead
Great comment about the mouse at the end.

John replied, “I wanted to ask him what would happen
if you put more than one key on a keyboard.
But I didn’t.”

The first thing I do when I get a new Mac is throw away their crappy mouse, and replace it with a decent three button mouse.
That kind of complacent pride is very dangerous. Do you think the facebook ads are the only route taken? And do you think that nobody else is going to refine and develop these methods? The whole world saw an opportunity last November.

What we just saw was a public alpha. There will be a beta and a final version of this system. The rewards are too great for every state-level actor to ignore and fail to develop election manipulation tools using any new technology they can get their hands on. Big data may have doomed democratic process in an irreversible way. The next couple of decades will be telling.
That’s not true. It’s implemented by each data regulation agencies in each country. The CNIL in France for example. There is no EU GDPR agency.
I thought it was "you won't have to use a whiteboard at this workplace" lol.
This is what pisses me off the most about all the hysteria and whining:

"The law has been in effect for over two years at this point, and the DPD, the European Data Protection Directive has been in effect for over two decades. So no, this law was not sprung on anybody, though it is very well possible that you only became aware of it a few weeks or months (or days?) ago. If that’s the case do not panic, you too will most likely be fine."

Nevermind the fact that the underlying privacy laws are much older, and so many practices were already essentially illegal but went unchallenged so far.
I have one Firefox tab opened with that repo, haven't tried it yet in part because I'm kind of loosing hope. Starting to believe we'll have to build something ourselves.
Forbes doesn't have a Russian bias. It has a business model bias. In short, it milks its good name while paying a low per click rate.

This combination is very, very attractive to propaganda operations. People who see themselves as writers cannot make an actual living there, but writing for a publication their parents recognize feeds their ego.

This can work either overtly or more subtly. They can simply reward useful perspectives with clicks, or they can offer additional steady money work through other channels. Either way they have an entirely deniable useful idiot.

Forbes is particularly full of this.
Should I have said Facebook...? These are the only news outlets I visit, so it's pretty prevalent. I also really like how I got down-voted for asking a question. Cool, I'll not ask any more questions.
It would also be useful in finding hash collisions which would give an attacker access to a user's account without needing the actual password, which is made easier with the ability to study the client-side code doing the hashing, and taking note of the algorithm and methods used.

Sending a password in plaintext over HTTPS is more secure than hashing it in javascript first and sending the hash.
This story, to me, highlights Jobs' notorious ability to change his mind when presented with information that pointed to the right way of doing something, even in the face of social pressure to do otherwise. He could've been more diplomatic about it for sure. But so many people of his ilk don't have that capacity that it makes me think its more a facet of that personality type than a character flaw in particular to Jobs.
Kristioff wrote aabout this last year too, name-dropping Kamala Harris as one of the officials refusing to pursue justice, a name people have been mentioning as a Democratic Presidential contender in 2020:
https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/multiproduct/lp8HYKU.ht...
To say there are NO theories as to how this can operate and NOT violate conservation laws is incorrect. Laymen just don't comprehend that there are possible theoretical paradigms they have not considered or are not aware of, so their knee jerk reaction is "not possible!":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

"Vacuum energy

Main articles: Zero-point energy, Quantum vacuum thruster, and Pilot wave Harold White, the lead scientist in the NASA investigations, suggested in 2014 that their model could be an example of a quantum vacuum thruster (QVT). This is a theoretical system that would use magnetohydrodynamics to generate thrust, similar to conventional plasma thrusters, only using the fleeting vacuum quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field as an extremely low-density plasma.[82][23][83][84]

White's 2016 paper states that pilot-wave theories, non-mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics based on the de Broglie–Bohm theory, may help explain how QVTs could "push off of the quantum vacuum and preserve the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.".

