skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
you may be right. would be curious to see polling numbers.

my reaction is perhaps a little overheated, but it's frustrating to see a city that is completely inept at solving its many real problems so quickly and effecively squash something that is at worst a minor inconvenience and at best actually a signifcant boon.
Ask HN: Great interviews followed by weird chat with hiring manager
Major US company hiring remote employee.

Timeline:

May 3 - Applied online
May 6 - Status changed in HR system, received automatic email
May 18 - Invited for first techincal interview
May 20 - First tech interview (seemed to go great)
May 21 - HR sent programming homework, returned it same day (feedback from HR: "you received really awesome feedback from the team")
Jun 5 - Prep talk with HR for final round of interviews ("next round if just to see 'fit'")
Jun 7 - 4-hour interview with various team members
Jun 11 - Hiring Manager wants to "chat". Chat turned out to be an interview with manager and another tech with very weird vibe (all with a negative tone, no show of curiosity or challenging questions).

This last "chat" makes me think I don't have much chances now but it got me thinking if this isn't for the better.
Ask HN: Do you consider a slow hiring process a red flag?
I honestly think this is a bit of a misfeature. Tmux provides the same functionality and the resulting hierarchy of responsibilities between your terminal apps seems more correct to me.
There are dumb batteries that only use the power connections. Those can't be infected.
>many people work so hard precisely because they want to get away from the meaninglessness of everything, in a way. That is the exact opposite of unwinding.

Exactly, they are putting deliberate focus on something, in this case work, that distracts them from the underlying meaninglessness, and enables them to not face it, because deep down, they find it (and/or have been taught to find it) objectionable in some way.

This deliberate turning of the head away from the existential fears creates this sensation of “winding”, but they accept it, knowing that they have methods of “unwinding”. I understand less why this is called balance, when it really sounds more like oscillation.

Of course, the winding is multi-dimensional; there is more or less stress about different aspects of life, varying over time. Relationships, finances, social status, existential angst, etc.

I’m proposing that it is possible to be OK with the meaninglessness, and even feel good about the state of things, and even while consuming minimal entertainment and distraction. I’m saying there exists a state where not consuming entertainment does not feel like you are depriving yourself at all.

>even if one achieves such a state, how much good can you do for the society if your existence is so remote from it already?

Well, the promise is literally freeing all living beings from suffering. Of course, to do this, one does have to “come back down” from time to time, and 100% agreed that coherently integrating this with existing society is a challenge. But it’s not a binary thing, and I think the level of coherence can improve over time.
I was employee 18 at a startup recently acquired by Google. Maybe not super early, but I was able to make big contributions that had a large impact on our eventual acquisition. It was a fun ride but I won't be doing it again for one main reason: startup equity distribution makes zero sense for early employees. Founders get 20+ times the equity. Yes they take more risk and work harder, but they're not taking 20 times the risk or working 20 times as hard.

Also there's a bizarre reluctance to show employees the information they need to value their equity, like number of shares authorized/outstanding/issued, existing liquidation preferences, or the whole cap table. Although it worked out fine for me this time, I will never again take equity compensation in a small company without access to the cap table.
That says something about the quality of the writing, but not about the quality of the ideas.
Because mind your own business, that's why.

Or do you want to force the software industry overseas?
> And anyone who doesn't think we are being spied upon is bonkers. It doesn't matter how secure HTTPS is, because there are so many other ways we can be monitored.

HTTPS doesn't guarantee that, and certainly isn't state-actor proof, but if state actors are your concern, you need more than HTTPS, not less.

What it does, is ensure nobody messed with the data before you get it. The browser indicates that to you.

Basically:

HTTP - Sir, are you aware someone may have changed what is in this enevelope?

HTTPS - Sir, this letter has/not been tampered with.
> the conclusions are about humans becoming sadistic just because they put on a uniform

The experiment was not about how clothing affects behavior but was about presenting a group with power and encouraging them to use it. The uniforms were important in establishing group identity, but not the sole or even primary focus of the experiment.
Con: Startups almost always screw the remote workers on stock and legal terms. I have yet to see a positive story. Illegal worldwide industry-wide non-competes, forward-dated options (if any), remote expensive jurisdictions, wrong financial info, etc.

