skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
At age 25 I was trying to figure out how to really get into the game. I had a promising job offer in the mountain west and decided instead to move to Portland and wait for the awesome tech job offers to flow into my inbox.

I ended up moving to PDX and burning through my savings, finally taking a job at a company that turned out to be deeply unethical. They spied on personal phone calls, asked employees if they were on birth control, you name it. The IT guy was something of an Edward Snowden who opened up an encrypted channel with me just to vent. What he shared with me blew my mind.

A few short months later my in-laws offered to let my wife and I live in their home rent-free in a town in California that no one's ever heard of. We had weirdly good "vibes" about this offer even though we couldn't explain it. We had no jobs lined up but my wife knew lots of people there and the in-laws were traveling internationally and free rent would allow us to stretch our little savings for a while longer.

After we moved here I started working as an independent hire-a-webmaster. It's so rural here that people still use that term. It turned into a very successful business and I found out that I really love living in a rural area. I also hired a coach and had an amazing experience working with him to understand my business and learning to make the most of who I am.

My life changed a lot after that and I'm now a coach myself, but for 20-something-years advice: I'd say I think I could have done a lot better for myself had I more readily shared my problems with others and listened to them more. I wish I would have hired my own coach earlier, someone who would hold me accountable, and help me accelerate my self-knowledge.

If you're in a pit, keep doing what you're doing here, consulting outside sources and listening to what they have to say. Then try out the ideas, make observations, and develop theories. Soon you'll have a reliable model for who you are and what powers your problem-solving and achievement processes. It's important to actively test out others' ideas and reflect on the results, because most advice you get will be of the "be like me" variety; it's not necessarily suited to your personal psychology. Good luck.
What does this mean? Can you elaborate?
Which countries have superior judicial systems and why?
>Consider the opiods epidemic as an example

The one where drug companies actively lied about both how addictive their drugs were and the best way that they should be prescribed? Doctors aren't perfect, and there are some that are truly terrible, but in general their opinion is trustworthy.
Well I certainly misread that title. I literally thought someone had weaponised (or whatever Batman like thing) exhaust.
It seems natural that bankruptcy filings would normally be “too late” from a retrospective position; the negative consequences favor delay if turnaround is reasonably possible, but the best time too have filed will probably be in the past once you've determined you need to.
I think a CS masters is very valuable career wise. Totally different than a PhD. Maybe you should consider transferring to another school.
What's the threat model this protects against?

(In other words, what's better about having the security key being on your keychain vs. be a permanent part of your computer)
They can be much cheaper than that. Most options at vape shops are less than $50 and the liquid can be mixed at home for pennies on the dollar. The juul device that is mentioned in the headline retails for about $20.
If you do it to your company's competitor, you may qualify for a massive bonus (modulo your employer's moral compass and appetite for risk).
What do you do for fulfillment? I'm 25 too and the only fulfillment I experience is from thinking about/eating good food which is just sad. I've forced myself into reading a lot of books and doing a lot of hobby programming but it feels empty.
I was 25 when I took my first big "risk" of my career - leaving my comfy job at Amazon to work at a startup. This took the form of a 'forcing function', to get me to learn new coding skills and hone in on my chosen industry.

I'm 28 now, and after 3 such startup gigs, I've finally landed one with a lot of promise and upside, and have also tripled my income. Seems that your 20s are a great time to take a big risk.
Living in a beachfront apt on the East coast of Florida with my gf/wife (we were married when I was 25). Trying to learn how to surf. Working on a glorious tan. For a kid from Appalachia it was a glorious time.

I made the rent via my first post-college job as a fresh EE in a miserable military contractor firm. Did I make huge career strides? No way & I wouldn't change it.
It's unreadable on mobile - popups and moving content.
The irony here is that if I had been trying to raise money for about 6 months with no luck, and I read your article where you raised in just 8 weeks, I'd probably feel like a failure.

I know someone that took 2 years of pitching and tweaking his company and bootstrapping before finally raising money. And by the way: In the end, his company failed, all the same.
RAM access time has not gotten much faster, only bandwidth increases.
True, but:

1) It's still ultimately up to the graduate committee,

2) Once admitted, students will have requirements outside of research, for better or worse.

I'm not making an indictment of the American PhD system, I'm just pointing out that direct advisor admission and unilateral research focus are very uncommon (non-existant?) in the US.
My mind is blown. I never knew this could be done. I have always hated selecting text on the iphone
> But Bell's theorem and subsequent experiments show it to be false.

I think this is an unfounded conclusion. Sure, Bell's theorem and the experiments it inspired did make lots of contribution to investigation of these foundational problems.