In 2017, a Portuguese team published a paper proposing pilot-wave theory as a possible explanation to the EmDrive thrust, that would not break conservation laws. The principle is that a sufficiently strong asymmetrical electromagnetic field could act as a pilot wave. The cavity would then be attracted toward regions of higher electromagnetic intensity. The researchers propose to increase thrust by shaping the cavity with an exponential form like that of a trumpet bell instead of a frustum.[85][86]"
>Reputation is misleading. The Special Theory of Relativity is not good because Einstein wrote it. It stands on its own.

Your Einstein example actually contradicts your point about reputation.

The mistake is using hindsight to judge that paper's quality. Instead, we have to imagine looking at that SR paper as if we lived in 1905 and didn't know if the 26-year-old patent clerk was a crackpot or a genius.

Einstein sent his manuscript to an academic publisher where Max Planck was one of the editors. This is important because MP already had the reputation in physics so his recognition of Einstein's papers' value was taken seriously.[1] The journal itself also had a reputation which was reinforced by the reputation of its editors.

In 1905, Einstein's papers didn't stand on their own. Its dissemination and acceptance was helped along by Max Plank's "stamp of approval".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Einstein_and_the_th...
Because of the Avengers or?
That's all very well but theory and maths aren't too relevant when the man behind the button is an illiterate cretin.
The trend of whiteboard interviews is quite catching up.
i found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photometric_parallax_method

> The photometric parallax method is a method of data analysis used in astronomy that uses the colours and apparent brightnesses of stars to infer their distances.
Does anybody remember the interface from Plan9 or Inferno where the "kill process" button was originally a smiley face with blood trickling from a bullet hole in the forehead? Then they fixed it to be more bland when it started shipping more.

Oh, and the Comedian just wore a regular smiley button. The blood was his own, spattered from when he was thrown from a building. No bullet hole.
I have a love / hate relationship with bucketing a whole lot of formerly separate disciplines into the data science label.

In my case, I'm a reasonably solid R / Python programmer (who occasionally dabbles in racket, clojure, and others). I've got the sort of applied statistical training of someone who took a quant-heavy course load in a PhD program. I've even (by title) been a data scientist a couple times now.

Having recently decided to reenter the job market, I'm reminded that finding the RIGHT data science role is a major challenge. When someone wants a data scientist, they may be looking for someone with a lot of specialist depth in operations research, financial forecasting, machine learning, data-focused software engineering, or some other not-at-all-universal area of expertise.

In some ways, I almost think that someone with a bootcamp level understanding of stats may be at an advantage. Whereas I'm very inclined to be, "Oh! You want this other kind of person. Would you like me to put you in touch with one?" I think someone more junior is inclined to be "How hard can [X] be?"
>I need to know you can do the work

And I need to know what the work exactly entails, and what is expected of me. Many interview questions are disjoint with what the job actually requires.

>Prove to me you can

I can show you my past experience, and I can do technical exercises. What I can't do is devote a ridiculous amount of time and effort to poor questions.
The point is "post a job for $xxx". This shit has gotten popular after the success of weworkremotely
> It's mission was to destroy some expensive industrial centrifuges and set back Iran's nuclear program. And it destroyed some centrifuges precisely as it was designed to. At that point discovery is inevitable, but whatevs because "mission accomplished".

I think it might be considered a partial success, but mostly failure. It did successfully set back Iran's nuclear program and destroy some centrifuges, but it spread too widely so it was probably detected much more quickly than desired.

Also, if it had been discovered only at the nuclear fuel plant, Iran might have kept quiet about it out of embarrassment, allowing it to be deployed elsewhere. Instead it was picked up by a major AV vendor and dissected very publicly.
> not something a teenager has lying around

Ha, generally true probably, but in my case as a teen I got my hands of a bunch of old industrial PLCs and built all kinds of interesting things in my room. :-) Ladder logic is how I got started programing, I didn't even have my own computer back then.
I've seen some people use NeurIPS.
...do people really hate whiteboard interviews enough for a website like this to make money?
Yelp Sucks. Lets Start Not_yelp
So the idea for not_yelp was to have a review site that was fair to both parties. After a user post a review the owner of the business will have a chance to make their customers happy. The complete dialog between the owner and the customer will be posted and then you as the not_yelp user will get to decide if the customer was out of line or if the business isn't giving good customer service. Also the option for the business to pay to take down bad reviews will not be an option at not_yelp. But we will only be leaving up 2 years of reviews to make sure they are accurate and up to date.

https://github.com/nagano564/not_yelp
I'll just point out that companies are spending a lot of employee time doing these interviews, and if they're picky, that greatly increases the cost. Every day of interviews of someone they don't hire is money down the drain.