So yes, remote is a sweat deal if you are getting paid cash, but keep in mind most of these founders were laughed out of the room in their own HQ city's startup community.
OMG we still have mercury delay line memories as our "working memory", no wonder the world is a damn mess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory

"Miller thinks the brain is juggling the items being held in working memory one at a time, in alternation. “That means all the information has to fit into one brain wave,” he said. “When you exceed the capacity of that one brain wave, you’ve reached the limit on working memory.” "

File it under "path dependence," Pops. TIE (This is Evolution.) (a la "TIL")
Facebook is in Austin; Amazon is in Dallas
Keep doing what you're doing.
> maybe I should really quit my startup and apply to Bezosland

You should. They're constantly impressed with the quantity of their applicants that they will only reply to you if they want to hire you at all. Otherwise, you'll spend another six months waiting for an email that will never come.
Are you really saying that you don't get how presenting to multiple conferences benefits the presenter, or the company he works for? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

From my perspective it seems that there's tremendous benefit in becoming known by thousands as an expert in a particular topic and in having the skill to present that material to others.
> The equiv CloudFormation YAML is 700 lines

Accepted, but that's not the topic of debate.

The issue here is that you can write the example you gave in YAML like this

app:
hi
html:
get /

And it could still generate the same result. But this way people can write the config in a more familiar syntax.

Hope I explained my point correctly.

This is just a matter of UX/ API, not how it works.

If you somehow felt that I disrespected your work, forgive me.
> I think there are also documented cases of birds noticing if one of their newly hatched young is missing.

Cuckoo success would seem to suggest that as long as there is something in the nest demonstrating the correct 'feed me' cues, the adults will feed it
You've got your causality all broken

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...
I'm happy you say this, and I wish it was more well known, even if obvious. People join early-stage startups for the potential bucks. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but I'm saying most graduates, who are not as educated about the world, will join a startup for the money upside. Being honest like you are is not the same as admitting there is some degree of deception in the culture about how well off you'll be as an early employee in the startup world.
There's Automattic (creator of wordpress):

http://time.com/88025/wordpress-parent-automattic-joins-the-...

There's also companies like Craigslist who has ~50 employees, but is another billion dollar company:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/05/03/how-does-cra...

Even if it's not remote, it's small enough to basically be fine in the bay area because finding 50 engineers to manage html webpages is relatively cheap.
>Right now, under current laws, there'd be little to stop you if you got certified organic and met the incredibly minimal requirements for free range/cage free/whatever.

Two things. One, in my example my chickens are not free range or organic. Two, the first part of any legal argument is a moral one. In that first we decide what is morally right or wrong and then we make a law that fits it if appropriate. So ignoring the laws that prevent me, is it morally right to sell non-organic, non-free range chicken as 'organic free-range chicken'? I'd say the answer is an obvious no but maybe you disagree. Following that should we maybe institute a law that enshrines that and helps us keep chicken farmers like me from misleading consumers into buying a product that isn't what it says on the box? I'd say yes.

>but to pretend that stores need to have some magic legally protected area just for meat products lest people accidentally purchase dreaded vegetable protein is industry promoted nonsense.

The article makes it clear that while meat producers are annoyed at the presence of these products in the meat aisle, they are only pursuing legal remedies in regards to the terms used to market them - 'meat' and 'beef' (and I'd bet 'chicken' and 'pork' will follow shortly.)

>A meat shelf is not a constitutionally protected phenomenon.

No one is arguing that.
I've gradually given up using currency, and no longer need to work.
Doesn't every email explaining the current state of <insert item here> become more and more obsolete over time?
The problem with name-and-shame posts, other than their juvenile premise, is that you can read up on what the people in question say, and call the author on their shit. Once you do this, you realize that one these objectors is not like the others, because once you discount the last few entrants' unjustified snake oil and utter quackery, you're left with Dave Winer's objections to Google's strategy on increasing the adoption of HTTPS by more and more explicit visual indicators of HTTP being 'non-secure' [1] and Mozilla's differently-worded, but comparable approach to 'deprecating' HTTP.

By cherry-picking his most abrasive soundbites and his most entitled-sounding Twitter replies, Scott handwaves away Dave's more reasoned frustrations, such as his 2016 lament [3] that his current webhost doesn't offer a no-cost, push-button way of enabling HTTPS, and that his long-runing, statically-hosted blog would now require ongoing maintenance to stay compliant with the ever-changing list of requirements Chrome and Mozilla set in service of a larger goal. He wonders that if UI changes don't have the effect Chrome and Mozilla are hoping for, will more drastic changes follow, like refusing to display HTTP pages altogether, and reading his words he doesn't appear to buy that static, read-only sites need strong assurances of identity and resistance from third-party tampering, especially not at the risk of potentially making access to those pages impaired in the most popular browsers forever.

Dave clearly questions the true motives of Google's promotion of HTTPS, but Scott is right that Google never said that they'd deprecate HTTP. But Mozilla did [2].

I don't agree with all of Dave's points, and I think that for most of the websites people these days actually visit, strong assurances of identity and resistance from third-party tampering are important. But it's unfortunate that Scott tries to present an uncharitable view of Dave's worldview, instead of letting his points stand on their merits.

