skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's the same tried and tested argument that always comes up every time unemployment is discussed. See f.e https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17474163

But it is completely false as this graph shows: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/u-3-unemployment-rate-was-... Empirical data suggests that U6 is almost linearly dependent on U3, meaning that, indeed, the "real" unemployment in the US is record low.

Yes, service jobs doesn't pay well. That is perhaps related to decades of union busting and resistance against raising minimum wages?
For those who missed it, the Reddit thread detailing the "expectations gap" on launch: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4y1h9i/wheres_the_no...

> "[But] if we hadn’t released No Man’s Sky when we had, and I was sat down talking to you now after we delayed it for two years, we would not have a game as good as it is right now"

It seems like Murray's argument is that misleading customers before the initial release is justified because the sales money allowed them to finish the game after launch. It's commendable that they didn't abandon the game afterward, but that doesn't really excuse/correct/justify the deception--which continued even post-launch. It's really unfortunate that Murray / HG get the "underdog" narrative when what they really did was a bait and switch.
Very interesting! Now for my next desk chair, I want that mostly for the heating. But I wouls also love a neck massage option!
>€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

F9 reusable is about the same. For Falcon 9, you'll need that secondary payload provider to also pay for a custom payload adapter and deployment mechanism, since berths aren't standardized as on Ariane.

>It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Certainly, but it's not one that has been solved. I suspect moving forward we'll see it mostly solved for very small sats on dedicated rideshare missions, while excess payload for larger commercial sats remains unused.

>Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago.

Certainly. But it's important to note that designing for first stage reusability wouldn't necessarily be profitable either. SpaceX is already cheaper without it and is quickly taking market share away. As launch cadence drops, financial returns on reusability fall quickly. If you're second fiddle already, you may very well lose money by investing in reusability.

>I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.

I'd argue Ariane's niche remains reliability, not scheduling (which it has problems with because of the dual berth conops[0]). SpaceX will soon own schedule reliability as its backlog dissipates and boosters are rapidly reused. But there's a reason JWST is going on Ariane 5.

[0] https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-indian-p...
You might be being downvoted because your link doesn’t avoid the paywall.
Can somebody with more familiarity with Android speak to whether this is as monopolistic as it appears?
We only got things done in the past when a Big Power From Above forced it into being so
What? Like WINE you mean? ;-)
I wonder if this has something to do with the Belt and Road Initiative. A huge corrupt money sponge.
Hi folks! Author here--I'm interested to see what you all think. I've been musing a lot recently about privacy and mapping apps, and have come to the conclusion that we can not only make maps more private, but use them to cultivate a sense of city if you will.
That is just a regular type tunnel built by the Boring Company and using electric vehicles in it. Not an evacuated tunnel with very fast vehicles. Spending extra for Hyperloop speeds really only make sense for longer distances. Not sure why this Chinese project is so short unless it is just a bigger type demo for the company and China hopes to acquire the technology like it has for so many other advanced systems invented in the west.
So the whole book is available for free now? Wish I'd known that before ordering it 10 minutes ago. :)
At first I read his last name as 'Collision' which would have been epic.
Little to no environmental regs, NIMBYism, or corruption
And yours isn't?

No.

Seriously, everything you're complaining about their argument, can be applied double to yours.

I don't find that to be supported, but please give do expand on that.
No, we're bashing Uber for exploiting that relationship.
If you're privacy conscious and weren't aware, you can virtualize your gaming OS of choice with near native performance using VFIO. With this, you can contain Windows telemetry and unwanted spyware into a disposable VM (if it weren't infringing, I'd vote a community created Windows gaming container be called "gladware"), freeing your host from unwanted reporting, data collection, and general "Microsoft has root" fuckery.

All you need is a Linux host, some capable entry-level hardware, and two hours in the morning before the house is awake for the initial setup.
The Problem with “Fake News”
They spend ridiculous amount of time in mountains while training. They also do climbs that are not speed climbs.
I found them about a year before she passed. Great writer and educator, much appreciated and much missed. RIP Tanta.
Instead of the focus on organic and the label, I'd prefer a focus on sustainable/regenerative agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_agriculture

The current mass farming practices (both for meat and non-meant) don't work for the long term as they deplete and cause other resource issues.

Having them work together to continue to enrich the soil is the only way we can continue farming. That's why going vegan isn't sustainable also. People argue meat takes more resources, but you actually need both in the farm.
There is also a dynamic where you are assigned shifts and if you don't make it your fired. Gets pretty dicy when you have two of them.
The post says Rust 1.27.2 will reject that code.
I would say cars are!
Ponies didn't start until late 2010.
We absolutely should be fighting for more. But we shouldn't be so hardlined on more that we lose what we have.
Between You, Me, and Google: Problems with Gmail's “Confidential Mode”
If you have corresponding A/B testing, showing the value of "edits on a bootstrap theme" should be pretty straightforward.
Really? Works for me...

