skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem with healthy eating is that you get five opinions when you ask two experts.

However, you can't find a ton of videos on YouTube with plausible sounding explanations why a plant-based diet is healthiest. Just watch those and decide to believe them.
Whatever you do, do not read "The Plant Paradox". That book will ruin eating for you if you even so much as consider to ponder the possibility that it might not be total BS.
> It can be very hard to align your commission plan with what the company actually needs if the business you're into is non-trivial.

But...it usually is trivial. Businesses sell widgets: a ream of paper, a car, a CRM.

Is there anyone whose instrinsic goals are more aligned with the company's than a commissioned salesman? (Alignment with the customer's goals...that's a whole other story.)
I couldn't agree more. I think the illusion that hiring is a deterministic and rational process, combined with the fear of firing, leads to adding more and more filters, which just makes things worse.

It's a really expensive and inefficient system, and tends to worsen as companies grow. It would be much better to hire fast and fire fast.

As I recently blogged about this issue:

You may be one of those companies that makes much of hiring only the top 1% of the top 1% of applicants. This can be good for morale (“We are the best of the best”) but a too-selective hiring process is quite hazardous. If you find a way to effectively measure your false-negative rate, (the no-hires that you should have hired) you may find out that half your current team wouldn’t make it through your current hiring process. If people commonly apply to your company three or four times before getting in, your highly-selective hiring process is probably filtering on random noise more than skill or talent. In other words, your precision and recall[1] are both bad, the bad results are coming from a costly process, and adding more filters just makes things worse.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall
Fake reviews can be seen as an instance of Goodhart's law, where the metric is the rating or score of the business. Initially those ratings may have high correlation with something real, let's say the "quality" of the business. But the more people rely on those scores and the reviews underlying them, the more incentive businesses have to game the system— which destroys the original correlation between ratings and quality.

A big part of the problem with review systems is the one-to-many nature of nearly all of them: when a person posts a review, that review and its score can be seen by everyone. This leverage makes it very efficient for businesses to game the system, as a small amount of fake information can "infect" the purchasing decisions of a large number of users.

So, one alternative might be a many-to-many review system where you only see reviews and ratings from your network of friends/follows (and maybe friends-of-friends, to increase coverage). So essentially Twitter, but with tools and UI that focus on reviews and ratings. That way, fake reviews could only affect a limited number of people, making the cost/benefit calculus much less attractive for would-be astroturfers and shills.
You've only got one life, unless you have some strong beliefs, and if you calculate the weeks remaining assuming a lifespan of around 80... You can understand the reasoning of your girlfriend. Taking a step back, people are different. I'd rather slave away in a 9 to 5 than not be able to do things I enjoy, like taking advantage of good restaurants I can walk to.
You're right. Better to say they never joined because there parents were on there. School is insular and the first group to have their parents begin reviewing their social interactions, I'd guess around 2012, 'taught' the younger grades that FB wasn't worthwhile compared to alternatives.
And that's the reason that all of those other people aren't in sales!

You can just read the near-infinite stream of blog posts from engineers who figured out how to peg their compensation to the value they generate and instantly went from being drones to consultants or executives.

If everyone had adequate sales skills, corporations wouldn't have any margins. Profits are literally the realization of market inefficiency.

The number #1, #2 and #3 things you can do to improve your compensation are:

#1> Figure out how much value you create
#2> Figure out how much value you create compared to your peers
#3> Ask for your fair share of the value that you create or find someone who will pay you that
Bonus> If your fair share is less than your compensation, congratulations but start looking...or maybe you're good at selling!
> Carlson proved in 1938 that this process was viable, using moss spores for toner. But when he pitched it to Kodak, General Electric Co., and other tech giants of the day, the response was, as he later put it, “an enthusiastic lack of interest.”

Another story where the inventor goes to big companies to sell the product and they dont take him seriously which is kind of funny when Xerox became a big corp, it did not take the GUI/Ethernet created by their people seriously.
Signed binaries and open distribution channels are not mutually exclusive.
Philadelphia too: http://www.phillyh2o.org/
Your primary source appears to be the San Francisco Business Times. Kim actually supported inclusionary housing "up to the maximum feasible amount analyzed by the controller," not beyond it.[1]

And none of that supports your exaggerated claim that Kim would prefer 100 units over 1,000 units. She's overseen the construction of the most housing in the city.

[1] https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-de...
Mid 20's, for me it's Youtube, WhatsApp and Instagram. Also, Messenger occasionally.
EOS has DPOS (Delegated Proof of Stake) which is not wasteful like PoW, it is a trusted circle model, and transactions are free, and it is easier to distribute ICO-like tokens, I think it might go there from here
> People need to stop looking at companies as monolithic wholes and actually as the sum intentions of the owners of the companies, the investors.