[1] https://security.googleblog.com/2016/09/moving-towards-more-... [2] https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/04/30/deprecating-non... [3] http://scripting.com/liveblog/users/davewiner/2016/01/30/095...
I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favorably by marriage law.

As it stands, a man who has accumulated significant assets and net worth as is common in the tech industry, would be easily ruined by a divorce to the wrong woman. Prenuptials do not always save you.
Did you just quote half of a sentence and refute it using the qualifier provided by the second half of the sentence?

This was the full sentence:

> Spending credit on crypto isn't a sign of risky behavior - spending more than you can pay off and failing to pay off what is owed is.

This part:

> spending more than you can pay off and failing to pay off what is owed is.

is equivalent to your statement:

> It most certainly is if you cannot afford to pay it off after making the purchase.
Im under the impression that this kind of modern experimentation (like Milgram) is considered unethical making future interesting scientific trials impossible. Once we finish "debunking" the poorly orchestrated experiments of the past we will finally be left with the zero knowledge apex of deconstruction that our age so highly prizes.
I'd say it depends on the industry. Startups? probably a red flag. Airline industry, Government agencies? probably not.
To hire better you have to look at the past source code. I got hired once in a startup in France and what the CEO did is that he looked at all or so of my personnal projects. He could figured out I was a good programmer because I was able to run most of my programs and talk about them in depth. If you want to work in innovation, you have to have side projects. Has anybody tried that? Sounds quite like a silly question but I'm curious.
Valuing a startup and being in a position to receive a meaningful amount of compensation from said startup if/when it IPOs are two very different things.

I am not an expert, but between dilution of stock, the high risk involved with any startup, the timeline to payoff on equity and accompanying opportunity cost for non-founding engineers, and the overall lack of control which even early employees have relative to founders, it’s not unreasonable for an early employee to say “I do value the company but do not want to bet the farm on it for the next five years of my life. I will, however, as an employee, give it my all.”

Especially if said employee is > 24 years of age.
Your phone's location can be silently triangulated based on what cellphone towers can see your phone and the strength of the signal to them. This is being done and you can buy the data from LocationSmart. This was discussed on HN a few weeks ago [0].

This data was used in Italy to catch CIA agents after they extrajudicially extradited (so to speak) a terrorist[1] in 2003 https://youtu.be/BwGsr3SzCZc?t=7m2s. The whole talk is worth watching.

The cost of storing this forever is negligible and going down. The government would be foolish or (in my opinion irrationally) principled not to hold on to this for the next 1,000 years.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17095667

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Mustafa_Osama_Nasr#Conv...
At least one company (http://trelligence.com/) was in this space, though I don't know if they're still around.
Charles Murray?
There's a group (Dropbox, Airbnb, LinkedIN, Splunk, etc) between FAANG and Startups and this group pay really well too.

I heard Oracle OCI also pays in the 300-400k range (even for Seattle).
So far the only issues I've had with USB C is that I had to buy a Nintendo USB C cable to charge my switch and a separate USB C cable wouldn't charge my Pixel. It did work with an external hard drive so I know the cable wasn't completely broken.

I know there's other cables from some brands that might have worked, but after the 3rd one that wouldn't work for my switch I went for Nintendo.

I don't have a lot of USB C devices yet, so I'm hoping they get things ironed out.
It would be nice to know why the submitter thought this was interesting. Otherwise, I can only see it as just yet another dead language.
To be fair, passing off a blatant advertising PR stunt as 'news' further blurs the line between actual news/facts, opinions, and bullshit for people who have a hard time determining which is which.
Given that agility is supposed to be the one thing startups have going for them, yup.
Banning legitimate users, editing their posts, and shadowbanning are examples of "arbitrary and capricious censorship". Banning IP ranges for effectively taking down the platform (thereby censoring everyone using the platform) is not arbitrary - although it may be capricious (since it may be unbanned once the abuse has stopped in hopes the abuse doesn't immediately start back up).

Spinning up an ad bot and spamming 10,000 messages every hour on every board effectively shuts down discussion for any legitimate users. It takes extremely bad faith to argue that stopping spam and bots is anything equivalent to censorship. Especially when the goal of the abuse is to remove the platform for the legitimate users to converse on, in an attempt to silence them.
And if non-Kosher food tried to get put in the Kosher food section and went under brands such as Beyond Kosher?
The cost of crappy things that don't solve the problem described which leads to the mess we're complaining about is low, yes.
It was a fantastic parallel I hadn't considered before, so I upvoted.
There's the problem with the sample size, but Twitter for example outsourced some early development to Eastern Europe.
Yep, that’s the one.
If the untrusted charger has a USB socket, then yes. If you have an untrusted charger with non-detachable cable, then no.
I mean the first Google result when you lookup 'apple usb-c dongle' [1]. It's $70.

