skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most people don't understand risk and expected value. Let's say we go ahead and report each others' salaries. There's a non-1 chance you would be able to bump up some modest amount and a non-0 chance you'd be let go. The expected value of the move may put you below "doing nothing", not even considering the added stress of being out of a job.

Also, all this idea will create is animosity, jealousy and politics at work. Everyone thinks they're hot shit, the egos in the bay are out of this world.
Oh, well of course it's because:

"From opening the heavy lid to placing your phone in the cradle, each analog movement becomes an intentional affirmation of the digital sacrifice you are about to make. To complete the gesture, close the box and encapsulate the device."

You can't just turn your phone off or get a dumb phone, you need a ritualized sarcophagus to bolster your decaying willpower.
yes also i wasn't in the academia for too long, so i hope it is less destigmatizing :)
Nope, saw it firsthand on convoys running around the countryside and also while buying cigarettes and whiskey from the good people of Iraq.

Didn't see the media other than occasionally seeing them driving around in their landcrusers.
I think, if you can't justify reading a BBC article at work, then you probably shouldn't be reading HN at work.
Interesting thought. Note that getting off 300 km up would not put you in orbit; you would lack the orbital velocity required for that. So if you get off there you'd have to burn around 8 km/s of delta-v, which is quite a bit of fuel to haul up.

For efficiency you'd want to go higher. There'd be a point much higher than 300 km where detethering would put you into a highly elliptical orbit where the periapsis is 300 km. Then you'd just have to burn retrograde to circularize. Off hand I'm not sure what the math for that would be but it should be pretty simple algebra.
I am an outsider to some extent but it's interesting observing a repeat of the so-called "feminist sex wars" here in Africa. One argument is that if the society was more equal economically across gendered lines, then there would be no need for this kind of sex work. This is often used as an argument against sex work in the west as well, but I'm guessing the level of wealth inequality, and not just across gendered lines, is much more extreme in Kenya, so the scale of the difference could push it into a different regime.

I don't know what the answer is. I also don't like the idea of people on the outside imputing their mores unto another group when that group could advocate for themselves.
The property you want is that all packets for a given flow take the same path through the network (absent topology changes), to minimize out-of-order packets and ease troubleshooting.

A1 +- B1 +- C1
| `- C2
|
`- B2 +- C3
`- C4

In this example, if all routers compute the same hash value for a given packet, links B1 -> C2 and B2 -> C4 never get used, for any flows.

So all you really need is for each router to make a consistent decision about packets in the same flow. They don't have to use the exact same hashing function. In addition to the cumulus networks link provided in the GP, it looks like Cisco gear also has a per-device salt: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/express-forwar...

Note that this has nothing to do with endpoint selection, just the intermediate hops.

Edit: I'm also leaving out how the final modulo can produce different selections between layers. So in practice, if you have layers that are different sizes you'd get better utilization. That seems like a fragile thing to depend upon, though.
>2) foreign investments are something we want because trade and more resources makes our economy grow much faster

and

>A large portion of India’s economy is informal, and entirely cash based AND also below the taxable slabs - this is OK.

50% of India's GDP is from the "informal" sector, and it employs something like 90% of Indians. So it's not just a "large portion". It is the majority. And it is this very informal sector that demonetization targeted so to formalize it. FDI makes a very small portion of GDP growth in India.

>And as current reports show - All of that money is back in circulation - so the banks are back to square one.

The money is back in circulation after people paying at least 50% tax if their cash was unaccounted for, but could range up to 200% penalty if the accounting was particularly shady. Which is why you see such a high deposit rate. People would rather see 50% of their cash than nothing.

So "all" that money going back into the economy makes sense. Now the government has actually account of what is going on.
technically true but still a horrible idea
Maybe they do not reciprocate because they earn much more for doing the same job and do not want to depress you with that knowledge. Maybe they earn much less for the same job and are embarrassed about that. There are many reasons someone would not share their salary with you and being a coward is unlikely to be the main one.
I strongly agreed with this advice when I made less. Now I agree in principle, but in practice try to only discuss it with people on about my same tier. As per usual, disparities in money make for awkward relationships, with the weirdness increasing as the disparity increases.

It's so damned hard to identify the reasons for these disparities and what "fair" means, which is the best way to alleviate bad feelings. A couple years experience at the right companies, a particular project you've done, a team you've been on, the degree you have, the right people vouching for you, a lucky day of interviewing, etc. Tiny variations in those can take you from no offer to a crazy high offer. There's so much noise in the system that leads to salaries. In this imperfect information game of hiring, I can't fault companies for paying heed to those factors and paying more/less based on them, but after that information is revealed and you've been working together for a while, things usually don't equalize. The initial lucky/unlucky salaries persist.