This was my point. A vampire, mythologically, can compel a human to obey it: despite the human realizing that it'd really be a dumb idea to let something suck out all of your blood, it's still just really hard to resist letting the vampire do that. There is, I suppose, what might in modern language be called a "superstimulus"—something which causes some part of your brain to override the rest, despite the rest of the brain screaming "no."

Likewise, these hedge funds offer the ultimate opportunity to make a change that is good for investors at the expense of employees. The investors are the part of the brain that is compelled; the employees are the rest of the brain, screaming "no."

I've never heard of a co-op agreeing to be acquired by a hedge fund; have you?
By this graphic idea, do you mean the one I described or a different theme that you noticed?
Because I can't resist: Facebook has 6x better net margin; comparing the revenues of a global retailer to those of Facebook is a bit of an odd choice.
Unfortunately, the Electric Scooters Are Fantastic
That is often because the turnaround failed, not because it was planned.
Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations
> Why else would they provide this service for free?

Cloudflare runs the largest authoritative DNS server for their customers. The best way to make the DNS server faster is to make users query it directly.

For Cloudflare-hosted domains, instead of:

User → ISP's DNS resolver → ns.cloudflare.com.

you get:

User → [ 1111 → ns.cloudflare.com. ]

where the latter two are on the same machine.
> Rather than assuming that choices were made to confirm your biases, you might want to take a look at what the engineering realities were when the choices were made.

Whoa, calm down there partner.

I wasn't trying to claim it was necessarily an intentional choice to buck the common trend at the time (although my word choice does sort of suggest that), but rather that with the benefit of retrospect, it does fit the pattern.

I'm not super familiar with the tech climate at the time, but it seemed the IBM PC was pretty clearly going to be a big deal, and a lot of computer makers would clone aspects of the PC just for that fact. So, Apple at least chose not to do that.

Again, not trying to make any moralistic judgements here. I just thought it was interesting.
So is the contention that Apple is already insider attack-resistant? Or is the contention merely that they might be?
There were a couple points in there that could, may, should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Some good points were made however.

Social Security in its original Ponzi-Schemesque form will end up even worse for wear with declining birthrates. (Not saying Social Security is bad in concept, but it only works in times of sharp population growth, and even then, banking on the youth to carry you just because seems squicky to many ).

The observation of millenials being reluctant to have children is also spot on. Many that I have spoken to in the demographic are very much a "lost generation". They've seen parent's and elder's life savings disappear.

They have a harder and harder time adjusting to a world that seems specifically tuned to resist and feed off of them. See financial product/debt product proliferation.

It's harder to find opportunity when one has an additional complication of digital footprint to manage with a dearth of interest in anyone older than them willing or interested in making sure the past engraved on the net doesn't mark them for life.

The hamfisted "feminist" overtones aside, the article makes a chilling point. Long cycle economic predation and the social pressures to avoid debt first and foremost are an effective suicide switch at the population scale. An entire generation has been shaped by these pressures, and with no relief in sight, a drastic shift in values may be needed to avoid a grievous societal destabilization.

Interesting times indeed.
No. These are human issues. Humans can't get certain resources. Humans don't want to build new things. Humans don't want certain people to have housing. Changes in leadership do not heal these. Never have.
If it's the fastest and most secure, why are people throwing their weight behind DNS-over-HTTPS? There must be a reason for it.
Yeah I'll just download MPW. But I need to get the hard disk working and set up a rasberry pi as an internet modem first.
That seems like a shocking lapse in planning when installing very expensive solar arrays. Can you point to an example? Does this happen frequently enough that there’s nearly always somewhere to run a miner?
I believe it'll be 30 next year, actually. I'm 46 and got an SE/30 as a freshman at Drexel U in 1989, the year the SE/30 was released.
You say you're immune to bullshit media, yet you link zerohedge, and your entire view of things here (at least culturally) seems to be based off of sensationalist media and things said on reddit etc. I've never heard the term 'soyboy' in real life, most religious people are pretty nice, in fact most people aren't even religious to begin with, most conservatives are reasonable, 99.99% of gun owners are responsible.

I think you're wrong about America's 'relationship with religion' being pathological. In fact, Utah (the most religious state probably, and pretty advanced) has almost no homelessness. Contrast that with the most liberal/atheist states and it's pretty much the opposite. So, the church can play a positive role. That said, religion isn't actually relevant in many parts of modern US society.

As for guns, I think its a mental health epidemic with a bunch of columbine copycats, rather than a strictly gun issue. I could say that Europe has bad relationship with trucks.

