skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One on one is often dry. You have to have an affinity right off the bat.

If I follow you on soft skills, are you implying that a company that subscribes to this logic is selecting for attributes that their current employees lack, even though they're participating in interviews that will be used to judge same?
It's not like the costs are some weird artifact of time itself, they come from specifying capabilities 25 years before they exist.

But sacred cow programs that are too big to cut are good for all the people that make the decisions.
> dont benefit me

Not yet, but aging is a thing. I hope the accessibility options are the stuff of science fiction when I get old.
The problem I have with the article is that it doesn't actually ever talk about if the ideas are good or not. It points out that the MVP of the ideas need a lot of work, and talks at length of why they don't work. For example, he spends a lot of time talking about how maintenance on the F35 isn't the same as the F18, so people who maintain the engines will have to change how they work, and new types of people will have to be added. Most interesting part of the article for me was learning about passive detecting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor
That is my ongoing issue with these "RPi" killers, they simply do not make it out to the mass market.

All of them seems to involve ordering directly from manufacturer.
"Fake it until you make it" is completely different from "lie until you are caught." Speaking from experience, lying is not a good idea.

OP is competing against people who have put in work that he/she hasn't. That's just the reality. The best way in is to show the employer that they are a qualitatively superior employee. Networking and filters are _very often_ surpassed by leadership, sometimes even by creating new positions that are an exact fit for that person's experience. I have a few clients who were hired this way, and had better opportunities because of it. I even got a job that way myself long ago, when a CEO friend-of-a-friend hired me in a low level role but then re-read my resume and moved me to corporate offices to work more directly with leadership.

Lying about your past is not a good idea in this case, and it's far worse than just faking a role until you get better at it.
Amazon does it
Turbolinks to the rescue. Slay the Javascript overlords!
Show HN: How much does this meeting pay?
This was built for Moves users who want to continue tracking their journey and import years of their data into Gyroscope
The argument for DST is that it keeps sunrise approximately the same time throughout the year. Take a look at the chart here for an example: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco

Without DST, twilight would be about 430AM during the longest days of Summer, which harms sleep (at least it does for me).
10x is a hyperbolic figure (imo), but I disagree that it is pure speculation to think about job displacement from increasingly sophisticated ML systems.

We definitely do have real non-imaginary problems to focus on, but we shouldn't just ignore future problems. That's Hyperbolic discounting at its worst
https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
c++ is self offuscating. Drive in the final nail by erasing the comments.
engineers on his team who are seasoned interviewers can conduct 12-16 interviews per month

By my back of the conventional-wisdom calculations, each engineer is losing about a day's worth of productivity every week.
github.com, godoc.org, gmail.com, golang.org, etc.
Hey all! I've recently been spending a lot of time in meetings and a few mates over at WIP came up with this idea that I should make a counter that tells you how much you've earned just by sitting in a meeting.

This is the result of that idea being turned into an actual thing! It doesn't have any purpose other than being a silly tool to track what your hourly rate converts to in meeting time.

I hope you enjoy it!
> A quality hiring process would know with at least a 50% confidence level that the person is worth hiring before bringing them in for the onsite.

After having done a decent amount of hiring interviews and managing in my life, I don't think it's possible to have 50% confidence before you meet someone. The way you gain that much confidence is by 1- talking and listening to them, and 2- comparing them to other candidates.

> I'd still expect them to achieve their results with fewer than 3, and preferably fewer than 2 onsites per hire.

This seems hyper-focused on the minor efficiencies of interviewing, at the expense of employment efficiency; it's feels like an engineering approach that might not have all the requirements at hand.

The employee is (probably) going to be paid a six figure salary, and will have a large impact on the team. Great candidates can improve the efficiency of the people around them for years and years. Bad candidates can slow entire teams down. I've watched some excellent and prolific and opinionated engineers do major productivity damage -- millions of dollars worth, and I've watched some young CS graduates outlearn and outperform some veterans. Resumes & github accounts simply don't have enough information to know whether a candidate can help your company.

In my experience, it has been worth the time to let the hiring process go slow enough to be able to compare people's personalities, and not just their on-paper engineering credentials.

