skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The usual term for what you call "glassdoor" development is "cathedral".

The original use of the term "bazaar" to refer to software development, in fact, was to describe Linux. It's interesting how perspectives change...
A super common complaint about Equifax is that everyone's SSNs were stolen, which puts people at risk of identity theft. With a national ID scheme where authentication is not based on knowing what is essentially a primary key, this concern would go away.

This would do nothing about any other data, but to draw a parallel to merchant breaches, we mostly see stolen credit cards as a nuisance and a matter for the banks to deal with, rather than something we really worry about.
While I certainly understand that math and physics are separate concepts, physics as we know it wouldn't be possible without math. I'm sure in your mind you can separate them, but if you took math away from physics, we wouldn't have modern physics.

Math is how physics is given practical application, if anything, that means science is more abstract than math is.
The key is that you can (in theory, I don't know if Haskell has a proper bottom that can act as a type) give a value of Void/Bottom to anything, analogous to logic in that a proof of nonsense can be used as a proof of anything.

Take this Haskell code that passes the type checker:

bottom = bottom

f :: Int -> a
f _ = bottom

Here 'bottom' has the conceptual type Void/Bottom and checks successfully against the 'a'.

So assuming we have this Void type in Haskell (I don't know if Haskell has it or not), this should also type check:

f :: Void -> a
f x = x

Just like bottom (of type Void) checked against the 'a' earlier, an argument of that type should also type check.
Yep, that’s rampant in the electronic test equipment industry. Keysight will sell you a $13k box, with $26k of hardware options to enable.
fails Occam's razor
It's whole ecosystem, not just phone companies. Like colleges have specialised courses, constant new talent pool, government incentives, rawmaterial etc. Know any other country that can invest trillion+ dollars over couple of decade outside Asia to beat this ?
Very bad idea, and one that will cause a lot of breakage. There’s a reason every package management system on Mac uses its own prefix.
Alternatively, provide a Brewfile (`brew bundle dump`) and let users edit and install (`brew bundle`) themselves.
Traction / Get A Grip

Slicing Pie

Scrum

Hard thing about hard things
My choice to use gmail was made by my employer.

I like my job.

How am I supposed to pass, again?
What if the horse is pale : - /
The trick behind NLP that's surprisingly under discussed is that you must use apples-to-apples comparisons between datasets. Using simple tweets as a proxy for style against a professionally-edited NYT op-ed is silly, but this analysis (along with the previous analyses) is transparent about that fact.
iOs only. Making app that works on all type of Android devices is so time consuming. In the end its not even worth it. Im writing on iPad so I will keep it short. Android users dont pay. They try to find free version of your app, hack, manipulate or some other nasty stuff. Ios people are far more likely to buy and behave. I launched my app ios only and then built android app only to pull it off market. You end up spending time answering people who wants to buy they say, but will tease you and ask silly pre sales qurstion
Arthur C Clarke wrote frequently of him, crediting Stapledon as one of his earliest influences!
Awesome! I was actually thinking of doing something similar, but with some key differences:

- try and find transcripts and speeches each "suspect" has given.

- Probably use a classification algo to try and determine who the author could be (most likely using KNN)

- I hadn't determined feature building, but was thinking of a either a simple one-hot encoding, entity embedding, or tf-idf.

I then encountered a moral dilemma -- do I do this and it potentially becomes ammo for messing with someone else's career (when that is not my intention)?
So what should we do instead, be resigned to the current state of things?

