skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yikes! I get that you don't believe me, but I sincerely was trying to be respectful of your opinion and your grief. I've had quite a lot of death in my family, so I empathize with the grief people experience during similar times.

A lifetime of things, good and bad made me this way. I don't agree that I have any particular pathos I need to nail down, but being better is always the goal, right?

This whole thing just turned into a whirlwind of Poe's law.
A streak is a 1-5 minute thing at most for those who are obsessed with it. Many people in that category send out a single "streak" snap to everyone they have a streak with. You can't spend the same 20 minutes of Instagram scrolling with streaks. I don't think it's a completely harmless thing, but it's not in the same category at all.
If you find yourself in such a situation, you should say something along the lines of "At my previous job, I provided a tremendous amount of value to the organization, and was unsatisfied with the amount of that value I was capturing for myself. Given the current market conditions, this is something I feel comfortable remedying"
> ... the ways I used Twitter [etc]

> ... completely different than they way they are used today.

Are you conflating the way that you would interact with a social media site, and the way that most people would -- rather than comparing both sets of people over time?

TFA's focus is on the addictive aspect of FB (etc) -- and clearly FB (etc) are constantly improving their psychological toolkit in order to obtain and retain eyeballs -- but I don't think the quantifying of likes is the main tool in their kit. Worse, they're not likely to voluntarily reduce the efficacy of their methods.
I don't think it would have anywhere approaching the kind of foundation a skyscraper would have. A quick google search and it looks like a tower crane sites on a 1.5m x 6.5m square footing. So 6 of those. Assuming the soil can handle it and the 'energy' weights act as their own foundations.
The book, and your article, basically skip over a key fact. That is, the real definition of loneliness, in my opinion, is being accepted by your peers, and seeking self validated, and the lack of these two things on a daily or regular basis is "bad". But the next question is, what is the value of seeking validation, peer acceptance, "go along to get along", etc? If you value this a lot in life, and you are alone, you are going to be sad because there will be nobody there to fill this void aka "loneliness". How to deal with this negative trait? Just no longer value this idea, because it can't be a positive aspect until you realize it is a completely made up subjective ideology and throw it out the window. Instead, seek validation in yourself and do what you want to do in life, what you think is right, what your goals should be, how you reach them positively, and what hurdles and steps you need to get there. You'll find out you won't be lonely at all, because other people will see your virtue and self leadership and then come bother to seeking their own validation. Unfortunately you could end up in a situation where people won't leave you alone trying to figure out your "secret", which I found is kind of a paradox. I actually think this whole seeking validation from other peer groups is completely toxic and leads to a sociopathic power structure (the whole "SJW" movement is an extreme version of this), but that's a different subject.

Also it sounds like you have some negative thinking going on here, I would read Learned Optimism (the above has nothing to do this this book), Feeling Good, and other CBT books. The last part about Rituals is also alarming for another reason I won't go into this board, but basically when you are negative or toxic it creates a void where, so to speak, evil can take over. Trying to escape evil with "rituals" (whatever that is, worshiping the devil? doing degenerative things like drugs and alcohol?) is toxic behavior that's just going to make things worse.
I am afraid that this whole "mutual trust" aspect is missing in the OP and some of the comments. As a person who hires more than quite a few people, I definitely do not like to hire people with the mindset "The company is out to screw me, and I absolutely will stick for the absolute best for myself". If the mindset is established "the company is out to screw me", I actually do not want that person, regardless of how hot they are or how low a pay they want to accept (at that point, it is not about the pay). That spirit of mutual trust has served me well and I believe has served the people I have hired well.
I would say this is an argument for free markets.
I know people who are obsessed with maintaining streaks on Snapchat, but I see the effects of a streak as different from the effects of the likes and shares mentioned above. While both mechanisms encourage users to use their platform more, keeping a Snapchat streak with friends puts an emphasis on actually communicating with individual people instead of blasting content across the platform.

Whether or not that communication between individuals is high-quality will vary from person to person, though.
I've commuted 1hr by car for 2.5yrs. Don't recommend it. I'd happily take a 15k paycut if my company relocated within a 15 min drive. The driving became so mind-numbing after a few months. And I shudder to think of all the lost sleep from the early mornings.
I think we're 15 years too late to recognise this. We've been pushing healthcare budgets down and into private hands (PFI, tendered provision contracts) for at least that long. And while it's demonstrably failed, we keep pushing that way.

We have too many politicians with too many fingers in too many pies telling too many lies about the "dream" that is American healthcare.
The pharmacists are beholden to the large companies that control their paychecks.
And if a modest use charge makes the spending more efficient and results in the delivery of more care?

(efficient in terms of medical benefit delivered per unit of spending)
>Septin-2 is commonly shortened to SEPT2

Why not short it to "7-2"? Or even just "5"?!