But Bell's theorem is about a specific class of probabilistic descriptions. It does not rule out "classical objective reality" unless you restrict meaning of this term so much as to achieve that. Bell himself and many other people who studied the theorem insisted that the theorem is about local hidden variable models, as opposed to nonlocal models. Nothing general is implied about "objective reality".

On the experimental side, I am not aware of any experiment that had ruled out objective reality. How would you even test such a nebulous concept experimentally? We can test only specific predictions.
One feature missing is a way to mark every account that tweeted the original but not the correction as an unreliable possible-troll.
I liked the article and I never want to tell anyone that their experience is invalid or shouldn't be shared because they're privileged or whatever.

I feel like HN should introspect a little more when it comes to this. The high society founders seek to join is going to include people at all levels of the social hierarchy, there's a very fine line between a wish for someone's perspective to be more relatable and lowbrow entitlement which is completely unproductive but very seductive to want to use to explain your lack of success.

Yes, people exist in the world that never had to work for a thing in their entire lives. There exist people that had to work 10% as hard as you did. Dismissing these people's opinions or shared experiences is literally robbing you of valuable perspective that can drastically reduce the amount of effort you have to employ.
Just want to share my friend's experience as someone who dropped out of a MIT graduate program to be a SWE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYX9MuWy4cE
You seem to have anxiety, that might be a better treatment target.
I was on ambien for several years. Over time I developed sleep walking, cooking etc. I once needed stitches after walking into a book case. Another time I mistakingly took my ambien I the morning instead of a different medicine. Passed out behind the wheel on a major highway.

My sleeping was never good even on it. I switched to neurontin for RLS and some CBTI for getting to sleep. The combination has been far more helpful for me than ambien, and without side effects.
Why Online Marketplaces Fell Out of Favor – And Why VCs Should Love Them Again
This is a message board run by a VC firm. The process of raising venture capital is of significant interest to me and I'm guessing many other readers.

Is 8 weeks a particularly fast timeframe for raising a seed round? I'm sure that spending fully one quarter of the total lifespan of your company doing something besides building features would be equally unpleasant for many founders.

I didn't read this as the whining of the privileged, but rather as a well-written, detailed account of a business process that is fundamentally important to the tech industry, and yet is extremely opaque to those who haven't directly experienced it.

I particularly want to thank the writers for providing detailed and actionable advice regarding how they frame their business to investors.
You could do the same with heroin or methadone. That would work, right?
I was working at a large defense contractor, living in DC, going to school at night getting my master degree.

Looking back, I should have made more of an effort to exercise (I didn't get into running and real exercise until I was 27), read more, drank less, and picked a better girl friend. I should have learned Spanish or Swedish also -- I lived in Columbia Heights and it was the main language, gf spoke the ladder. Also, even though it didn't exist in 2007, if I could go back I would show my younger self SRS (ANKI).
Actually, most defense lawyers are paid by the state too:

> At felony case termination, court-appointed counsel represented 82% of State defendants in the 75 largest counties in 1996 and 66% of Federal defendants in 1998.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dccc.pdf
Often one "significant result" has to be serialized into 3-4 conference papers in order for it to be digestible and reviewable by the referees.

There are exceptions of course, like Gentry's fully homomorphic encryption, but those are increasingly rare.
Yes, but they don't even try to help their guards' survival, so unsurprisingly things don't turn out well.
Unhappy in a relationship, stuck in the UK after a couple of glorious years working overseas. (I got real lucky in my early 20s.)

At 27 – I'm cheating, sorry – I packed it all in and went on holiday. Backpacker style, South-East Asia then Australia. Some time later I found myself in Melbourne, and I'm still here.

As a result, my career basically re-started. I'm now 41. It's worked out incredibly well.

You have to enjoy where you are. You have to enjoy what you do. If you have those two things, the success – whatever that means to you – will come. Don't chase something you think you should be chasing just because that's what you read in tech forums. That's bullshit. And don't stay somewhere you're unhappy because, in the history of the world, that never just magically got better. That's not how it works.

Find your place. Find your people. Don't worry about the rest.

Edit: I missed the advice question. Advice to younger self: leave relationships when you know they're not good. Stringing it out helps neither party.
The economy doesn't have a goal. Our economic policies have goals.
I would ditch the idea of widespread genetic correlations on complex traits, switch to a method that describes what genes (and their interactions) actually do to the human body. For example, this specific gene does x to a neurotransmitter which can interact with y or z to cause changes like this or that. (And I know it's actually more complicated than just a straight mapping of gene X -> trait Y.)

With my method you can still say that no matter the environment gene x does this thing which can interact with gene y or gene z or environmental factors a, b, c in certain ways.

I think that proving intelligence is XX% genetic is basically meaningless since we can't actually remove environmental effects and if I'm really honest I think it's popularity in the culture is usually driven by spurious motives.