I think far too many engineers here on HN and out in the workforce dramatically underestimate how important attitude and people skills are in the hiring process, and dramatically over-estimate how important specific math & programming skills are.
Thinkful Is Hiring A Design Grading Team Member (Remote)
I am uncomfortable about it too (and haven't installed any in my home), but I'm not sure what to do about the exact same issues from smart phones that we carry with us all the time: they can easily listen in on our conversation, in addition to knowing when that conversation happened and where.

The home pods are a bit of a drop in the bucket when you think about "smartphone coverage around the world".

What options are there?
Might be good to share your background first.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates the U.S. Census count every resident in the United States.

The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.

An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.
I think this time is different because the rate at which technology can improve is growing increasingly fast and society/people's ability to change is not increasing at a commensurate rate.
There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
"Less work wasted on bullshit"

Honestly I see more and more bullshit work created every day. Go back 2 centuries and I doubt anyone was doing much bullshit work at all.
In 25 years (which is like late 1990s) technology has made disappointing progress even in well defined areas like speech recognition. We may be decades away from breakthrough, we may be centuries away.
An Old Conjecture on Stream Transducers
> If they don't, you have a job you otherwise wouldn't have had.

No, you have a job for as long as you're able to keep your lie secret. Once the lie comes out, even if it's X years down the road, you're terminated for cause, and if a prospective new employer calls they will be told you are "ineligible to be rehired." There are possible legal consequences as well.

GP, do not lie. In the long run, the world works out to be pretty fair, and liars are revealed for what they are.
Funny that the site is from a VC firm. Maybe their business judgement ain't so hot? Or their funds aren't doing well so now they have to resort to begging for emails?
Brutalism is the worst architectonic style. I spent quite a bit of time in brutalist buildings and they impact you negatively. Idk why anyone would want to reference that.
>I really hope they can overcome the issues because overall it should help with logistics and cost over the long term.

That ship has already sailed. According to the program manager for the F-35, there is only 20-25% commonality between the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps variants. The F-35 has all of the downsides of a compromise design, but with almost none of the benefit.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016...
That’s what I was thinking after I posted, accessing ipv4 over ipv6. A flip on the tunnelling we used to gain access in the first place.

My ipv6 coonection stoppedworking fora few months before I noticed, I’m keen to make it more fundamental.
> People don't buy windows or mac because its easy to configure. They buy it because someone has gone to the effort to install it on the boxes on display at best buy and walmart and work out any kinks with the hardware/software.

Keep telling yourselves that Linux Destkop folks. Anything to not actually listen to why people don't use your crap.
I am not seeing anything in your background that would scare away potential clients. And actually maybe the opposite.

Do you feel that because of your background potential clients will think you are expensive? If that is the reason you can counter that with the appropriate words indicating otherwise.

Or is it that you don't want potential companies to know you are a sole practitioner?

Only other thing I can think of is something age related given that the majority of clients are typically 20's or 30's.

If you'd care to elaborate I'd appreciate as I am curious and study this type of thing.
Offloading Ruby Code Partly from the Ruby VM to a C/OpenCL Compiler
Especially for air to ground attack this is true. Not having a human takes away lot's safety margin needs.

The question there is the impact. If you just risk some thing and money it lowers the barrier for going into action, as the risk of having to handing a flag to a pilot's family goes away.

However a such plane also has other roles. On domestic protection a key task of alarm squadrons is to take visual contact to pilots of civilian planes who lost radio contact. Also for surveillance/intelligence roles a human on board can have a better overview and decide where to go.
Interesting, though i believe the doctrine is that stealth aircrafts rely on a data link from a AWACS to guild them to the target, and only turn on their own radar when within weapon range, then only for as long as is required to confirm target and launch the missile (who invariably has its own radar these days).

Not to say that there are a myriad of assumptions that go into making an stealth aircraft, as was demonstrated when apparently an F-117 was downed by a modified SAM site.
The Harrier was also incredibly flawed when compared to normal fighters. It had a very poor safety record, was slow, and could not carry much fuel or weapons when taking off vertically. This was a consequence of the vertical take-off design which has never proven itself to be effective for jet aircraft. The only benefit could be that you don't need the expense of a full aircraft carrier. That might make sense for a relatively cheap aircraft, but the F35 is not cheap. And you are pushing up the price of other variants as a result of the need to have a jump jet version. All so that you can have a fighter jet land operate from an amphibious assault ship. Should that really influence the procurement of over 3000 aircraft?
There are several problems with basic income. For starters, housing costs are crazy right now and the US lacks universal health coverage. If we could could solve those two things, you would see a lot fewer people calling for basic income.

