skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The problem is that "spare" bedrooms (as Airbnb likes to call them) are far more lucrative used as short term tourist rentals than as a living space for kids, who cost a bundle and don't generally pay much in rent. The pitch Airbnb makes is that people have a spare bedroom lying' around and why not rent it out? But the thing is, people start to acquire properties with spare bedrooms for the purpose of having one to rent out - or entire housing units. When this proceeds apace, former communities - which in places like the French quarter are already primed to protect themselves from too much conversion into tourism stock - come to see Airbnb as an existential threat.

This doesn't seem like a plausible scenario. I highly doubt that Airbnb revenue from a spare bedroom is enough to offset the cost of the spare bedroom itself. Here in SF an extra bedroom easily adds 1K or more to the cost of an apartment. Between getting a 2 bedroom apartment and spending the time and effort to run a Airbnb in it, vs. having a 1 bedroom apartment and saving a lot of money without any extra effort it's hard to see people electing the former.

Most of the Airbnbs I've stayed in were vacation homes that the owners didn't live in most of the year, or families whose kids moved out.
I did start here as someone like you :D

https://github.com/jwasham/coding-interview-university
That was a touch of sarcasm. But there must be some pretty young people on HN too.
And I think people, including the person you responded to, would be open to that discussion if you had in any way supported your arguments with facts. If you want to propose "real solutions" provide some supporting evidence for why suicide hotlines do not provide good value for cost and what alternatives do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comments/7lfn1w/my_friend_... :)
That's not terribly helpful.

Plenty of people take that freedom as an axiomatic, inviolable good or right, but reasonable people can have different values.

Some people believe that those freedoms are necessarily a net win for the economy, but that's a pretty shallow argument too.

Maybe workers' rights are a race to the bottom, a tragedy of the commons -- perhaps some small amount of regulation would be good for business and for workers, by forcing companies to spend a small amount more to get a more sustainable workforce without giving up advantages to competitors.

Obviously these freedoms and protections exist on a continuum. We've mostly come down on the side of minimum wages, which is a compromise on those fundamental, absolute freedoms -- in a sense all "workers rights" are curtailments of "jobseekers rights".
The plaintext benchmark was also slow, so the JSON implementation may not be the main cause here.
They've been hollering about that for awhile now, the deal was supposed to close by Feb 15, then April 15, and now talks are suspended altogether. If it isn't dead I'd be surprised.
While I did enjoy the story, I don't think I agree with your conclusion.

What most people seems to think is happening is that as information (and related technologies like communication) has become abundant it also became really important. And that people working in the "gig economy" is adapting to this reality.

I don't think that is how things work. When something becomes abundant it is the other things that become important. As information has become abundant things like housing, education, security, recognition and contacts is what lets you leverage the abundance of information to create opportunities.

People working in the "gig economy" isn't adapting to a new reality, they are victims of the people who are now favored because of their access to housing, education and security.

This is of course counter to what should be happening. Any nation who want to take advantage of the abundance of information should make those other things readily available instead of letting them be captured by rent-seekers.
They already do this on Qatar.
Addendum:

I also don't believe that doctors really talk what the 'various causes are'.

I've been depressed, very much so, and I've read books that summarize scientific reading about depression like The Upward Spiral[0], and I feel like they miss the point, somehow. Like: we're great at finding treatments and things that work for individual people, but I sort-of think that the problem with depression is fundamentally everyone else, ie, 'society is sick', and we treat it as a personal problem because well of course doctors can't prescribe fixes to society, but they can for a person, so it's all stopgaps that don't address the "real problem".

I think that often depressed people have an idea of this -- that it is the existence around them that is sick, somehow -- and so no amount of suggestions (which indeed might actually help) quite gets to the bottom of that because it is the world that is fundamentally wrong. (Or specifically it is the nature of how they currently fit into the world.) From a treatment standpoint yes of course they should do the things that will probably help them, and people around them should be empowered to get them to do the things that will help them. But for the person that is struggling that really doesn't feel like the answer, and I think that they're not wrong.

(By 'society is sick' I mean that the person does not, for whatever reason, exist in the mentally healthy setting that their brain was 'designed' to exist in -- a healthy community, the right kinds of relationships, the emotional mentors and sources of wisdom that provide the right kinds of useful guidance, a body that works the way that it's supposed to, physically and mentally, etc; and a world around them that makes sense, that they can feasibly cope with, which is exactly the opposite of the nihilism induced by news of politics and global tragedies.)

[0]: (https://smile.amazon.com/Upward-Spiral-Neuroscience-Reverse-...)
Give it a shot. It's different enough from programming. It'll tickle the "how do I solve this" circuitry. It's a puzzle game in many ways.
That's why pencils have erasers. :-)
It’s not just the order but the placement, the titling, and ultimately the whole message being presented.

