skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The gel is a uniform grid. It's intended to be that way. The minor lumps are the sheets which are not super tight, but as another user mentioned I cannot detect them.

Regarding the size, yeah I did realize that when I finished, but it's still visibly larger than a king in person. If I were doing it from scratch knowing that I know now I'd probably do 8x8 and then I wouldn't have had to cut the buckling column gel and it would be even more comical.

Edit: Regarding the size again, I already knew the Queen sized mattress was slightly too short for bed habits even though I am not 80" tall, and the King is the same height. The California King is the full 7' tall but 6' is slightly less than my wingspan and I wanted that to be covered.
Disclaimer: I went through the interview process almost 10 years ago. I think I'd initially applied for the Gen SWE position, the interview process was changed to Frontend SWE after talking to a recruiter (at the time, they really needed Frontend SWEs), but my offer letter & job title were actually Gen SWE. I did frontend duties for my first 2 years and last year, and then more of the algorithmic & research stuff that Gen SWEs do for the middle 2 years.

"Frontend" at Google is everything from the client (usually Javascript, mobile platforms have their own job titles) back through the webserver and RPC interface to the rest of Google's services. This is somewhat distinct from how the rest of the industry does it; "Frontend SWE" at Google is almost equivalent to "Full Stack Developer" at many startups, because the full server-side code for many startups is like the webserver code for many Google services. It's also why Frontend SWEs need to know at least one server-side language (Java or C++).

The interview process reflects this. When I interviewed, and when I conducted interviews, Frontend SWE candidates usually had 2 interviews that focused specifically on frontend technologies (usually things like Javascript, DOM traversal, web platform APIs, sometimes knowledge of how HTTP works or what your browser is doing when you make a request) and 2 interviews on Gen SWE topics (algorithms, data structures, system design, general programming knowledge).

The Gen SWE position focuses much more on algorithms - Gen SWEs at Google are usually the folks implementing the backend services that the webservers call out to, along with various data pipelines etc. Typically your task is "Design and implement an algorithm to do X, and make sure it runs efficiently", and the interviews reflect this.

When I was there the differences in salary were fairly negligible. I think that Frontend SWEs may have come in with a slightly higher salary & stock grant (though this was an artifact of the times; in 2008 very few devs really knew Javascript well, in 2018 virtually everyone does), but they share the same engineering ladder, so it equalizes over time and your individual job performance matters much more.
I used to work on a product UI that provided the equivalent CLI command for every action you perform in the UI. Use the UI to learn the CLI - complementary experience.
Illegal ones
Value is a wholly human created concept. If humans value it, then it is valuable. Yes, one could try to re-educate people about a "more true" view of the world using the theory of quantum mechanics. Then humans would value an exact copy (how would making the perfect copy ever be possible, really) the same as the original. You don't seem to be convincing even the more scientifically minded people here on HN, but good luck with you evangelicalism. Maybe a better way to get converts is to suggest people to read Richard Feynman's book "QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" for a difficult but technically correct and simple introduction to quantum mechanics. Your linked essay is quite convoluted and reads like a bunch of gobbledygook. I think most people would get more out of the Feynman book and maybe come over to the idea that reality is a very strange and anti-intuitive at the lowest, most fundamental level.
Good point about the potential perception issue. I do think that the Falcon Heavy launch was a huge PR win for them, and probably has made a much larger impact that Blue's lack of explosion videos.
I can find 2015 retina macbook pros with 1tb of storage that originally sold for 1800 for 600 at this point which is aprox 33% resale value after 3 years. This is only slighter higher than prior estimate. There also may be a transactional cost in moving it ebays cut + shipping OR a time cost/risk in selling it yourself via craigslist for cash. This is not counting the cost of refurbishing to make ready for sale for example replacing the battery. If you spend $30 shipping give ebay 50 and pay 80 for a battery and sell at 600 you may only net 440 or around 25%.

Here is an interesting analysis of why used macs may be worth more. Authors thesis seems to be that because apple lacks a low end and has a smaller pool of buyers there is more demand among cost conscious buyers. It also holds back in 2015 that used apple products are worth twice as much as other vendors products in the same portion of their lifecycle but seems to have hard numbers only for phones and from 2013 so not neccesarily relevant to present laptops.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/apple-tax-macs-hold-resale-val...

https://gizmodo.com/one-huge-reason-to-not-switch-to-android...

I further hold that resale value is of negligable value to most uers who will either break a device, pass it on to a family member, lose it, or hold onto it until it is effectively of negligable resale value.

It would be disingenious to take maybe money into account when making a purchase unless you specifically plan to upgrade frequently and use the money from said sale to offset the cost of newer models.