That would explain it though.
> It can't really go the other direction at this point

What makes you say this? As I understand it, we've only detected a tiny fraction of the planets out there and it could be that there are plenty of systems out there similar to ours, we're just not capable of seeing them yet. Is there some reason to believe we're unlikely to ever see another system like ours, other than the fact that we haven't yet?
Yea, monorails do work great.

They don't need to be surrounded by a vacuum tube, which is the impractical and expensive part.
You can install browser extensions to block that kind of tracking, or you can go nuclear (as I have) by disabling JavaScript altogether. When I buy a game, I do not have this freedom.
Nope, killing Amdahl's Law is the key to supersonic air travel.

If it takes me 45 minutes to get to the departure airport, where I have to be one hour ahead of time to get through baggage check and security, and it takes 2 hours to get to my destination from the landing airport, then cutting a 4 hour flight to 2 hours is only 34% faster.

Like, fix the transportation and traffic problems around the airports and the logistical delays first, then brute-force the actual flight time.
This mirrors my experience (see sibling comment from me). C-levels have open desks, but they're grouped in a corner, surrounded by boardrooms, and the C-levels are rarely at their desk.

VPs and line managers are open like the rest of the employees. And they spend a lot of their time in other meeting spaces.
For most engineers, putting product quality and delivery as the top priority is equivalent to valuing your own uninterrupted time highest.

If you stop valuing your own uninterrupted “flow” opportunities, the product suffers, because the work cannot be completed that way.

In this sense you’ve got it backwards. You claim that looking out for your own experience of uninterrupted work is somehow suboptimal or selfish or bad, but it’s not. It’s actually the most customer-focused or product-focused, unselfish way to think.

Believing that you are entitled to turn around in your chair and interrupt the workflow of a teammate at your own whimsical discretion, now that is very selfish and does not place the customer, product or team ahead of yourself.

If you’re interrupting people all day, you’re selfishly prioritizing only what’s convenient for you, and discounting all the damage and delay to shipping the product that your interruptions are creating.
Yep. It's a spectrum and a scale. On various scales you want to apply various paradigms. It's not a yes/no thing.

We know for a fact that no matter what they pentagon does with wheels, they need to fit on a body and cost less than a million bucks or so. Even giving the R&D teams wide latitude for they're playing around in, we can start setting some reasonable guardrails up.
Yeah it does seem an unlikely fit for go.

I imagine that go to wasm would likely be used for situations where size won't matter too much and will be an acceptable trade off for familiarity or code reuse.
> Actually, the CLR supports pointers and the JVM can run arbitrary LLVM bitcode (so C, C++, Rust etc) in a memory safe way with bounds checking and garbage collection these days. Check out Sulong and Safe Sulong:

AFAIK there is no Java-Bytecode involved for this and to optimize the AST-interpreter to something faster you need the Graal-Compiler, most JVMs can't do this. There is no C++/LLVM/Rust to Java-Bytecode compiler that is widely used, while this exists for WASM. Even a huge Codebase like AutoCAD was compiled for the Web. Java-Bytecode wasn't designed for this, you could theoretically do the same with Java-Bytecode but it would probably be much slower. Simply because Java-Bytecode wasn't designed for this purpose.

Java-Bytecode is notoriously hard to verify, WASM is more strict and therefore verification is easier. (With verification I mean the process in the Browser/JVM that checks if the bytecode is actually valid). WASM only allows structured control flow, no arbitrary gotos like Java. This makes the compilers job much easier, many JVMs actually just bail out on irreducible loops and therefore such code might not get optimized. OTOH WASM-Bytecode wasn't designed for interpretation.

I don't know why there is this heated discussion. WASM had the chance to learn from the mistakes in Java's Bytecode and both bytecodes were designed for different purposes after all. Java Bytecode was designed for Java, WASM for being a language-agnostic compilation target. Supporting GC in Java-Bytecode for example is much easier than having a similar thing in WASM.
> A 35% wage cut is de-factor "you're fired, but we'll re-hire you at this lower rate" and is likely to make you eligible for unemployment as a result, as it's clearly a substantial modification to the employment contract between the two parties.

It's not so cut-and-dry, and in fact, there's already case law in New York holding that pay cuts of about one-third are not inherently constructive dismissal, and that it depends on the particulars of the individual's case.

With that on top of everything else, it's a really far stretch to read the one-line description from the article that the driver quit because of "low pay" and infer that constructive dismissal is applicable here.
At that level, they could be making the same money at any of the other tech companies, with the same freedom and same caliber of coworkers.