Windows managed to do this as backwardly as possible (no pun intended). Switching their button order vs. the Mac might not have mattered if Windows put the first button in the bottom left corner for predictability. Instead, they right-justified an entire group of left-ordered buttons so you have no way of knowing if the corner button will be the main action. Then they tended to use nondescript button titles, made worse by APIs that make it easier to pop up yes/no questions than Action1/Action2 (i.e. custom titles) so apps lazily trend toward nondescript. And then the OS had relatively tiny fonts without formatting that made it hard to understand at a glance what a message is even asking, requiring careful reading to proceed.

A good UI is not a very simple thing, there are lots of details to be considered.
I’m pretty sure every US-based international and every non-US-based flight I’ve been on in the past few years has had these.
But there's a big problem in finding the right moment. At many times I'd probably be annoyed.
IOCP is a pretty generic async IO API, not specific to networking - it is similar to epoll on linux and kqueue on BSDs and MacOS. Network.framework is an API which gives you more direct access to, and better support for TLS, TCP, and UDP.
> Surveillance Valley is a troubling book, but it is an important book... What it demonstrates in stark relief is that surveillance and unnerving links to the military-industrial complex are not signs that the Internet has gone awry, but signs that the Internet is functioning as intended.
This is just as easy to do with REST, though, and not something unique to GraphQL. Most of the time, the problem has to do with specifying fields to exclude rather than fields to expose, which makes it easy to add a private field to a model and have it automatically, unintentionally exposed by the API.
I literally suffer from claustrophobia and agoraphobia you sarcastic nitwit

I'm trying to explain to you that a window with some clouds does not alleviate my claustrophobia. So, whether the windows are virtual or not make no difference to me, even if one malfunctions...

Jesus
It's not zero. The numbers are pretty big:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment-resistant_depression...

Treatment-resistance is relatively common in cases of Major Depressive Disorder. Rates of total remission following antidepressant treatment are only 50.4%. In cases of depression treated by a primary-care physician, 32% of patients partially responded to treatment and 45% did not respond at all.

I'm not advocating withholding help from any of them. It's more of a philosophical quandary.

If you believe (as I do) that the universe is indifferent to human suffering, that life has no greater purpose beyond this one life, and that minimizing human suffering is worthwhile; then the idea of forcing someone to live a life of pain bothers me. And at the same time, the idea of a suicide increasing the suffering of those left behind also bothers me.

It's probably impossible to avoid this degenerating into a religious debate, but those are my thoughts.
"Ok" for a change (that's described in the body of the dialog's text) is... okay, I suppose.

But it's better to mirror the action verb for your confirmation button, because users don't necessarily read the text you present them with. So, instead of this:

Delete xyz.jpg?
--------------------------
The file 'xyz.jpg' will be
permanently deleted.
--------------------------
[ OK ] [ Cancel ]

You have:

Delete xyz.jpg?
--------------------------
The file 'xyz.jpg' will be
permanently deleted.
--------------------------
[ Delete ] [ Cancel ]

And you get one more chance for the user to see what action they're about to perform.

There's very good, detailed guidance on this in the Windows design guidelines (the design-specific aspects are a bit dated since everything there refers to Vista/7-era UI elements, but their guidance on text and dialog styles is still applicable):

Text: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn7...

Dialog Boxes: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn7...
Note that I followed the section you quoted with this: >Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense.

You completely ignored that part.

Please explain how my body could be worried about starving if my hunger is satiated.

Your answer also ignores this part:
> The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems.

How is reducing our calorie intake from WAY to much to just right going to make my brain start worrying about starving?

Also, if my brain is worried about starving, it should be MORE motivated to gather resources for, if nothing else, more food!
It is really addictive though. When you get to the point of having little helper robots that do your bidding... Priceless.
I was a child in the 80s in the US and there were some wonderful programs aimed at children that made a huge impact on my generation if nothing else: 3-2-1 Contact, Reading Rainbow, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Sesame Street all left indelible and positive marks on my person and have made be a better person.
The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review
I admit that I exaggerated with my wording that you think Google is non-existent on the academic front. It's unfortunate that your response focuses almost entirely on this one aspect, and not the message my post attempted to convey.

> someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers

This type of wording is unnecessary. You are declaring that you are correct, while at the same time not providing supporting evidence when requested.

> This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish

Welp. I am sorry this had such a negative effect on you. We can certainly agree to disagree. Cheers.
> Use whichever placement your users are going to be the most familiar with, but whichever you choose, be 100% consistent with the choice you make.