For example one could spend 1800 then sell for half in 2 years and put it towards the next 1800 machine. One could spend not much more than 900 per year after the initial investment. So say over 10 one would have purchased 1 machine at 1800 at year zero one for 900 each at year 2 4 6 8 for an average cost per year 540 per year.

Of course people are vastly more likely to say purchase for 500-900 and use for 3-5 years then rinse repeat for a cost of 100-300 per year.
Gov should stay out of service sectors , we are mortal people die.

Not everyone has the same health or will live the same length. Healthcare is not like road paving ... unless you can find a way to give everyone the same body and fine them for over eating
Google built a little car without manual controls that was capable of under 25MPH travel in areas such as senior communities. They used to run it around Mountain View. But they decided not to proceed with that as a product. Google didn't want to run a car factory.

The "fake it til you make it" startups aren't succeeding at this.
For me it's not about the space, but this kind of thing infuriates me too.

I'm struggling to articulate a concise way to describe why practices like this upsets me so much. When I fall victim to things like this, I feel like companies are forcing my head into a pile of shit.

With android, The only time it ever happened to me was when I got an HTC evo. I spent half a months rent on that thing and Sprint decided to bundle it with a ton of applications I absolutely did not want. Finding out I couldn't uninstall their ringtone store, whatever app blockbuster paid to have shit into my phone and all the other nonsense admittedly raised my blood pressure.

I did a lot of googling and was made even angrier to learn that the only way around it was to re-flash the firmware. At the time, the outcomes I was reading about seemed pretty mixed so this seemed awfully risky to do to my new phone.

Since then, I only buy unlocked phones so I can get at that /system folder if I need to.

Unfortunately, anything that has a socket back to the mothership eventually seems to decay into shit. My ps4 has been moving the streaming apps I use further and further down the UI so I have to go back to scroll past whatever company de jure they've sold me out to this week.

Their file system has tons of options to customize sorting / positioning / visibility of everything except their streaming section, because "fuck you, you're still revenue" despite having spent 400$ on the box. I hate how often I get reminded that Stallman was right.

What if every time you went to your closet to find a shirt, the company that built your house had hung a new multi million dollar company's representative on one of your hangers that screams "HEY GIVE ME MONEY, I'LL GIVE YOU SOMETHING THAT WILL FINALLY MAKE YOU HAPPY" as bright lights flash in your face and sirens spin. Every time one of your neighbors gives them a dollar you can hear the celebratory gong from your breakfast table. It's corporate panhandling, and once you make the mistake of buying a device their dicks are still inside you're now forced to suck it down.

Maybe it shouldn't make me so angry, but it does.
they should never be caged, they're too smart, they are meant to be free. They are the one animal I would become militant in freeing
Why would the credit card companies even want to stop this? For every transaction they are earning processing fees, the only thing they need is a small amount of plausible deniability to shed any legal liability. They are basically being paid to look the other way.
Hello myWindoonn. First of all, sorry for the late reply.

Actually, gRPC is the only requirement for pipelines. I hope can make this more clear in the future! :-)
Fair enough.

Though I'd like to think that I presented clear arguments even though I didn't present _empirical_ evidence for my arguments. I presented ideas and logical steps how to arrive at them. Which, to me, makes it more than "just an opinion". Sure, you may disagree with the ideas and or the steps–it's not a mathematical proof, it's much softer. Sidenote: Nonetheless, I provided two links to empirical research finding counterintuitive results from TDD and from unit tests.

Clarification: I am not engaging in a strawman. I didn't claim that _you_ said these are the only dimensions. I tried to express, generally, that software quality is one of several important dimensions. I could have phrased it in a clearer way.
Well, let's not forget that water vapor is a greenhouse gas[0] though not quite as serious as others since it will condense out in clouds and increase albedo.

[0] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhou...
Time is believed to be inside the universe, not outside it; assuming the conventional understanding of spacetime is correct.
Risk can be considered a cost. Expected value = sum of individual payoffs * their individual probabilities.
In the 40s? Probably not, no. This was a relevant and useful book when it was published — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Random_Digits_with...

Generating randomness is hard, and a recent concern.
Ok so, anyways: what's the unicode value for the unbearable lightness of being?
> Why can't a 2 person pod reach 40 Km/h and maintain 22m spacing between pods?

2 seconds at 40 Km/h is safer but that has other problems.

Remember, Pods don't have zero length they take up space which decreases the pods per hour. A 2 person 3 meter pod with 22 meter spacing at 40 Km/h = 2 * 40,000m / (3m + 22m) = 3,200 people per hour if they are all 100% full.