The whole thing is weird. To too high a degree, the open salary discussion is now, "Yeah, I got pretty lucky." Doubly so with the stock comp we get in tech.
And about what. The scope demarks the domain and defines the concepts. Once you've done that right, the question can be as obvious as 6×7.
Hear hear. You just need to look at the Census fiasco to realise how bloody terrifying an idea it is for these guys to handle a centralised database of all our medical information.

It scares the shit out of me, to be honest. I have small kids, and the future we're heading towards terrifies and depresses me. I'd love to leave the country but I'm stuck here due to "reasons" and also I don't think it would make much difference. The Internet is my career, my hobby, and my entire life, and it's controlled by "them" anyway... and I don't know how to do anything else to support my family.
>All of the money hoarders would have immediately converted their cash, negating the move.

Unless you disagree with the figures RBI has reported, this (precisely this) has happened anyways; the move has been negated. I am baffled at the number of people on HN who still believe that this chicanery really made the rich throw their hoarded cash somewhere.

I mean, come on folks! That's the whole point of the article we are talking about here! 99.7% of the demonetized currency is back. The rest of it could be in Bhutan or Nepal, with the NRIs or could be hiding under the pillows of those who were too poor to get it changed; we don't know.
> Am I missing a more reasonable interpretation?

I think so. I think in more than one way.

GP, if I read correctly, tries to limit the expectations we can have based on this ruling since the circumstances where unusual. (Read GPs post again for more details.)

English is not my first language but GP seemed very clear and easy to read.
Not to be crass, but you might just as well call someone a coward when they won’t show you their genitals after you unilaterally show them yours.

If you uninvitedly told me your salary I’d think you’re a clown.
What you said is close to a tautology, and like most tautologies, they are merely a play on words and don't leave any substantial insight.
The way I see it is that although in most relationships people expect reciprocation, they differ in how strictly the people involved are keeping tabs on the difference between how much each is contributing.

In relationships like the ones described in this article, both parties are paying more attention to whether they're getting what they perceive to be a fair reward for what they are providing to the other, and should the balance ever shift too far out of their favor, they will presumably end the relationship.

On the other extreme, in a relationship between two very close childhood friends or between two deeply romantically involved people, one will often do nice things for the other without (I claim) necessarily checking the books to see all the nice things they've done vs. all the nice things the other's done in the past week before deciding whether to do the nice thing. They just do the nice thing, knowing that in the past the other has done the same for them. Only if there comes to be a very long period of non-reciprocation will the other party wake to the one-sidedness of the relationship and begin to reconsider.
That's a good question. As mentioned elsewhere, the Internet is my life (career, hobby, everything)... so I don't think I could fully disconnect if I wanted to. It's like... I know what the problem is, but I don't know what the answer is (for me personally, for my kids sake I'm not quite willing to go Stallman yet, but I'm respecting his methods more every single day).
You can buy effective faraday pouches for car keys in many places. I have one, and can attest they work. They are no thicker than any other fabric.

I've not tried it for my phone though.
It is arguable that this was how marriage functioned in the past in the west, especially when men courted women from their parents.
Maybe adding generics to Go IS about syntax
Iran??
I think the word "unmanned" in the title is a bit misleading. I wanted to read the article because I was curious about what I thought would be an AI project. "ATC? How do they pull that off without human operators?"
> If you don't know the value of grateful people, you're not much of a capitalist.

Rule of Acquisition no. 1 says: "Once you have their money, you never give it back".

But if you did, the next best thing is suggested by Rule 111: "Treat people in your debt like family... exploit them".
Fantastic Health Advantages of Bananas
In other words, it's OK not to be paid according how well you do your job, but according to your negotiating skills?
Zaro might be a native romance-language speaker.

abitare/habitar/habiter is "inhabit" in english, while
inabitabile/inhabitable/inhabitable is "uninhabitable", the "in-" being privative (compare: in-sufficient, in-secure etc).

English played us bad :)
While it wouldn't solve the problem in and of itself, I think one mechanism that could help mitigate this phenomenon would be to compel companies like YouTube and Facebook to (somehow) disclose what their algorithms select for promotion (that is, for suggestion or automatic presentation).

When the citizens don't and can't know what YouTube is playing for people, they can't really object.

On the other hand, if the data was there and enough citizens were interested for somebody to analyze the data, then we could know: Oh, during the 6 weeks leading up to the Brexit vote, among the top 1000 videos X% strongly advocated for, Y% strongly advocated against, Z% didn't fit into strong advocacy. Oh, and, this false disproven pro-Brexit piece from Boris Johnson was played 18,960,000 times to an estimated 14,000,000 unique viewers.