>No it's not, everyone who talks about genetic causation seriously use a different definition. I don't know why your own personal definition is better than the definition used by every single person who studies genetics.

Why do you think this is at the top of Hacker News? Because people's common understanding of a title like:

New study shows that IQ is 11% genetic

Is that at least 11% of their intelligence comes straight from their DNA, not that actually we could change 11% to 5% or 8% or 17% or most any number we want just by changing some laws or fortifying food or any number of environmental changes. The popularity of genetics research in popular media requires this bait-and-switch about what is actually being (mis) measured.
Louis Rossmann: The New Macbook Pro. [video]
I see a signup form and photos of skyscrapers. That alone wouldn't convince me to give the service my email address.
A friend was working on his PhD in Artificial Intelligent, and had already published a paper about some interesting properties of genetic algorithms, when he was diagnosed with pretty severe RSI.

For a while he tried to work with speech recognition, but eventually he dropped out and become a security guard in shops. The walking around was good exercise, and he liked meeting people.

After about 7 years as a security guard, he got back into programming.
> Why is it that the legal profession is split between prosecutors and defense lawyers?

Criminal law (not the whole of the legal profession) is split between those things because either you work for a public prosecutor or you don't; it's not at all uncommon for people to do both over a career, but outside of some special cases, you wouldn't do both as part of the same job (the military justice system is an exception, here.)

EDIT: Actually, I think the parenthetical above is wrong; I think all the military branches have a separate offices for prosecutors and defense counsel within their respective JAG Corps.
Basically make the state hire lawyers and mandate any lawyer can't work one side or the other more than 2/3 of the time per year (or some such)
It sounds like the author hit a little too close to home.
I think optimizing time complexity is a bad idea in c++. Let's say I write an o(n^2) sort because i know it will be faster for the small n's I have, then I don't want some meddling compiler "optimize" it for me.

Another reason. People will come to depend on it and then seemingly innocent changes will mysteriously degrade performance. That's btw why I'm excited about guaranteed copy elision in c++17 - I feel uncomfortable relying on the compiler probably not copying my massive objects.

Overall I could see the trade-off be worthwhile in some languages but not c++.
I had been at Microsoft for four years, and I was getting ready to quit to join an early stage startup.

As for the second question, what advice would you give a 25 year old you?

Stay the course, but be sure to have interests and hobbies that don't involve sitting in front of a computer. I wouldn't change anything about my career trajectory. I'm glad I spent four years in a huge corporation, and I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to work in (and create) companies of all different sizes subsequently.

It's not even a regret, per se, but I wish I'd gotten more serious about photography in/around 2007 instead of dithering for another six years.
This makes sense. People use different combinations of skills and physical traits to excel in arts, sports, and business. It seems natural then that “intelligence” would encompass a wide range of abilities and traits.
I think this a great opportunity for someone to make a real time "consequences" website.

Whatever the candidate says, fact check it and display a few important impacts to people directly. Economic is the easiest. Another good one is jobs, taxes, quality of life, debt, inequality.
>If you're not in the top 0.1% of your field you shouldn't be doing a PhD in the first place.

The OP means in the top 0.1% among PhD students in your field.

If you want to get a tenure-track position in a good department, then in many fields, you do have to be that good. (0.1% might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not that much.)

More generally, you should be aware that your post is very specific to the field you worked in. Computer science has a very well established PhD -> industry pipeline, and lots of money to throw at grad students. There are many disciplines where doing a PhD is a very different story.
Most crucially: why are you doing it? Second: what will it add to your life and to your business abilities?
Spend more time getting laid and less time at a terminal. Youth is wasted on the young.
> youth is a problem

Youth is a vast treasure and a glorious opportunity. Unfortunately, it's disproportionately vested on individuals who lack the wisdom and experience that comes with age.
It doesn't even do its job: https://medium.com/@lopp/metal-bitcoin-seed-storage-stress-t...
My advice was not "lie to investors." My advice was to fake your confidence and certainty, even if you're not feeling confident or certain. Investors want to know that the CEO has courage and the ability to evangelize.
Best nap of my life.
In the United States, a bad medical problem can cost five-to-ten years' salary. That's one hell of a rainy day fund.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
- The stakes will never be this low again, so if you want a change (new city, job, relationship, etc.) make the jump.

- Make a diverse friend group. If you're in tech your college and work friends will generally be part of the same monoculture and it gets boring if you can't escape it. Non-technical hobbies are important too.

- Be active. Once you're in your mid 20s health isn't something you can take for granted.

- Don't stop reading just because you're out of college and nobody is forcing you to anymore.
Office workers spend 1,700 hours a year in front of a computer screen
Daily reminder for data scientist and machine learning types: fill your pockets while you can, because machine learning bootcamps are on the horizon!
Yeah...my default response for people asking about a PhD in the humanities is "Don't."
(Author of the story but not the person you're asking.)