That's a long way from a subway's capacity unless you want to build 20 lanes per subway you are replacing. Going faster means more pods, but you also need to increase following distance. Slower is safer, but means trips take longer.
I really appreciate Blue Origin's methodical approach to building this system. I note that they are closer to being operational than Virgin Galactic who I consider their primary competitor.
The challenge I have with the 'suborbital tourist' economy is that while some folks will pay $200K per ride for less than 3 minutes of zero gravity, one has to compare that to the Zero Gravity Corp which gives you over 6 minutes of weightlessness (in 20 - 30 second increments) for $5K[1]

Sure there is the 'Concorde' effect where the very wealthy will all do it once so that they won't feel left out at cocktail parties but that does not seem sustainable.

My hope is that Blue Origin's plans to move into orbital flights is successful. Spending $200K to spend nearly 90 minutes (1 orbit) weightless has much more appeal.

https://www.sherekhudahazratali.com/2018/07/main-madine-chal...
Verifiable computation is an active and developed area of research in cryptography, and the validation method of having every node run every step of every computation is the most naive approach. There are plenty of ways to prove to you that I faithfully executed a computation that don't rely on your also having performed the computation.

I don't know how active the Maker userbase is, but Augur has 700 monthly active users.

It seems like it would be possible to manipulate the validator set for a particular shard - also, isn't part of the point of ethereum to be able to access information from other contracts? How do you guarantee that that contract is on the same shard?
Graeber in "Bullshit Jobs" quotes President Obama, but I can't find an independent source of the quote right now.

To account for that persistence, Graeber quotes President Barack Obama on the topic of privatized health care. “Everybody who supports single-payer health care says, ‘Look at all this money we would be saving from insurance and paperwork,’ ” the former President noted. “That represents one million, two million, three million jobs.”

https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-bullshit-jo...
Is the entire system one agent, which is then replicated across 5 bot instances, or do you have a specific network per hero?
> $200K per ride for less than 3 minutes of zero gravity

There's more than just weightlessness to appreciate on a suborbital flight. Plus the 8 minutes up and 8-20 minutes back down are probably pretty fun too.
How Microsoft and National Geographic Are Advancing Conservation with AI
> They start at $350 retail. No - you can't confuse carrier subsidies and contracts with price.

Well it’s a good thing I’m not talking about subsidizing pricing, then. An SE out of contract is $349. An iPhone 8 - a flagship phone - is $699, just a little more than a Pixel.
Let me try to find the actual rulings for y'all and post them, so we aren't forced to rely on this kind of second hand info :)
Hmm. I still see a pistol[0] on my Android 8.1.0 messages app. Is this even correct?

[0] https://photos.app.goo.gl/w9kPRwUr2UHNQoKa8
There's only so much that can be done with a motion sensor and heart rate data. Personally I try to burn the candle enough that if I'm in bed I should really be sleeping. I can read on a couch with a cat.

If you are going to be reading in bed and want better sleep detection, try using the hand with the watch for page turning, or if it's a device and you just tap to turn pages try holding it with your watch hand. Just that motion may be enough for it.
'تابوت الإسكندرية' لعنة للبشرية أم كنز الإسكندر؟
I get what your saying; but this is also how we end up with hacky software at companies..

The 'The I'm pretty sure I can make this better(or cheaper) myself... even if there is an off the shelf version done by dedicated professionals.'
>SpaceX's 93% launch success rate is still below average for ALL launches (94-95%), and has a higher incident rate than its "competitors" in any form. That's what was asked. You don't need to apologize for SpaceX.

How do you get to this number? Even in the least charitable way to calculate it, excluding Falcon Heavy, using Amos in the numerator but not the denominator, and counting the secondary payload loss on CRS-1, Falcon 9's failure rate is 3/57. That's 5.2%, or a success rate of 94.74%.

>Some of the rockets in your "thorough" have radically different missions, specifications, and costs than the type of rockets we're discussing. Let's talk about what we're actually comparing. Orbital launch rockets actually beat "industry" averages by a signification margin. And let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones.

Zero of those rockets are non-orbital. The only one not in Falcon 9's class is Pegasus (though the TESS mission was intended for Minotaur). Ariane and Proton are Falcon's main competitors in the commercial market, where ULA is uncompetitive.

>See a pattern?

Yes, designs tend to get safer as they mature. Falcon is at 58 launches and is likely to exceed 80 before any crewed launch. Its last failure was mission #29.

>All of the above families have mission histories of 100+ launches.

Counting 'family' legacy back to ICBMs is ludicrous. Atlas V has flown 78 times, Delta IV 36 times (Medium and Heavy), H-IIA 39 times.

And can you cite those family success rates? The Thor/Delta family, by a quick calculation per Wikipedia's launch lists[0], has an 87.42% success rate.[1]

>No they didn't. Are you just purposefully misreading the article?

No, but the article's author is purposefully misleading readers by citing that number alone:

>Against that backdrop, two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites.