I think it's totally unreasonable to tell us to stop trying to innovate. We have solved so many of the world's problems, why should we stop now?
I think that having the government take drugs through clinical studies would increase development costs, and the increase in development costs (funded by taxpayer dollars) plus the fact that you have to replace the entire commercial infrastructure (since no private company will take part in this) would be larger than any savings you'd get from eliminating IP. People would end up paying way way more in new taxes than they save in insurance premiums and copays (people spend roughly $30 a month on rx drugs today, govt run drug dev and distribution would probably cost $60-hundreds+ extra a month, unless you're ok getting 10% of the life saving new drugs our society gets today)

The profits in pharma accrue to the top 15 or so companies by revenue, because they have invested in this commercial infrastructure over decades. You could argue that having large scale clin reg and commercial infrastructure is actually more valuable than IP. Especially in the new era of large molecules and cell / gene therapy, where IP doesn't matter nearly as much as in small molecules. Regualtory and manufacturing issues are a bigger barrier to competition in those areas than IP is. Look at biosimilar development as an example -- patents gone, no new competing drugs in most areas. An exec at a top antibody developer told me they know competitors can work around patents, they just need a 6 month head start and then their best in industry antibody dev capabilities will get them the edge they need. Avexis, Kite and Juno were acquired for ~$10B each not because of their products, but because they had the largest scale manufacturing and clinical logistics set up in gene and cell therapy

I differ from most people on this forum as I fundamentally attribute the high price of drugs to the high cost of developing drugs, not to IP granting monopolies. IP does not exist to grant rent-seeking powers, it exists to incentive publicly useful research that otherwise would not get done. I think that if you look critically at the cost of drug development and the economics of the industry, that's the only conclusion you reach

There's a lot of emotional and biased information about drug pricing out there. It is one of the top political issues of the day, one of the few with bipartisan supprt, it has become an emotional punching bag for a lot of people who have been really poorly treated by an opaque and impersonal healthcare system, and i can understand the frustration people feel. But if you look at the facts and take an objective standpoint, and invest the time into understanding the industry, the public dialogue becomes quite concerning

edit: apologies if this comes off as aggressive, i just feel strongly about this :)
Firefox has gained a feature called multi-account containers several releases back solving exactly this kind of problem in a slick way: Your tabs can be assigned to different accounts (represented by different colors/names/icons (which are configurable). Each account has its own cookies etc, allowing you to be signed in to any number of services while keeping them separated.

I use this feature heavily to separate different clients.

It's also the reason why Chrome/Chromium are now out of the question for personal use: Much to complicated to keep things separated.
> banks needs to be liable for loans they write in your name fraudulently

Is this not the case already? I know that it could be an incredible hassle to prove that you didn't take out the loan and that someone else has stolen your identity. (There's also the question of who has the onus of proof -- you or the bank.) But if it's a fraudulent loan and you could prove it was fraudulent (which I agree could be difficult to prove), can you be held responsible?
which is why Metropolis deserves every bit of praise it gets.
Buprenorphine has been available for as long as oxycontin. Subutex (the trade name) is sold on the street, and is a commonly abused drug in UK prisons currently, usually as fractions of a pill taken nasally.

Really, this patent is nothing to do with the drugs involved - even the idea of adding Naloxone isn't new, this is available as Suboxone, nor is the idea of sub-lingual administration. As far as I can tell what is being patented is administration in a gelatin-film matrix that dissolves very quickly, preventing diversion and resale on the street.

Remember that these drugs are not just handed out as a month's supply of pills like you would get antibiotics. Instead, they are 'supervised delivery' where the user must take the pill in front of a pharmacist. The fear is that if the pill takes 5m to dissolve, then it could be spit out and sold on once the pharmacy or treatment center has been left, so dissolving in seconds prevents this. Personally, I'm not convinced this is a problem except perhaps in prisons (see above) but then I'm also not convinced the idea is patentable...
This reminds of this good read: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/what-c....
> Project Titan is a huge gamble.

Titan is not a gamble. It's a hobby. And from the eyes of a Trillion Dollar Company, it's not even an expensive one.