I never got asked to prove my registration, but why risk it? If your host is unable or unwilling to register you, you can self-register at the nearest police station.[0]

[0] Please verify this, don't take my word for it.
It might be free now, but I believe there are some non-free parts. For a long time it was proprietary.
These guides also give good heuristics on how to look at data before throwing a model at it, and deciding what's the most logical model approach/architecture.

A good example is the text preprocessing flowchart (also shared by fchollet on Twitter): https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/guides/text-c...
There's no split. They're all members of the same Bar associations, go to the same continuing legal education seminars, read the same legal journals, and meet up for drinks after the trial. Prosecutors frequently leave their jobs to become defense attorneys, and vice versa. Defense attorneys will do their best even when they assume the client is guilty; they're ethically required to do so, and they get paid the same either way.
In some ways we already are. For instance if I use my supermarket loyalty card, they let me save around 1-2% on my purchase in exchange for the better tracking they get.
It certainly doesn't have to be that way. In the UK barristers who both prosecute and defend are common (though perhaps less than they once were).
Spent most of 25 having freshly broken up by my long-term girlfriend and quit my job, flying around the world in first class on miles & points, while doing a bit of consulting work and investing, and a lot of spending down my savings (mostly by angel investing all of it).

I don't regret any of it. Grew up quite a bit, doubled how much of the world I'd seen (and I started out already being well-travelled), and got to know myself a bit better by opening up to more new people and relationships than I had in years prior.
He's been more vexing than any other 2016 election commentator, for me. Before coming out as pro Trump, he seemed very even handed in pointing out blatant marketing from both sides, and seemed to paint it in a negative light, as if saying whatever you believe your audience wants to hear is generally a bad thing.

Fast forward to his fallout and audience shrinking by roughly half. Now he's still talking about the persuasion, and tricks of psychology. But when used for his causes, they are to be celebrated, conveniently. Yet they are still just as bad when others employ them as back in 2016.

I don't know even where to begin rationalizing that. If you can't see that's where half your audience left you, I don't know what else there is to say.
So a form of targeted accelerationism? That's an interesting thought, but assuming it works as intended, wouldn't the end result of this be a total destruction of trust?

A whole society where all non-physical interaction is treated with total suspicion can't be a pleasant one to live in. Maybe that's the end result either way though.
I agree, so please join me in applying some social pressure to those who are behaving as if facts and opinions are equivalent. Perhaps it's relatively harmless while the wind is behind the back of one political fashion of the day, but if the the public has lost the ability to tell the difference between fact and reality and the political fashion changes, it may not be so harmless. See the current state of affairs in politics as an example of the importance of this.
I work with tradeoffs every day, most of which are data derived, not problem derived & that is only visible from experiments on the data (sometimes across millions of ops).

I don't think I'd know how to interview someone for your position.

I do my best thinking when I'm running

I've had similar experiences. Of course I'm not possessed by the idea that interviews are very good as a general mechanism. I've given allowances for nervousness and pressure. I certainly know what it's like to be on the other side of the table. Even allowing for all of those things, it leaves me wondering.
Best not to assume anyone is infallible. If you don't put people on pedestals you've got less cleaning up to do later when they inevitably fall off. Yes that includes you (and of course me).

2-3 minutes is more realistic for real sites than 30 seconds, because there is usually a margin allowed for clock skew. But yes each OTP expires and that's a difference for an attacker who doesn't know the underlying secret.

TOTP is also not supposed to be re-usable. A passive keylogger gets the TOTP code, but only at the same moment it's used up by you successfully logging in with it. Implementations will vary in how effectively they enforce this, but in principle at least it could save you.

Caveat: The system may issue a long-lived token (e.g. a session Cookie) in exchange for the TOTP code which bad guys _can_ trade unlike the token itself.

I think there's also a difference with passwords on the other side of the equation. If I get read access to a credentials database (e.g. maybe a stolen backup tape) I get the OTP secret and so I can generate all the OTP codes I need, but in a halfway competently engineered system I do not get the password, only a hash. Since we're talking about 1Password, this password will genuinely be difficult to guess, and guessing is the only thing I can do because knowing the hash doesn't get me access to the live system. In this case 1Password is protecting you somewhat while my TOTP code made no difference. If you have a 10 character mixed case alphanumeric password (which is easy with 1Password), and the password hash used means I only get to try one billion passwords per second, you have many, many years to get around to changing that password.

Still, FIDO tokens are very much a superior alternative, their two main disadvantages are fixable. Not enough people have FIDO tokens, and not enough sites accept them.

[Edited to make the password stuff easier to follow]