The whole thing smells like good old Microsoft bashing and/or poorly disguised advert for Google Sheets.
That's right. Many databases are literally just folders of files once you look under the hood - for example, here is PostgreSQL's layout:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/storage-file-layo...

Note in particular the comment "Each table and index is stored in a separate file" which shows that the file layout is not trivial.

SQLite is another database, but it also is "just files in a folder:" the main difference is that there is a single file for all the tables and indexes but it uses several other files in the same directory as well:

https://www.sqlite.org/tempfiles.html

Note that MS SQL Server uses much the same strategy as SQLite, although you have the option of splitting it across multiple OS files if you need more control over physical storage:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/da...

But if SQLite is a database, how is .xlsx or .ini or .json fundamentally any different? I don't think there's anywhere you can draw a bright line that will include all well known databases but exclude things that "merely" file formats. If we draw the line at "transactions," for example, we'll find that MongoDB and ElasticSearch no longer count. If we draw the line at "user access control" then SQLite and redis are not databases.

Older RDBMSes like Oracle may eschew OS files in an attempt to gain more control but they can't escape the fact that they too are are fundamentally just "organized collection of data, stored and accessed electronically." And then there are in-memory databases - which do not use the disk at all, but are plainly still considered "databases" - it's right there in the name! These varied examples show that the word "database" is used very broadly and any definition narrower than "A database is an organized collection of data, stored and accessed electronically" will certainly fail to include many instances of things which are commonly referred to as databases.
For example, they're highly selective, and you're the first candidate to pass their interviews in months. Congrats!

Most jobs aren’t that selective and aren’t doing work so specialized that that need someone in the 90th percentile.

Or maybe you just successfully completed the exact same technology project they're looking to do themselves.

Congratulations - you are then that “special snowflake”. You would know that if you ask the standard “what type of challenges are you facing” question when you are interviewing.

Or maybe they're just doing really well and willing to pay above-market.

Why would a company pay above market value for a new employee out of the goodness of thier heart? I could see the paying a bonus to existing employees.

Trust me, there are companies out there with crazy-high turnover. They typically will not tell you that as an interviewee, for obvious reasons.

I found that out the hard way during my second outing after my awkening. It was a contract to perm job that was so bad. That I just up and quit in a month without having anything lined up or even in the pipeline. I had an offer for what was then a Fortune 10 company within 4 days. Thanks to a recruiter. It also paid more than I was making.
That logic applies in context though, not as a blind rule.

So, if those places had historical and cultural ties with other nations that go way back (like Chinese and Taiwanese people have), then yes, a recent split might not mean much for the legitimacy of a new country.

If those places were merely occupied for centuries/millennia and "gotten their independence" then no.

Heck, colonial powers designed and build states based on all kind of splits in existing peoples to "divide and conquer" them. Statehood comes and go, actual historical and national cultural ties are what's long lasting.
Agree on a lot of work to do, but Keesmaat is far from a big unknown with wild promises. She was the chief city planner for 5 years. Her stance on the issues have been well articulated for years. She has significantly more experience running the city than any candidate in years, including current mayor Tory.
Ironically, of course, HN itself is one of them.
True, but honestly if you aren’t already a co-founder, friends with the investors, or very close to the founders, or have A LOT of experience on the business side of tech startups, I’m afraid to say the chances of you getting screwed are extremely high.

As an engineer, you won’t be privy to much if any of the business side, investor meetings, etc. I’m talking about personal relationships. Most engineers I know don’t even have access to or know what the cap table is. The only companies where I’ve made any money from the equity have been ones where the founders are already rich and happen to be nice, altruistic people. It’s unfortunatley how the sausage is made in SV. Most engineers (>90%) make $0 from any equity, no matter how well they have played their game. The era of massage therapists startup millionaires is over. The cat has been out of the bag for awhile now, people know there is money to be made in these companies so they are structuring them to do that.

I’m pretty sure engineers often get screwed as this has something to do with the fact they just don’t have face time with investors or access to the business side and spend their lives “heads down” building the product.

A sad anachronism but very true. Or maybe I'm just old and bitter? lol
Google Cloud has Docker based Cloud Functions ("Serverless Containers") in private alpha at the moment. More info at https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/cloud-functions-s..., and https://youtu.be/Y1sRy0Q2qig?t=33m54s.
Who’s going to tell them what I used to earn?

My previous employer? I never give HR as a reference, only other employees/managers.
Reason 3.3.2 released
Want to do something about it?

https://www.gormanhealthgroup.com/blog/trump-administration-...

Take action and write, tell them you oppose the PBM's and want drug kickbacks removed from the safe harbor exception!

This is what you are up against: https://www.pcmanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PCMA-comm...