I have alimony in about the amount that is frequently cited as how much America should give people for basic income. Without additional income on top of that, I can't pay rent and keep myself fed. I was willing to move almost anywhere in the US to find a low rent place to get myself off the street. Most people can't or won't do that. Most places in the US do not have rentals cheap enough for someone to live on $10k or so a year.

In other words, if you don't address the lack of affordable housing, basic income won't support most people. And if you do, you go a long ways towards not needing basic income. The lack of affordable housing is an issue that needs to be tackled regardless. Talking about basic income strikes me as taking time away from problems that must be addressed regardless.

I see basic income as a lazy answer posited by people who would like to imagine you can throw money at the problem because they can't figure out how to effectively address some of the issues here. I don't think that actually works. I think that would actually go some pretty bad places.
If you take care when doing so, it's certainly possible. http://www.open-zfs.org/wiki/Feature_Flags is slightly behind ATM on documenting all of them, but is a good starting point.

(The various OpenZFS platforms all default to enabling all the feature flags they know about on pool creation if you don't specify otherwise, which can mean either read-only or no access to said pool on other platforms that don't know what those flags are.)
Copper Nanoparticles Bridged by Surface Grafting Brushes on Cotton and Polymers
The sunk cost fallacy is irrelevant at this point. It's too late to start over. The existing fleet of legacy aircraft is literally falling apart and will have to be replaced with something. Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. So they're stuck with making the F-35 work as the only remaining option.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477206
This makes the whole US a debtors prison of sorts. Not sure if this is a useful way to think about it though.
Would a retrofitted module make the F35 able to fly unmanly and/or remotly?
thanks @mklopets. Editing the post.I will share my background.
portions of time machine already have been (local backup uses snapshots, and is ridiculously simpler as a result).

Proper Time Machine "v2" is a bit more complex (basically a rsync clone based on local and remote snapshots), but still way simpler than the current "v1" method, which builds its own change table from fsevents and has to cope with a lack of snapshots in HFS+.

They can't use APFS as a Time Machine "v1" store because the unique feature of HFS+ to support directory hard-links did not carry over to APFS. Migration of a v1 to v2 volume would be a fun exercise in translations (folder hierarchy collapsed to volume snapshots, and differing crypto approaches for encrypted backups).

I suspect they are trying to get APFS in an evolutionary "stable" place so they can publicly document it with the iOS 12/macOS Mojave/etc releases - the changes they are making to support HDDs and Fusion drives this year are likely a big internal evolution.

I also suspect Apple is just not in a rush to move time machine over - it already works, has a surprising amount of integration across the OS for backup/recovery, and people tend to value their backups working vs using the newest technology.

Eventually, my belief is they will roll out Time Machine v2 and leave v1 (on HFS+) only supported for restoration. Just like with v1 today, non-APFS volumes will get a sparse bundle disk image to hold the APFS data. But they will wait until they have a strategy to migrate the external volumes and disk images.
Do we end up with less skilled late-stage doctors, investment bankers, radiologists, etc. if we automate away the grind?
> but in the long term, it always drives customers to other platforms

I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but they've been pulling this stuff for ages, and it doesn't look like people are going anywhere.
The "elephant in the room" is the grand bet western nations (led by the US) are making by investing in advanced and sophisticated weapons.

Historically, you did need good weapons and vehicles/horses/planes but there has always been a balancing effect caused by how much of them you have, how many troops can operate them and how well defended they are.

Aircraft carriers are a good example,they compliment existing capability by acting as floating military bases that can take the battle to the enemy's homeland. But that's the thing,they compliment,they don't replace.

Even if the F35 delivered as promised,is it better to have 10 F35 , 50 F18 or even better -- 1000+ armed drones?

They're making Navy boats smarter and more powerful as well,requiring fewer sailors. I am not against smarter technology and advanced capabilities. But it just doesn't seem wise to replace man count and existing capabilities when the new tech hasn't been battle tested against a worthy adversary.

I wouldn't want to rely on a few powerful counter measures,but rather a large number of "good enough" defensive and offensive technology.

But that's why I called it "the elephant in the room",this could work and actually counter-act other future super powers. Or history would repeat itself and the opponents will win with sheer troop count and "good enough" weaponry.