They can afford it, but still, it's far to say that the wasted effort isn't entirely one-sided. Hiring is an expensive and inefficient transaction.

Figuring out how to make this both more fair and more efficient is a really tough problem.
That's actually what happened according to the story. The lead admitted that Carmack was right, and then Jobs got angry at the lead for not making a good technical decision from the outset.
Parent poster had a mildly healthy distinction between theory and practice. Unfortunately it overlooks the reality that people in power will misuse it, even if the law requires 100% certainty as proposed.
Sure, a great software developer can built a solution with a simple problem definition, "We spend a lot of money communicating with stakeholders."

You have to understand though, as a good developer, if someone asks me a question like that, it strongly implies that they don't know what the hell they are even doing. Hiring managers have to be keenly aware of what their questions are implying about their companies. I don't think many give it much though other than googling, "tough interview questions."

FWIW, I've sat on both sides of that table.
> For instance, I run a small community website (~30 people). I receive no income, and I know everyone involved

You may be able to ignore GDPR compliance in your situation, as per article 2:

> This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: [...] by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity; [...]

There is some more information in recital 18, that says

> This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.

So if you're not making money, and you're not established as a business you should be okay.

If you have any doubts or concerns, become compliant or ban all EU/EEA users.
Stop worrying & go vertical, aka use these (and any other momentarily fashionable) tools in the niche domain you are a PhD expert, so that you will never become outdated.
Congratulations and thank you! This is a fantastic library, my team has been using the beta versions successfully in both desktop and mobile projects. The overall quality of and amount of components in this library has resulted in a major productivity and user experience boost for us.
What does competitors stop doing that now?
No business is 100% compliant in any law. If they want they can just for the sake of it bury you in legal work already.

See Google vs Oracle. Apple vs Google.
You're not wrong, but there were multiple incidents during the cold war where the US and Soviet Union came very, very, very close to a nuclear exchange, and it was only dumb luck (and sometimes the heroic actions of individuals who were in the right place at the right time) that saved us. We were lucky, and luck is not a plan.
It is just semantics, related to philosophy, but not astronomy. Planets do not even orbit around sun, but center of gravity which is outside of sun.
> I believe college should be free, and that colleges should limit their number of students in any given program to some sustainable number, where the graduates can actually earn a living.

So, who gets to choose how many? If you leave it to a professional association you end up in the situation we have with doctors in the US, where we definitely do not have enough.

And who gets to pursue their degree? Do colleges get to keep choosing whoever they want? Because that's probably just going to reinforce the Aristocracy you are complaining about. Do we do it on test scores? Besides the obvious bias issues, not your entire career is determined by some test scores, is that really what we want?

Maybe it's just me, but I really dislike the idea that some exams you take at the end of school basically control how the rest of your life will go, and I'm basically ok with the art history people only being the sons of daughters of aristocrats because there's no money in it.

I think educating people without putting them in debt is a great goal, I just don't think this is a good way to get there.

[EDIT]: In terms of counter-proposals, I think college is actually not the right place to be focussed. I think our housing, transportation and healthcare policies basically make lots of places close to unlivable for those doing low status jobs. I think we need to get very serious about density & public transit. We need to figure out how to do construction on both cheaply so that we can house everyone affordably. Basic income is great and all, but so much of that will go to rent that I basically see good housing/transit policies as a prerequisite for making that actually sustainable.