What's the worst that can happen? They spend a few more years on it, poaching talent from Tesla and other car companies and from internal teams, and end up with nothing. Sure, they might spend a few billion in the process, but they already did that building a spaceship, and spending at that level doesn't hurt their books at all.

iPhone on the other hand, was a huge gamble at the time. It had the potential to ruin the company by cannibalizing iPod sales, diluting the brand, and destroying morale of top engineers who were at the time the "best" employees they had.

What's the best thing that can happen? They launch the equivalent of an iPhone in the auto industry, figure out how to scale, and change the way people go from point a to b. They are recognized as the company that pulled off something Tesla couldn't, and Tim Cook / Jony Ives get to put their names on a revolutionary product that changed the world again.

So it's a low risk high return situation for them to work on it. Can they pull it off? I would say much more likely than "traditional" auto companies but less likely than Tesla. But again, it doesn't really matter to them (part of why chances of success are lower), and competition is a good thing. As a shareholder of TSLA, I don't want to see Elon Musk smoking weed on YouTube anymore. Somebody please take away his Twitter account too.
It's in Ubuntu, fwiw (via being in Debian).
https://packages.ubuntu.com/cosmic/ripgrep

It might even be installable on older versions of Ubuntu.
I will stand by for the screenshot of my smiling mug on Our Incredible Journey.
“We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA.”

If this doesn't tell you all you need to know about regulatory capture and the FDA...
One of my molars worked itself loose, which hurt like hell, and my mom had some OxyContin laying around from when she broke her wrist so...on that particular day I was very happy my mom was displaying "early addict behavior".
huh...so that's why chrome suddenly wants to sync my bookmarks to my gmail username.

Firefox it is then. This is a little too shady for my liking.
The problem is that SSNs are used for both identity and authentication. It’s as if your login was just a username, no password. Equifax et al only need to know your “username” and still allow for credit checks. But since all we have is SSN, Equifax has your “password” as well, turning a data breach from a theft of private data into a wide open avenue for identity theft.
(The extra bit of irony is that when you move from canada to the us you have zero credit history, and have to bootstrap from some cruddy credit card that you're never allowed to close afterwards, lest you impact your credit rating...)
@OP I'd suggest mentioning the Homebrew dependency or automatically using macports if available. IIRC all the packages you install from brew are also working in macports.
Are you sure? My employer uses gmail, which I access via Mail.app exclusively. I bet I open the web app maybe once or twice a year, usually by clicking a link in a calendar event.

It's perfectly possibly to use gmail-the-service without using gmail-the-app.
Sounds like you've made your choice. A bad employer at a job you like is more important than software ethics. No need for my input here. But it is your choice.
Well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_total_potential_energy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_minimum_energy
I keep forgetting about this and I am always surprised when I click through.
> This paper is arguing that in addition to sexual selection's first order directional effect, there's an overlaid second order effect on variability, and the argument makes sense. Male reproductive success is already highly variable, because male gametes are cheap. Some males end up being disproportionately successful, e.g., Genghis Khan. From a gene's point of view, being hosted in Khan was winning the jackpot.

The paper makes no distinction between sexes -- so a discussion of male or female differences, whether in reproductive success, does not discuss on the paper's model.

> If you have a number of male offspring, some of them will be evolutionary "duds" no matter what. If you increase the variability in reproductive success of your male children, then some of them will be less reproductively successful and others will be more successful. But there's an asymmetry: "duds" are already duds and can't be made less successful, but on the other side of the curve, by increasing variability, you increase the likelihood of a jackpot.

Your argument holds the selectivity of the female sex as constant, and discusses variability of the male sex.

The paper's argument is about variability in one sex ('sex B') being a function of the selectivity of sex A. These are fundamentally two different arguments, and so whether your argument is true or not, your argument does not discuss the paper's model.

> The effect doesn't apply to female children, since a female mammal cannot have 200 offspring in her lifetime, but a male mammal certainly can.

Addressed in a previous comment.

> (Your fruit analogy is inapt, since fruit in a bag don't reproduce among themselves and regress toward the population mean.)