I highly doubt most of them believe that FB and the work they’re doing is evil. They would have no incentive to work there if they did.
I've often wondered why people don't publish names for people who send death threats. Would that help stop it? Is there a reason law enforcement doesn't want them to do so?
Ibis that was extinct in wild taught to migrate by following aircraft
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The impedance mismatch when needing to write performant code from the R/Python universe is real. And that Julia has managed Pretty Good performance while simultaneously being a pretty decent language is huge.

XLispStat was before my (stats) time, sadly. Being part of a more general purpose language ecosystem is one of the selling points of Python, though from a performance and expressiveness standpoint Python is strictly inferior to Lisp in just about every way. Except weird.

To be honest, I’m more fussed about good support for functional style than I am about enforced functional purity. So in that sense, maybe you’re right that the next big data / stats language will be multi paradigm.
The privacy policy is a blank page.
a decision like that will keep europe decades behind in the space industry
This is a great find. SSRF is a really unappreciated vulnerability; it is usually game-over. That it came from a Caja audit adds some tasty irony.

A friendly word of advice: when you find flaws like this (you, the reader, not you, the guy who wrote this post), think carefully before disclosing internal network details you discover like this writer did. The internal details of a target network don't become public domain simply because you found a vulnerability. There are firms that get extremely itchy about this kind of stuff getting published, and I can't blame them.
If we are to believe their marketing, it may have saved his life:

https://www.suunto.com/en-GB/sports/News-Articles-container-...
How to Bootstrap Your Way to $250M/year
The key insight isn't the substituion of new numbers, it's the use of probability distributions with error bars throughout the calculation, as opposed to picking a single number. The canonical paradox is that even if you pick very small numbers for all the unknown terms, the resulting expected number of communicating civilizations is still high. This work shows that it isn't a paradox when viewed through the lense of a probability distribution, because even if the expected number is high, that's because of a long tail of super high, low probability numbers, while most of the probability is actually on 'alone in galaxy'.
You are referring to my comment about 'worth their salt' in a gross misreading. I said anyone worth their salt has other choices, so going to FB is a deliberate choice on these professors.
Alot of the party seems to have been concentrated in a few tech stocks - the usual FANG suspects, Microsoft, some newer IPOs, and a bunch of unicorn private companies.

It seems to me that one possible outcome would be for that rather localized party to end with valuations there returning to sustainable levels, while the rest of the market is less affected.
"It doesn't matter who invested the "most""

There's no discussion about 'who invested the most', because it's besides the point.

The point is that Android is a massive investment - full stop.

Linux is irrelevant to the equation.

There is definitely a giftable aspect to Android in that manufacturers can use the software for free and leverage most of Google's investment for free without a cent to Google.

Of course Google is making money, and that's their objective, (nobody is going to state otherwise) however - because of the EU's directive, Google can't make money using their current business model, ergo, cannot recoup their cost or make a profit, ergo - the product is dead in that zone. Were this ruling to happen for North America as well ... either Google starts to charge for Android - or Android is put on the shelf.

Google invests heavily in Android, and if their current business model is not allowed, then they'll have to charge for it, which may mean all those who use Android 'for free' may not have the option, which is not good either.

The EU's ruling is kind of stupid and self defeating:

Is Apple allowed to bundle all their money-making crap? Of course?

Nokia? Of course!

MS? Of course?

So if Android is made totally private, and it only comes as 'one version' i.e. 'with all their crap' - is the EU really going to force Google to separate the products? It's completely stupid.

If the EU wants to force Apple to sell iOS separately from the iPhone, and force them to also remove all their bundled crap ... well then they can do that but the stupidity is even more exposed.

The EU should focus on getting their companies to make great products instead of stopping fairly benign innovators from doing stuff - and holding their own consumers back.
There have been 3 patch releases that include borrow checker fixes related to the match ergonomics work in the last 45 days.

[1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/06/05/Rust-1.26.2.html (June 5)
[2] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/07/10/Rust-1.27.1.html (June 10)
[3] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/07/20/Rust-1.27.2.html (July 20)

The latest of these actually address your concern directly.
Political theater isn't the same as business opportunity analysis. Also keep in mind that the US presidency has a limit of two terms. If Trump enters into the calculations, he doesn't enter into them permanently. Transportation systems, especially rail, are long term investments.
Congress to Leave Trump’s Deal with China’s ZTE Untouched
I guess I'm not smart enough then, or maybe I am too old. Along these lines I also just recently discovered that when viewing photos on an iphone you can scroll and see more info about a photo (geo, related pics, etc). I only discovered this by watching my 3 year old play with my phone a few weeks ago. What else have I been missing?
The needs of business do not supercede the needs of human beings. If a business cannot operate without virtual slave labor, the business should not exist.