Moreover, ULA rockets consist of both ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne parts (and indeed RL10 caused Atlas' partial failure). If we're correlating nonconformities with risk, their numbers should be added together. And, of course, the inspector general didn't evaluate RD-180 production facilities.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launche...

[1] https://i.imgur.com/izkMH14.png
The actual paper, linked from the top of this article, is very readable and I'd recommend taking the time for it.

In summary, the traditional approach to the Drake Equation has been to assign fixed values to each polynomial, sometimes an ass-pull and sometimes based off of best estimates from the observable universe. i.e., "0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1 x 0.1..."

What these researchers did instead is try to account for the uncertainty of various parameters. They gave each polynomial values in the range of [0, 0.2] for example, ran Monte Carlo simulations on that, and came up with an empty universe 21.45% of the time.

To put it another way: we consider it a certainty that some worlds will bear life, and a certainty that some of that life will develop into intelligent civilizations, and a certainty that some of those intelligent civilizations will explore their local system, and a certainty that some of those explorers will develop into massive hyper-intelligent, technologically-advanced, galaxy-spanning species. But we haven't got enough information to be certain about any of those within any reasonable order of magnitude. The probability of any one of those may in fact lie so close to 0 that it solves the Fermi Paradox.

FWIW (and it's worth basically nothing), this has been my preferred solution to the Fermi Paradox for a long time now, and it's nice to have this paper to cite when it comes up in the future. I figured that it took Earth 4.5 billion years to produce humans, and humans are only barely space-faring at this point and I'm not certain we'll ever make it out of our solar system. Countless species have appeared and gone extinct in the meantime. It seems far from certain, to me, that evolution necessarily leads to intelligent life, and if I remember right, the latest thinking from evolutionary biologists supports this -- suggesting that modern human intelligence is largely accidental, rather than a byproduct of evolution.

The age of the universe would seem to suggest that there's been time for at least a few other worlds to develop intelligent life even at very slow, unlucky paces, but then again, at astronomical time scales the universe has been too violent up until recently to foster that kind of development.

The Fermi Paradox seems to have captured a lot of interest from people who like sci-fi and want to think about all kinds of fantastic ideas on why we appear to be alone. Is there a Great Filter? Is this a simulation? Are we in some kind of super-advanced stellar nursery? It's like nerd sniping (https://www.xkcd.com/356/) for a particular sort of nerd.
Why did you remove the word step in mom?
> queries containing emoji whose colloquial meaning had diverged from their objective depiction, such as the infamous [eggplant emoji], left users unsatisfied.

Well but how is that different from how words have worked since the dawn of civilization? If tomorrow the collective society starts using the word kaleidoscope as an euphemism for penis, then any software that statically maps words to meanings will also fail. This is not a problem tied to emojis specifically.
Pop music is a folk music, fundamentally dependent on its own history, but it just as fundamentally has to cannibalize the music underground in order to stay relevant.
This is one of those cases where I'm going to ask about the downvotes.
But nothing at all is really known about "length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space". It's somewhere between a few decades or so and 10 billion years?
Not to criticize, but you sound like a can’t-put-the-Kraft-single-cheese-on-if-it-didn’t-come-out-of-the-package-right person. To each their own. This bed might not look “clean” but it does make sense structurally and the author has a complete working knowledge of how his bed works and can do any repair he wishes. It’s the author thinks it’s good, then he can deal with it.
There is no incentive for any average citizen to engage in crypto-currency activity if it is a shoddy means of exchange and favours individuals who own a large pile of it. Most individuals are debtors, not creditors, and for them, inflation is a boon because it benefits them and erodes debt burden over time at expense of creditors.

It is in the interest of someone who uses money as a means of exchange and not as a store of value (which is the overwhelming majority of individuals) to reject crypto-currencies in favour of fiat currency.

Your average citizen gains nothing from adopting a currency that is highly volatile, concentrated in the hands of a few, and awful at completing everyday transactions.
Ask HN: Is YouTube or Instagram the best tech acquisition of all time?
To be clearer: There’s a spectrum between 100% cash market, to indemnify plans where you e.g. you have a flat 10% co-pay, to “in-network” plans like PPOs, and pre-paid plans with corporate employee docs (e.g. Kaiser). Not all HMOs have employee physicians as you noted.

My point is that third-party free medical services are out of reach of most Americans. Even if the doc is separate from the insurer, they have to follow their claims process. You generally have to take your employers plan. The less fortunate take Obamacare and its limited doc networks, or are totally out of luck!
It all comes down to trying to draw a line from a single point. We don't have enough information to even make an educated guess at this point.

IMHO the Fermi paradox has one flawed assumption: that interstellar travel for the purposes of colonization would be possible and desirable. If this is not the case then there is no paradox, everybody is in their solar system happily doing whatever it is they do all day.