I think this is the right answer. Personally and anecdotally, I doubt it makes a noticeable difference which way they are, as long as they are that way everywhere. I will soon learn that "confirm/apply/proceed" is one way, and "back/cancel/revert" is the other way, whichever way those tend to be. Just make sure you don't flip on me.
This is the file you arre looking for: https://www.unicode.org/Public/11.0.0/ucd/UnicodeData.txt
There was a lot of good work done by Apple in the days of classic Mac OS - see eg pages 103, 196-7, 201 and 206-7 from the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, available eg at http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf

Some of the reasons behind the suggestions (which are clearer when you view the associated pictures in the pdf):

"The Western reader’s eye tends to move from the upper-left corner of the dialog box to the lower right. Put the initial impression that you want to convey in the upper-left area (like the alert icon), and place the buttons that a user clicks in the lower right. Following this guideline makes it easier for users to identify what’s important in a dialog box."

"The button names in the save changes alert box correlate to the action
users perform by pressing the button. The buttons read Save, Don’t Save, and Cancel. Using these verbs reinforces the identity of each possible action to the user. In other words, the Don’t Save label provides much more context for the user than the word No does."

"In order to prevent accidental clicks of the wrong button, you should always keep safe buttons apart from buttons that could cause data loss. Standardizing the location of buttons in a safe configuration provides an additional safeguard for the user. Place the Save button in the lower-right corner with the Cancel button to its left. Place the Don’t Save button left-aligned with the message text. Make the Save button the default button, which means that it should be linked to the Return or Enter key. This way, the user is less likely to accidentally click the Don’t Save button or activate it with a keystroke and cause irretrievable loss of data."

"Whenever possible, name a button with a verb that describes the action that it performs. Button names should be limited to one word whenever possible. You should never use more than three words for a button name."

One good justification for the Cancel->OK order is that it means the default button (usually the OK button, but also Save, Print etc) is always in the same position in the dialog -- far bottom right -- regardless of how many other buttons there are, and how wide they are. This gives consistency / familiarity / muscle memory.

It also lets you place "data loss" buttons well away, in the far bottom left, as "an additional safeguard for the user". On classic Mac OS, you always knew pressing a button towards the lower left corner, and set away from the other buttons, could spell trouble.

The problem with the Windows way of doing things is that the default button moves depending on the width and number of other buttons, and there is no "safe button place" and "unsafe button place".
I would be very surprised if BFR ever flew from Vandy. That sort of capacity isn't really needed for high inclination orbits.
> So I take the whole "Tesla is automating EVERYTHING!" with a grain of salt.

FTA:

> Even so, Tesla says the Model 3 body line is now 95 percent automated, including the transfer, loading, and welding of parts.

Apparently, there's a big difference between the "body line" assembly and the rest of the line, as people in r/teslamotors have pointed out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8pim5q/inside_...

> When I was visiting the BMW plant in Munich a few years ago, they said the body line was automated 99%. It‘s really impressive, showed me that the real secret is not in the design of your car, but the design of your assembly line.

> But keep in mind that this is only the body line. The rest of the assembly process involves quite a bit more humans.
SpaceX is a total steamroller. Its insane. I think in 2005 nobody could have quite seen this comming. Even Elon must be suprised.
I saw it last night, it was wonderful and very well done.
The labor market is never free, because living isn't free - almost every participant is coerced.

We're all trading time and willpower for money. If the gig economy has a poor ROI, people can end up in poverty traps - stuck working a couple shitty jobs because they need the money to survive, but the jobs consume so much time/will-power that they can't pursue alternatives.

This becomes a huge issue for Uber-style companies where workers buy their own tools (cars), in exchange for uncertain per-trip wages with no benefits. They're called "contractors", but realistically what can they do if Uber "fires" them? Work for Lyft? Same shit, different logo.

Uber's practices are outright deceptive - they compare very optimistic ridesharing wages to hourly employee wages, without considering their car ownership/fuel/taxes/maintenance/insurance costs. I did some napkin math a while back which suggested quite a few drivers are actually losing money in the long-run (primarily maintenance and lower auto resale value).
Apple Human Interface Guidelines do indeed recommend the "OK" type buttons on the left for right-to-left texts (and put the menus on your mobile apps on the right instead of the left, etc). Computers do not generally use vertical text for localization, for example, Chinese and Japanese are left-to-right as far as the computer is concerned. (This doesn't apply in all cases just to the way UIs are localized. You can still make text vertical, for example, see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/)
Yes, precisely. The worst UI I've ever seen was:

"Cancel this action?" "Yes" "Cancel"

Seriously?!
I usually agree, but while it certainly feels like programming it does so in an entirely theoretical environment where both concurrency and parallelism is nearly infinite. I think that makes it feel different enough.
> No, those numbers are not helpful.

I think those numbers are useful. Microsoft spends $14B on CS R&D. We can go back and forth about the R and the D, but that's still a freaking huge number.