Oh, they sound very convincing with great charts and data and bullet points. But they are very very wrong, they are looking out ONLY for themself!

I can't find where to comment, and I think the comment period might be closed, but doesn't matter write anyway. Encourage the Trump administration to do it and get rid of kickbacks!
Well then let's clear that up and see if what you say is true.
Feels like an intense version of Drivey.
See the "Serverless Containers" section on https://www.google.com/amp/s/gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot....

It's still in alpha, so Google is not advertising it wide. It was announced about a week before Zeit's Serverless docker at GCP Next.

Disclaimer: I work at Google and I've had some involvement in the tech behind this.
Fwiw I mostly agree - reading /etc/passwd shouldn't be able to help compromise your system. But it's also an error for sshd or any daemon to allow the enumeration of your list of users. I mean when we get to read /etc/passwd via httpd we call it an exploit... (even if we don't get shadow too).
Only the British and Americans weren't the same people (from a nationality perspective). Americans were merely British subjects -- from a hodge-podge of nationalities.

A split into two countries South / North post Civil War would be a better example.
Both sides agree everywhere on their domain of definition, which is all real numbers sans -2 and +1. I don't see how denseness is entering in.

The question is: how do you know they agree everywhere? In fact, how do you know they agree anywhere at all, since the value for eg. C was derived only under the assumption that x=+1 and x=+1 is not even in the domain.
The problem with viewing this as only a computation in the ring `R(x)` (I think that's what you mean, not "the ring of rational fractions on R[x]"—maybe you meant the fraction field of `R[x]`?) is that, while all the equalities of rational functions make perfectly good sense in `R(x)`, there is no "plug in `x = 1`" function on `R(x)`. One must 'promote' the equality in `R(x)` to one in `R[x]` by clearing denominators, and only then plug in `x = 1`.

(Of course this is what you do, and I agree that it's the right, or at least a good, way to explain it; but I think that it's important to emphasise explicitly how the algebraic point of view avoids any concern with taking limits.)
Unless it's a really small company the job has been graded, which means that they already know the title and level of the job and the salary range that has been approved.

When they ask for the number I always respond by saying, "Please tell me the approved salary range for the position."

If they won't tell you the salary range it's probably not a company worth working at.
and might be counterfeit
Some people use the word "mouses" to refer to the plural of the computer peripheral, precisely to avoid ambiguities like this.
Talk to the most technical person you know. Ask them for an intro to people they would most want to work with.

Repeat this process several times until you have someone who will interview for you.
In a lot of countries pricing is not outsourced to the government but it's regulated and transparent. The big problem in the US is that the involved parties intentionally make pricing opaque.
Most people in the US spend an amazing amount of time watching TV. The average for adults is about 5 hours a day[1]. Not sure if I really believe these numbers, as many people have the TV on when doing something else (I hope), but most people don't choose to do something "productive" with their free time.

Is social media better that TV? I would say social media has more value and is more likely to cause damage, but avoiding both is probably a good idea. I try not to eat much ice cream either.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption
> I don't see how denseness is entering in.

Density enters in in the implicit translation of the solecism "plug in `x = 1`" to the mathematically valid "plug in numbers near `x = 1` [to the denominator-cleared expression], and take the limit as `x \to 1`."
Archaeologists explore a rural field in Kansas, and a lost city emerges
Another thing to add would be car allowance. Which still counts as income, according to the IRS, but perhaps comes out of a different line-item in the company budget, and thus allows them to "make their salary budget numbers"

Or even a company-provided car/transport. The last place where I worked many employees drove a company-owned car - every three years the firm would lease a new one for them to drive.
From the CNN article at https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/18/technology/business/netflix...: In 2016, Netflix launched video previews that play when users browse. Netflix said that the videos cut down the time people spent browsing 'significantly.'

Every action this company takes seems to have one goal, above and beyond all others: to make sure their customers never catch even a fleeting glimpse of just how few titles they have in their streaming catalog.

A strange model, but it seems to work for them.
Again n=1. I value people who have been with me long term more than I value people who I am newly recruiting. That just seems like common sense to me.

It comes from the idea that we often over-value the worth of people we don't know and devalue the worth of people we know well; the magic always seems to be "somewhere else".
> If A = B for all x, then A / (x - 1) = B / (x - 1) for x not equal to 1.

This is true, but it is the converse of what we want: we know (or guess) that we can arrange that `A/(x - 1) = B/(x - 1)` for all `x \ne 1`, and want to deduce that `A = B` for all `x`. Here we need to know something about `A` and `B` for the deduction to be valid; it suffices that they are continuous at `x = 1`, which is the case here.
Sure, good idea. But we circle back to my original point, politicians have no interest in doing that.
The first time this happens to me I'm yanking my subscription.
In related news, work addiction linked to staking your self worth on your bank balance.
Do you put those growth expectations in writing? As in, do you say "here are the criteria you will be evaluated on in 6mo/1yr/18mo", and your promotions/raises will look like XYZ as a result"? And do you provide performance bonuses to true-up people who you have been under-compensating for their performance?