[1]: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-a...
200-300/yr still doesn't get you less than winning the startup lottery as an early employee. So it's better to get that than risking getting only half.
20 Crypto Companies in Singapore You Should Get to Know
I hate to type this out, but it's all just a zero sum game.
Business licenses for even mundane things have been around for well over a hundred years, particularly in cities. So generic complaints about over-regulation have little historical resonance. Not only did those debates happen, as you say; they happened a very long time ago.

But a child's lemonade stand, AFAIK, never required a business license. That's new. I don't know if laws, enforcement practices, or public awareness have changed, but I don't get why people insist on defending it.

My guess is that enforcement has changed, and that's partly because of the push to take discretion (de jure and de facto) away from agencies to minimize prejudiced, unequal enforcement of the law. One of the takeaways is that, because the laws were always more strictly enforced against disfavored classes, the privileged are finally getting a taste of the mundane, prosaic injustices minorities have always faced. That doesn't excuse the injustices, but it hints at why it may be difficult to address them--permitting a white kid to sell lemonade at the end of his driveway also permits a black kid to sell Coca-Cola on the street corner, which might cause consternation among some people (think of recent SF ordinances taxing soda).
Yup, they just realized "hey, why should we pay random engineers millions of dollars on successful exists?".

They never stopped promising them, they just stopped putting any terms in the equity plans that would lead to them.
Yes! That's why I think our legal situation in Washington state is such a mess. I found at least 8 cases in my own divorce where the law was just plain stupid and harmful. I'm glad that homosexuals can now marry, but when that law went into effect, it also broke the existing domestic partnership laws and created a huge grey area. My lady friend and I are forming an implicit partnership, but we have no legal way to formalize it - and as you point out, if something were to go sideways in the future, you can be held accountable as though it were "legal" but without there being codified law making the rules-of-the-game clear.
USB-C has somehow made docking stations take a big backwards step. Which is a huge shame because we finally got to a good place with USB3 docking stations, where weird ports on the underside of specific laptops could finally go away in favour of a highly standardized one-cord docking solution.

18 months ago we deployed USB3 docks into a sizeable office space. We were able to standardize on a model that works reliably, every time. The only down-side is the dock can't provide power.

Now we're looking at a similar situation and USB-C is the 'obvious' choice. But it's a far more complicated situation.

Some devices will take a charge, some won't, and you have to match up the power input/output requirements quite carefully. It's a more complex landscape than PoE, for no good reason.

Thunderbolt docks are the only ones we've found to provide reliable operation, but they also suffer from weird docking/un-docking behaviour as well as massive security flaws since you lost a lot of the 'standard' USB safe/abstraction layer stuff by plugging in what is effectively a DMA device.

Yuck, frankly. This shouldn't have been so difficult - Just take USB3, introduce a Power-over-USB capability, and bump the speed. But no.
I think he meant appending "for mobile apps" in the title instead of burying key constraint in midst of wordy paragraphs. There is quite a distance between clarity and fine prints.
I think this is dependent on many factors. Right now I'm on a laptop with 8GB of RAM, I have a VMWare VM running locally taking up 3GB of RAM, and Chrome with 6 tabs open. Yes, I'm getting near swap territory, but everything is cruising along nicely...
Wow, that is a fantastic knowledge resource! Something I have long hoped to find.

Kudos!
While true on paper, i wonder if it will ever be implemented as such. And frankly it may well be yet another black mark on the mess that is USB "C" (or 3.1 or whatever).
Financially I don't think it makes sense to join a startup after the first two dozen employees or so ... unless you get a very special compensation package. The risk-adjusted rate of return on your labor can't compare to the compensation packages at places like Google and Facebook.

Having said that ... your chance at working on an interesting project is higher at a startup if you are the kind of person that can land a spot at Google/Facebook. What I mean is, you'll be a big fish in a small pond. The kind of person that gets buried in some obscure ad-tech team at Google, for example, can pick and choose the projects he works on if he shops around at a lot of startups. Want to work on an open source database? I bet you can find a place that will pay you 100K to do that ... but your stock might be worth nothing in four years ... and if you worked at Google your compensation would be around 160 and your stock would be worth around 750K.

So you really genuinely have to love what you do. And if you want a family you have to be prepared to move out of the Bay Area when you fail ... because you won't have enough money to buy a house the way your peers at Google and Facebook will.

So being at a startup you need to make peace with a lot of very probable outcomes ... moving away from California, possibly starting a family later, etc.

On the positive side, you can choose the area of technology you want to work on. And if you chose well, there's a chance you can parlay that for future returns.

I haven't even touched on the role of purpose and lifestyle ... mainly because I think its simplistic to assume a startup will give you purpose and a big company won't. I think purpose is something you'll have to shop for ... just like you shop for the right project.