> The OP specifically said Microsoft was the largest funder of academic CS research.

Needless to say, I'm not OP, and I never made any of the claims OP made.

The only purpose of my original post was to try and share what numbers we do have on this question.

And I stand by reply calling BS on the distinction between research based upon whether money is flowing into professors' research groups. Some of the world's greatest patent lawyers are retained by universities, after all.
Too bad it isn't developed anymore. i already try to use it, but i was facing hard time with this lib.
Who Pays Photographers (And How Much)
Just in most cases its not necessarily better to have written the script. You could learn the script in a situation in which the time payoff isnt so terrible.
"Using neural networks" is the new "on a computer"
> What downsides of frameworks cause you to want a domain-specific language?

Because it is a kludge. The language has a different paradigm it was built on and there will always be mismatches. Coroutines are not agents and don't have all of the properties of agents specified in [1].

> Given async/await, coroutines, and a good library to drive the event loop, what else is missing that you would like language-level support for?

I don't want to program in a language that doesn't treat agents as the primary unit of organization with their own threads and communications. I don't want to have to think in terms of a pieced together system. Frankly, having objects that can act without agents is just a painful idea.

1) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123...
I would never pay for a ride in someone's car before the ride completed. Taxis don't expect that; who does this guy think he is? If he wants something up front he's out of luck. In fact I probably would reject the offer as I suggested above, but if I accepted I would immediately cancel the trip. If Uber want to charge for a cancelled trip they can bite my ass.

It is probably "privilege" as a big heavy white dude with a perpetually surly expression that I'm not alerting on "danger" in such a situation. If I were a different person I could totally imagine reporting the driver and trying to get him fired. People worry when getting in strangers' cars. Actually once in India I did get such a misdirected cab ride, but my Indian friend noticed and convinced the cab driver to stop. He chewed the driver's ass for a while, then we got another cab.
Also cameras stop working or get obstructed, displays stop working, power gets lost, etc... A window just works
Vandernberg is generally used for highly inclined orbits or polar orbit launches. The earth's rotation is used to assist eastbound launches for equatorial/geostationary, so eastbound is preferred. Such as most of the launches from Florida and Wallops.

One of the weird bits of space trivia is that Israel's domestic rocket and satellite launch program makes the sacrifice of less efficient launches and less total delta-v in the first and second stages, by launching westbound over the ocean, because they really do not want to launch what is almost indistinguishable from a ballistic missile eastbound over their angry neighbors. Pretty much the only place in the world where low-inclination launches occur westbound.
I think they're cool. The Surface Pro and Surface Book are the only computers since the iPad first came out that I actually wanted to buy.

They also put Linux in Windows, released visual studio for free, created one of the most popular text editors ever, and created 3 programming languages that are generally well liked (C#, F#, and typescript).

I'm not sure how cool they are compared to Google, Amazon, Netflix, Apple, and Facebook but I personally tend to compare them to enterprise companies like IBM and Oracle. Microsoft wins that coolness contest easily.
> But little I knew, that this is actually specific to windows, and on Linux or macOS, the order is reversed

Actually on Linux it depends on the toolkit and/or environment you are using and in this case it seems that GNOME/GTK is the odd one out. After doing some search, it looks like that every other toolkit and environment uses OK -> Cancel:

http://ocsmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/plasma-krunner-... (KDE)

https://docs.kde.org/trunk5/en/kdeaccessibility/kmouth/kmout... (KDE)

https://api.kde.org/4.x-api/kdelibs-apidocs/kdeui/html/kdial... (KDE)

https://www.sao.ru/hq/sts/linux/book/xbook_marshall/prompt.g... (Motif)

https://www.sao.ru/hq/sts/linux/book/xbook_marshall/dialog1.... (Motif)

http://northstar-www.dartmouth.edu/doc/idl/html_6.2/images/m... (Motif)

http://www.antillia.com/oz++/images/IconBar.png (Motif)

https://tkdocs.com/images/idleprefs_l.png (Tk)

http://zetcode.com/img/gui/tkinter/colorchooser.png (Tk)

http://www.fltk.org/doc-2.0/html/filechooser.gif (Fltk)

Even on TUIs/Console the order tends to be OK -> Cancel:

http://linuxcommand.org/images/adventure_dialog-radiolist.pn... (dialog)

https://i.imgur.com/ruW7AQE.png (Free Vision)

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pfalcon/picotui/master/pic... (picotui)

Also FWIW in my own programs i am always going OK -> Cancel since it feels more natural.
Every developer should be forced to tech support at some point. And additionally sales calls. While I really hated doing the latter it gave me some appreciation to what they have to do. Customer support gives you insight into how your actual customer used your service and their pain points. It's incredibly valuable as developer to see that point of view directly.