The war on drugs is a disaster yes. The prison system is a disaster. The fat epidemic is a disaster (I blame corn syrup aka corn subsidies and car culture), but there are some pretty dang fat people in Europe too. Education quality depends on the state, but the northeast (MA, CT, NJ) has some great public schools. The political divide is a disaster. Healthcare "policy" is a disaster.

The US is so large and diverse that states act more like european countries, each with their own stereotypes and policies. For example, gun culture is non-existant in the northeast, yet in the west and south it is very prevalent. I mean, in NYC carrying even a folding knife is illegal, yet you're probably considered weird if you don't have one on you at all times in other parts of the country. In the EU, you have Greece and Switzerland, but they couldn't be more far apart culturally and even financially.

Europe does a lot of things better than the US, especially with infrastructure (new infrastructure - our old infrastructure is awesome we just haven't been investing in it for the last 30 years due to the small government conservitard meme). Overall QOL is probably higher.

As for what you do worse, a lot of EU states are nanny states with very high taxes. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of upward mobility. Salaries are low, but there is still inequality. You don't pioneer much.
Why? It seems to me that Blackstone was buying up homes when no one else was. They took a risk and it paid off.
Yes. The authors basically explain the rich-get-richer macro phenomenon as a consequence of individual interactions.

And it's easy to see this rich-get-richer phenomenon in action. Look at European football (soccer). There, once a team gets wealthy, it can buy the best players and continue to stay on top. That's the winner-take-all phenomenon right there.

Sports in the US have addressed this winner-take-all problem with socialism. Baseball, American football, hockey, and basketball have drafts, where the best new players get distributed to the worst teams. Such non-market, socialistic practices work to the benefit of the league because they put all teams on a more even playing field. (Restrictions on the free agent market, the football scheduling difficulty increase with winning, arbitration, and max contracts are all also forms of socialism that act to restrain the free market for players).

These are not bad examples of how completely free markets lead to unfair winners' advantages, and inequality. They also provide good examples of the kind of market regulations and protections that can level the playing field (no pun intended.)
wonder why the market isn’t pricing in the FB misery.look at 3 month on FB. back in march it was on ~190, then the cambridge shit dragged it straight down to ~150, now 3 months later we are back to ~190, exactly where we left off.
FYI Breed skipped out on practically all of the mayoral debates with no compunction whatsoever.
Why do people write their own memory allocators and put them in production software for modern desktop applications? It's not like you can eek that much more performance out, and the steam client is already fairly buggy. Switching the views is slow, and doesn't always work.
I think London has seven buried rivers.
I used and loved Google Buzz.
Another environmental article, another round of crickets from the cognescenti of hacker news.

I love that the oil and gas industry pretends that shoving a bunch of CO2 gas in the ground is effective carbon capture. As if gas won't leak out. Hey look! We "captured" it! Sure we're not measuring the entire countryside to see if it gets out some other way... And we'll be sure to plug that hole extra special tight, because we are oil and gas: we dot our Is and cross our Ts and
I've got a 512k, a plus, a classic, and an se, but I've always wanted an se/30 because it's probably the oldest mac you can run linux on [1].

[1] http://lowendmac.com/unix/02/0319.html
Confirmed: https://jisho.org/word/%E7%B8%9E%E3%80%85

Although the more common romanization would have it "shimashima"
Don't forget that JavaScript also has multiple fairly popular implementations.
Breaking a story should be rewarded. Ok, I'll admit it. I hate sites like TechCrunch or The Verge that simply take reports from other news sites, reword them, and then pass them as their own. It disturbs me to learn that HN favors TechCrunch like this.
Mid 40's, for me it's Civilization: Beyond Earth and yelling at kids to get off my lawn.
Your timeline and causality are incorrect.

Arthur Aderson and Anderson Consulting operated separately under Andersen Worldwide Société Coopérative since 1989. The companies formally separated in August of 2000, and the Accenture name was announced in January, 2001.

The Enron scandal broke in December, 2001.

Accenture's timing proved fortuitous, but coincidental.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
how long a history Apple has of choosing "technically better, but much less well adopted tech"

That's how I'd put it. When I found out that the replacement for their 3.5" 'Superdrive' cost $400 (while functionally-equivalent PC parts cost 1/10 of that), I started thinking of leaving Mac hardware behind. When they dropped serial ports I dropped them.
Not trolling. Maybe you could say what's "wrong with this picture", unreasonable, instead of darkly implying..something. The animal-eating issue is unusual, in that it involves not only ethical considerations, but turns on whether you count groups of life-forms as worthy of any ethical consideration whatever or not. Similar to racism, slavery, etc. They either seem totally normal, or horrific and unimaginable. If you can think of other examples you'd prefer were used, let me know. That's the point, that to vegans, these are indeed apt comparisons, but to people used to treating e.g. cows as walking bags of "meat" whose only value is to people, they seem, well, like trolling, apparently. Yes, they are very different ethical outlooks on life, but to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means.
This one's gold as well :) [1]

[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/scruffydan/1478541769
Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade.