Because if not, its not clear that you're putting their interests first. You're trying to get work at potentially below market rate, and then perhaps raise them up to market rate. That's not putting their interests first, it's getting cheap labor for a few months. Why would that engender trust?
Not sure how widely known or common this is for medications but I take PrEP (Truvada) and the maker has a free "co-pay" card on their website that basically covers $4800/year in copayments (well above the $50/month I would ever pay).

I'm sure there's some shady big pharma economics behind why these exist in the first place, but at the very least I'm getting a very expensive drug for free.
I believe hughes means: "when you click on an entry of the documentation, e.g. '.wrap' in the "Contents" you see a scrolling animation instead of just the entry you'd like to read."

So not "scrollbar" but "scrolling" as the result of the click, on the documentation page:

https://umbrellajs.com/documentation

I'm one of those who have the problem with the animations in the UIs too. Believe or not some people get effectively a real sickness feeling just by looking at some specific movements, in my case that page manages to achieve that.
In a statement given to Ars Technica, Netflix described the change as follows: "We are testing whether surfacing recommendations between episodes helps members discover stories they will enjoy faster." The reasoning, Netflix's statement says, comes from its last controversial decision: to add auto-playing videos, complete with unmuteable audio, while browsing through Netflix content.

Netflix offered a major rebuttal to at least one Reddit claim, pointing out that the ads for Netflix content are entirely skippable.

I'm guessing they aren't getting views they want, especially with a lot of their shows being duds.

The obvious response would be to increase the quality of their programming. The easy response is to jam their current programming down our throats.

I quit Netflix, and even a single ad about anything is enough to keep me from ever returning.

Trust me, this is just a start. They know people hate autoplay videos, yet they added them anyway. They know people hate ads, but they are going to be using them anyway.

What's next? Product advertising? I don't doubt this. Ad/ad free streaming packages?
I do like to see what calculators they have whenever I'm in a pound shop. Last time I was in one, they had scientific calculators. I just admire the ability to get the price so low, to just £1 for something that a few decades ago was so cutting edge.
Vue is VERY much an easy drop in for small things..I've totally started replacing it wherever I'd otherwise have used jquery... and I can't say I'm sorry I have. But all my projects use laravel on backend, and laravel has webpack/vue baked in so there's really nothing I need to configure for it to work, too much..a little tweaking in the app.js file..that's all.
> Realistically though, recruiters are very good at figuring out what your ballpark is, based on your experience/qualifications/market-conditions, and will toss out a number that's in the lower end of this ballpark, regardless of "their_top".

Excuse my skepticism, but have you ever actually seen that happen?

Your supposition reflects lack of understanding of how both external and internal recruiters work, and how they are incentivized.

Their KPI is the number of candidates sourced by them who got hired. Which means they are two-way salespeople: they sell you on the position, and sell the employer on you.

Their key goal in the early stages is to ensure you go through the process if you are qualified. They have zero incentive to lowball you. If anything they can and sometimes do get in trouble for inflating a candidates' comp expectations.

So what you described, where a recruiter tries to preemptively negotiate you down, simply doesn't happen because it is counter-productive behavior for recruiter. He has absolutely no reason to lowball you, and every reason to make you aware of the highest pay you can possibly expect - because that will make you excited to come in for an interview.

> At that point, not only do you not have any clue about their_top, but you've also allowed the negotiation to become anchored at a lowball number.

This is negotiation between professional adults. The fact that the other party said a number doesn't obligate or "anchor" you in any way. You can simply say "sorry, but I'm looking for $X", or (more likely, if you have options) just assume the pay expectations aren't matching and walk away.

The risk of the latter happening is why you'd never see this "recruiter lowball" in reality.
Is Lisp Still Unique? Or at Least Different? (2002)
The source might not have used the best link, but there are studies to support that claim. Vision Zero in NYC has been studied extensively and has had a huge proven impact.

I wouldn't say a opinion piece from Road and Track would be a better source, especially considering it's just quoting untested theories on the cause of a single city's issue.
From time to time, I need to make small interaction JS, which using React or Vue will be super overkill. Instead of using vanilla JS, I just use jQuery.

The biggest issue is that "small JS interaction" end up in an app. In that case, I will re-write in React.
I wouldn't call it hostile. Defensive seems a better word.

In any case let's see him follow through on that. But I would like to see some real steps and not just discussions with some business leaders, maybe some nasty tweets, declaring victory and then forgetting about it.