That would provide another vector of incentive/consequence that content promoters — algorithmic or otherwise — would have to factor into their decisions.

I think this would also help with the other, extremely related problem of "algorithmic child abuse" described by the viral article "Something is wrong on the internet" from last year[1].

As we shift from a mass broadcast media landscape (TV, radio, print), increasing algorithmic content selection has huge implications, for society, democracy, children, etc.

Because each person (or child) potentially receives their own custom-tailored feed of content (articles, videos) and ads, it is extremely difficult to, first of all, _know what is actually happening_. (That is, what is being shown to the public, or in the second case, what is being shown to individual kids.)

This makes it effectively impossible to hold these companies accountable for what they are choosing to show people.

I am sure that these companies would fight tooth and nail to prevent such legislation from being enacted, and I am not confident that the collapsing democratic institutions in my own country (USA) are even capable of doing so. It's a pretty hard thing to legislate.

Even if the rule was something like each user's account had to make accessible, somewhere, the complete history of content and advertising selected for display for that user. Then, scientists and journalists could at least use random sampling of people, get their data, and do analysis that way. Although probably, with micro-targeting of individuals, we would also need the global totals for each content item or ad to also be available.

I think algorithmic selection has the potential to so terrible because it is happening in the dark. There are very few consequences for bad behavior when it is known only to the "victims".

Especially if they don't think they are victims; e.g., my young kids when they're watching the grotesque algorithmically generated videos of their favorite video game characters that YouTube suggests for them — my personal introduction to this entire topic. If you haven't seen it before, I recommend the below-linked article to anybody with children, or who just wants to think more about the implications of algorithmic/ML content selection.

[1] https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-in...
A river is an ideal way to get rid of shit, yes. The river volume doesn't really matter - humans produce a lot of shit. Some rivers have been turned into sewer lines, like the River Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet ). Even huge rivers can have problems, like the Yellow River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River#Pollution ).

Twitter after the 2007 SXSWi was not considered a sewer, even with 140 characters. The River Fleet, in Roman times, was not a sewer. Most assuredly Twitter did not build their system as a sewer.

Twitter doubled its limit, so by your definition is no longer 'ideal'. The shitposting doesn't seem to be affected. Even if 140 is ideal, why should I think that unlimited length would somehow prevent problems?

I prefer to think you didn't think through the metaphor of your 'Executive Summary' well enough.
Who's up for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh declaring it is?
That's perfect! No way they'd ever allow those on our roads though, but in an ideal world I'd buy one tomorrow.
The Rise of T-Series, the YouTube Channel That Will Soon Dethrone PewDiePie
How is this supposed to be a good idea? At best it's going to lead to jealousy and other issues. And having lived in a country where salary discussion is not so taboo, while also being privy to what those people make, a fair number of people lie about their compensation which adds even more issues and antagonism.
Driving to the corner store isn't the issue. Having a lifestyle that makes you need a car is the issue. Also travelling in general is a big taboo, because environnementalists usually love to travel.

Relying on individual's changes will lead to what we've been doing for 30 years. It leads to the current situation of “penny wise and pound foolish”, saving water when brushing teeth but taking planes.
> Time to re-think my entire online existence and take up knitting or something.

I share your sentiments. A few months ago I told a less-technically-inclined friend that things would move in this direction and prompt people to consider disconnecting. Of course, my friend was/is skeptical; time will tell.
Any idea how black money hoarders were able to exchange their bills? I have heard stories like recruiting poor people to exchange cash with max allowed but still given the amount of such money in India this doesn’t sound scalable. I also think govt actually had pretty good set of rules to avoid this. Were there any other loophole they found out?
Apple bash is ancient.
> performance

Performance is usually better in the database, because the data is local. However, like any language, there is more than one way to say it in SQL. When the query is complicated, with joins and subselects and aggregates, I have made it literally a thousand times faster by rearranging and rewriting things. I'm not even talking about adding indexes yet.

> scalability

I think 99% of applications could scale just fine with Postgres.
This is common in scifi, in Dune the earth is long forgotten (ignoring crappy prequels), in Revelation Space it's known but all the interesting stuff is happening elsewhere. I think it's more about trying to avoid explaining how we get from today to the time of the story, which involves some always wrong predictions of the future. Contrast with something like star trek where the Eugenics War apparently ended 22 years ago.
I suggest checking out Tom Scott's "In Norway, Everyone Can Know How Much You Earn", at https://youtu.be/1bO8zEaSuWg

And then, have a look at the bibliography in the video description!
Star Wars spacecraft fly around as if they were aircraft in an atmosphere, which isn't surprising given that...