America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
When has a person ever faced a different fate? Tell me that. "Who ain't a slave? Tell me that." Melville wrote that in Moby Dick when the energy sector still contained whale oil.

If a human civilization exists, it goes with labor as one of its odious growing pains, like inequality or the Four Horsemen. If any history I've read is to be believed, is is an AXIOM!!
Which is super interesting because twitch was justin.tv's pivot FROM mainstream live-streaming into the niche game streaming market
I would be shocked if there were not DMCA take-downs that left some people feeling raw - honestly how can you avoid that - but this sort of thing does not attract much notice these days.
Bandwidth bottleneck, no. Latency, time to first usable content on screen, absolutely.
Did you have a mac when they made those changes?
Gobs of money and also legal control of the companies' markets. Controlling Apple's various markets gives nations a lot of power that is tough to get even with lots and lots of money (yes, see Piketty, but it's rather inefficient to buy politicians even if some billionaires are working on doing so.)
I understand the physical/shipping portion of the ban, and why people would be redirected to amazon.com.au. Something that is substantially less clear, is how this impacts digital items, like Kindle books:

- Can I still buy those from amazon.com, or will I need to get them from amazon.com.au?
- If I need to buy from amazon.com.au, will that be subject to the same substantially reduced variety/options available?
Soon they'll realize that if you can't see someone's face in realtime, you're can't get the full scoop!! That's why my momma and her friends outgrew the Ma Bell Party Line.
Everyone votes with their feet: thats why the last Q of 2017 SF had a diminishing demographics.

But that does not make voting on housing representative of its population.
Not quite true. Charles Proxy uses a VPN in order to inspect network traffic, and that was approved. But I think in the general case what you said is correct and that Charles Proxy's approval is an exception.
Teenagers can get jobs and buy their own devices. Any age restriction past 13 or so is kind of pointless in the 21st century.
> This was my point. A vampire, mythologically, can compel a human to obey it: despite the human realizing that it'd really be a dumb idea to let something suck out all of your blood, it's still just really hard to resist letting the vampire do that. There is, I suppose, what might in modern language be called a "superstimulus"—something which causes some part of your brain to override the rest, despite the rest of the brain screaming "no."
You're viewing this as somehow negative. The investors gain by selling, they don't lose. There is no "sucking of blood" that occurs.

> Likewise, these hedge funds offer the ultimate opportunity to make a change that is good for investors at the expense of employees.

Employees are often part shareholders at these companies. They gain as well.

> I've never heard of a co-op agreeing to be acquired by a hedge fund; have you?

Try a google search, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41344946
She's approved more housing in her district than anywhere else in the city combined, so that's a little unfair. And she has answered exactly your question, if you care to take a look:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housi...
IIRC, the outcome of these studies were that intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. The ASVAB is essentially an IQ test with some domain knowledge questions sprinkled in.
Ben notes in the (second) extended video that perhaps 80% of Elizabethans were illiterate and that plays are to be performed, not read.

He'd prefer that Shakespeare be introduced first by the drama department in early secondary school so that kids as young as 13 or 15 could perform Romeo and Juliet at their intended character ages - thus bringing the work to life.

And that only once they've experienced the energy of performance that later in final years of 16-17 should they study it formally in English Literature classes.
http://www.terrierman.com/russianfoxfarmstudy.pdf

"At seven or eight months, when the foxes reach sexual maturity, they are scored for tameness and assigned to one of three classes. The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. (Even Class III foxes are tamer than the calmest farm-bred foxes. Among other things, they allow themselves to be hand fed.) Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the “domesticated elite,” are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs."

Pretty hard and fast criteria. Hard to let a slightly bushier tail affect your evaluation of whether a fox just snapped at you.
What’s the application you’re thinking of? Maybe there is an alternate solution.
Gravitational wave event likely signaled creation of a black hole
I read the same passage and did a double take.

If you give someone ownership of your company, obviously they're not obligated to give it back. It's their company now. You were dumb enough to give it away; why do you think they'd make the same mistake?

Also, to the extent that this had worked, it feels like an attempt at setting up a straw transaction to hide control of the company. Why exactly did they thing they needed to "temporarily" transfer ownership of the company?