The US spends 20% of gdp on the military,yet it is quite obvious the greatest threat is internal strife and divisions typically exasperated by economical divisions. Not to mention, severe lack of physhical fitness for military-age men and women. Military leaders already consider this a national security threat. I have a feeling this might be one of the reasons they're relying on technology so much. They don't think they can mobilize and train enough soldiers in the event of yet another world war. It would be much easier to have them operate drones and wear head gear with HUD (just like in the games) that costs a fortune. They might just be playing to the nation's strength. But still,maybe if they spent 10% instead of 20% in defense (even russia and china don't spend close to 10%) ,and use that 10% for internal socio-economic stability and just maybe enact mandatory military service,that might be wiser than relying fully on technology that hasn't been battle tested against the intended scenario and adversary.

Will economic strength and advanced weaponry be enough? Maybe,but many empires with all that and more have fallen for various reasons. Economy aside,the cancerous defense-contractor industry that is the cause behind why so much of the GDP goes into defense is one of chief internal security threats. The whole industry is structured around politics so that politicians in specific districts approve spending in exchange for jobs+economy in their district. Many articles and blogs on that specific issue(e.g.: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/the-tra...)
> I truly think this time is VERY VERY different because of the pace at which technological gains are increasing.

The pace is not increasing. There have been radical changes, as much as in the last few hundred years.

Two "poster children" of technological advancements (AI and nuclear) are always behind the corner, but never here. Even if they were here, there would be no catastrophe, as much as there hadn't been with green energy, and transistors.

> Look at the rate of displacement in tech of technologies and frameworks. Try being an Angular developer for 20 years...

This is irrelevant; Angular or not, the software engineering market is evergreen, even with poorly skilled software engineers (I do know some).

This example is actually a counterargument to the thesis: displacement of technologies in this field did not lead to displacement of jobs.
Seems like it only further hinders people from paying back debt. Stupid.
Sure that will be the future. But not today. They need something now that can actually fly and fight while those drones are being developed.

This isn't software. Lifecycles are measured in decades.
> Booting from ZFS seemed like a hassle, without clear benefits.

On Solaris it is integrated with the package manager, thus on updates a snapshot is taken and if anything goes wrong one can revert to the previous state.
A free and open Indoor Navigation Service with accuracy of 1.96 meters
While CPU speed was okay-ish with the software emulators, graphics performance was underwhelming. You also had to suffer interlace for the high resolution modes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_th...
Ask HN: Tips for Making MacOS High Sierra Faster?
I really like my 2010 Mac Book Pro 15'. Now I run MacOS High Sierra.

I am already using Vim for programming and terminal as much as possible.
I am also using Grayscale mode (and saw other people recommending it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477760).

I am looking for more advices to make MacOS High Sierra faster.
>Holding tight to 'all that legacy crap' is what makes Windows the de facto standard for desktop.

Well, MacOS doesn't aspire to be the "de facto standard for desktod", or to be able to used in 10 years old machines in some corporation.

Isn't it nice that there are options with different priorities?
2) This is incorrect. Plants are not efficient, photosynthesis needs only a tiny part of the spectrum. Just he numbers, the efficiency of photosynthesis is 3-6% while the majority of the solar cells have around 16% efficiency or even higher. Hence it makes absolutely sense to cover everything with panels and use leds to produce the exact amount needed.
Unless you want to selflessly support some botnet you have to update your OS pretty soon after it's released. Certainly more often than you have to upgrade your screen.
On stable hardware, Btrfs raid56 should be stable. As the code everywhere is constantly changing I guess it's somewhat subjective if raid56 specific changes mean the code is not stable.

Some seemingly small changes 4.17 to 4.18 thus far.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

And bigger changes from 4.14 to 4.17.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...

I don't have a complete or detailed breakdown, but I think a big chunk of Btrfs raid56 problems would have affected any raid56 implementation, including the crazy Linux 30s command timeout default. Many I've seen are single drive failures, with an additional bad sector on another drive. If Btrfs itself detects an error (csum mismatch for metadata or data) on a remaining drive, this is no different than a two "device" failure for that stripe.

More reliable than raid5 for metadata and data, is to use raid1 metadata and raid5 data (this can be chosen at mkfs time or you can do a balance with -mconvert=raid1 to convert raid5 metadata to raid1).

And for all raid, it's questionable if raid56 is a good idea with 5+TB drives taking days to rebuild.
Ask HN: What are IRC channels do you follow?