... given that the spacecraft in Star Wars are all used to land on planet surfaces as well as fight in space. :)
Some nobody insisting everyone is doing it wrong.
> "does anyone do that?"

I do. And I find myself doing it more and more often...

also - I'm missing more and more having control over when I'm available and when I'm not - 'always online' seemed great but in recent months I noticed that its a actually hellish experience if you want to get things done and you somewhat rely on your phone - you can't just disable chats so you could either disable Internet altogether (but you may need it) or sounds / vibrations (but you may rely on notifications from other applications)
weary == leery?

Fixing the world, one typo at a time.
Might be a job for a website, along the lines of a crowd funding site? People would post their salaries, but they would only be revealed (anonymously or not?) if a certain number of fellow employees also posted theirs (by a certain date?) Surely someone has already built this? It might include an mechanism to send an anonymous invitation email to a list of fellow employees?

There are already salary survey sites, but they seem removed from the individual's situation, as the results are averaged over so many people and the underlying assumptions aren't clear. Knowing your immediate coworkers' salaries seems much more immediate.

Trust and privacy would have to be absolute, so people have complete control over the spread of any information they submit, which rules out most existing websites.

---
Edit:

On further thought, I'm not sure that I agree with my own proposal, in that it's a complicated solution. Wouldn't it be better to establish the necessary level of trust with your coworkers in real life and talk about it? There's also less of a paper trail and information leakage that way.
In Norway the Government publish how much tax you paid for the year. This makes it fairly simple to know what a PAYE employee is earning.

Having come into this enviroment mid career from another country I considered whether or not I should look up colleagues. Naturally I was interested.

I decided not to. The main rationale, I was reasonably ok with the salary and very much enjoyed the job. If I discovered colleagues doing similar work and getting paid more I would find this demoralising and didn't want to bring that into a job I enjoyed.

I do understand this knowledge could be a negotiation tactic, but 1) happiness is more important than money to me and 2) my personal experience is most companies are reluctant to significantly change salary without promotion, and even at promotion they tend to bump you up under market rate. So maybe I could have gotten more money, but at the risk of reducing the enjoyability of a job I really liked. So if you are going to announce your salary, I would suggest you do it in an enviroment where you know the other people want to hear it.

For me I've found the best way to make more money is change companies.

And side point: A bit disappointed the article had this like '“Let’s face it, it’s 2018 and there’s still serious disparities in pay based on race and gender,”"

Regarding gender I believe this has been fairly comprehensive debunked with multi-varied analysis. Once accounting for careers choice, age, occupation and personality-type etc and the commonly quoted 18% gap reduces to 2% on gender, and currently under 30's men are paid less than women.
Okay, it is almost unquestionably certain that as a kid you had to wear nappies and so when you were young, you did the uncomfortable regularly, yet we don't consider it as your legacy or worst yet call it "appalling, and that is what you are", for the very simple reason that you were mentally incapable of comprehending your actions and it's consequences.

It is true that you had to wear nappies but also mind-numbingly stupid to consider it as your legacy or insist that "it is appalling and it is true".
DW also has a good documentary exploring how past societies collapsed due to climate changes, and how only Japan was able to change course when they realized they had broken their environment.

https://youtu.be/z2r9PxN3Hwg
The thing about this is that people are bad at objectively analyzing contributions, especially their own. Some aspects of value to an employer/manager include your regular work output quantity and quality, ability to learn new skills quickly (thus being dependable in unexpected situations), willingness to jump in to new challenges, mentoring other team members, etc. People often overlook these factors in others and say "I do the same work as them, or more!" and get upset about different compensation. I mean, certainly sometimes there is value in sharing this information, but there are also plenty of situations where it causes discord more than it helps the people involved, so I don't know that "discuss your salary!" is universally good advice.
I agree on the publicity stunt feeling. Space elevators are thought-provoking stuff of science fiction. It would be fantastic if we could build them.

Most I've read on the subject (this article included) are very thin on details, or point out the great scientific hurdles and breakthroughs that still need to be overcome / made.

This article made me think of the publicity stunt some years ago to build a mountain of 3,560 feet high in The Netherlands for $432 billion. The stunt was taken seriously and became world news:

https://www.businessinsider.com/400-billion-manmade-mountain...

If this is indeed a PR stunt I wonder if it would reflect positively or negatively on Obayashi? Would be like proposing an unrealistic, probably under-priced project. Of course they don't say when it can be realized..
Exactly. If you visit Mt Vernon (Washington's home), the kitchen is in a separate building. It seems odd, until the guide tells you that kitchen fires were common, and so the kitchens were separated from the main house.
1. Negotiating skill is a skill as any other soft skill.

2. If somebody consider that he doing the same job (have the same skill) it doesn't mean that it's true.