Poverty is the natural state of humanity. Trade / business allow us to rise above that. The people you are referring to as "natural slave labor" are better off working for less than the sum you find optimal, than not working at all. And unless someone has a gun to their head, they always retain the option to do the latter.

As is yours.

I don't find it to be so, but feel free to convince me.

Businesses regularly have costs which they cannot turn a profit on, but the work must be done, so it gets done.

Sure, but there's a limit to that. A business can't run in the red indefinitely. And again, we already know from actual, demonstrated, empirical evidence in the Real World that business are forced, by economic reality, to pay more, often FAR more, than "minimum wage" to workers. But again, when we are talking primarily about the workers on the bottom rung of the ladder, the question is, do you want to lock them out of participating in the economy altogether?
Well, to be fair, the estimated average annual daily traffic for the most traveled LA freeways isn't anywhere near 100K per hour, either. It's around ~400K vehicles per day, and assuming 1.5 average riders per vehicle, that's 600K people. So if 200K riders per day is the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR, it's not at all a bad number. (Acela's daily ridership appears to be closer to 30K, though, so I would be really surprised if the CA system is that high.)
Agree, also it is terrible UX if it is not apparent when you can not decide for yourself whether you are the target user. It isn't hard and it saves from these two scenarios:

1. Oh, this isn't for me, glad I found that out quickly - saved me lots of frustration.

2. Yeah, I'm not the target audience for this but I know of another niche where this is useful despite that - I might actually try it out!

It also gives a very bad impression of the company to actively not caring about frustrating users they are not interested in.
Oh, you're not meant to browse the HN for "boosting your creativity" and "relieving stress from a long spree of coding"? I mean that was what I used to say when I was caught red-handed :)
Basically means China will learn and develop their own hyperloop technology based on other's plans.
Nice find. Still, look to be interpreted though.

It gets JIT compiled to native code that runs (for some code shapes yadda yadda usual story) about 10% slower than gcc, if I recall correctly. Without the safety aspect it can run as fast as GCC for some benchmarks.

As I linked in my other comment, WASM was built with mechanized proofs nearly from the outset. They learned from the mistakes made in the CLR and JVM.

But so did the CLR and JVM designers.

The paper you link to says the hard part of JVM bytecode verification is the jsr "subroutine" control flow instruction. This instruction has been phased out, bytecode version 51+ doesn't allow it anymore. Whilst a JVM may well support verification of older bytecode formats, and that verification is still safe and sound, you can implement the latest version of the spec and avoid that entire design error.

Given that, and given that the JVM type system has been proven sound despite being significantly more powerful than WASM's, I'm not really certain how this is meant to prove that WASM is better.
Why are complex numbers not called duonions then?
Howdy, (I work on DTP)

I wanted to provide my thinking on some of these very valid wories,

Re: Copy vs. Move: This was a conscious choice that I think has a solid backing in two things:
1) In our user research for Takeout, the majority of users who user Takeout don't do it to leave Google. We suspect that the same will be true for DTP, users will want to try out a new service, or user a complementary service, instead of a replacement.
2) Users should absolutely be able to delete their data once they copy it. However we think that separating the two is better for the user. For instance you want to make sure the user has a chance to verify the fidelity of the data at the destination. It would be terrible if a user ported their photos to a new provider and the new provider down-sampled them and originals were automatically deleted.

Re: Scraping
Its true that DTP can use API of companies that are 'participating' in DTP. But we don't do it by scraping their UIs. We do it like any other app developer, asking for an API key, which that service is free to decline to give. One of the foundational principals we cover in the white paper is that the source service maintain control over who, how, and and when to give the data out via their API. So if they aren't interesteed in their data being used via DTP, that is absolutely their choice.

Re: Economics
As with all future looking statements we'll have to wait and see how it works out. But I'll give one antidote on why I don't think this will happen. Google Takeout (which I also work on) allows users to export their data to OneDrive, DropBox, and Box (as well as Google Drive). One of the reasons we wanted to make DTP is we were tired of dealing with other peoples APIs, as it doesn't scale well. Google should build adapters for Google, and Microsoft should build adapters for Microsoft. So with Takeout we tried the specialized transport method, but it was a lot of work, so we went with the DTP approach specifically to try to avoid having specialized transports.

DTP is still in the early phases, and I would encourage you, and everyone else, to get involved in the project (https://github.com/google/data-transfer-project) and help shape the direction of the project.
You don't get to decide what data I need to share with you or your advertising partners, or what constitutes a misuse of my data. That's up to me. I get to make that decision.

If you take my personal data without my consent, I will consider that an intrusion upon my privacy.