Thank you - I did not know this until now. I assumed that fruit reproduced asexually in bags.

My fruit analogy is presented because the error that the paper seems to make happens at a simple statistical level -- because the paper assumes that you can 'sort' a two variably desirable populations (B1 and B2) on a histogram by desire, find the top 25% of the population (B11), and assume that the top 25% desirable population (B11) is as variable as the original population it came from (B1).
Thinking about it, I imagine that one instance of Google Analytics would be fine, but tying two instances of it in order to track a user would probably be ridiculous, right?
I like how all those rust/go implemented, fast, cross-platform tools are starting to get mainstream. (ripgrep's another great one).

Really useful if you're a programmer preferring Windows but mainly using Unix tools and developing for Unix OSes.

By the way, I've been using xsv when analysing 8 GB csv's (the Amazon review dataset) and have been nothing but happy with it.
I love my relatives, and Facebook is how they communicate.
A trillion dollar market cap can support the production of a hell of a lot of steam.

I can't stand Apple's products of the last ~7 years, but I wouldn't bet against them in nearly any regard. They have the resources to weather any storm.
Urban legend. With broken bones and enough injuries to be prescribed an amount of take home opiates that would be worthwhile for an addict, you'd be in hospital fora day or two at least, maybe more. One thing about addiction is that immediate access to the drug is more important than anything else. No addict is going to bother with this sort of thing just to get a dozen or so Codeine pills...
Seems dubious.

A test to show you are addicted to opiates does not exist, and also your own experiences do not represent the experiences of every person that ever used drugs.
> I'm surprised anyone privacy minded still gets concerned about Google as they've been pretty open about everything since the launch of gmail. They give you free stuff in exchange for ads.

They're open about the fact that they use your data but not as to how they use it. Even if they were, they have a high motivation to abuse it further and further since that is their business model.

Besides, I don't see how being open about invading your privacy makes it not invading your privacy.

Sub out Google/gmail with Facebook and see how that reads.
At the end of the article the author discusses this, quoting this tweet: https://twitter.com/dmimno/status/1037490608015925248

"Now might be a good time to remind everyone that “distinctive phrases” and rare words (high TF-IDF) are not as good for stylometry as subtle differences like “and” vs “the” ratios. If you can easily notice it, someone can easily spoof it."
Burntsushi is like the most productive programmer.
It's the same everywhere.

You get quoted what you get paid, and you pay tax on that.

That's rational.

It's just that they way 'employer taxes' are calculated is a little different - and in Nordic countries they are massive (thereby making it feel 'hidden').

VAT when baked into prices is also kind of hidden as well.
This is another abuse of pre-packaged logic which I see regularly. Occam's razor dictates that when there are competing hypotheses - the one that makes the least number of assumptions tends to be true.

This doesn't mean "automatically assume the simplest explanation is gospel truth, and if someone suggests otherwise, simply say the magic words 'Occams Razor' to them".

Maybe this occurred. Maybe it didn't. But dismissing it with what's essentially a prepackaged argument adds very little to the conversation.

If I were to leak info, I certainly would try to hide my way of writing. Not sure how to do it effectively. Possibly run it through Google translate and back a few times. Then patch it up to make it readable?
Yup. I wouldn't give up my three K141s for a truck loaded with Beats phones, but try asking to any teen out there.
Great news, thanks! I might as well upgrade, I've been putting it off.
Advice on a good mail service? I've got one foot in the door of really increasing my privacy online but one is still stuck behind with Google products.
I’ve seen MMW a number of times. John usually plays an organ with Leslie speaker. He’ll sometimes sit the mellotron on top of the organ. I’ve also seen him put a clavanet on top.
Often he’ll have a piano of some sort next to him too, either acoustic or electric like a Rhodes. I’ve also seen him play with a tack head upright piano. That was a pretty cool sound.
Every Google product I've seen has an account switcher, usually in the top right corner, with either your display image or a letter in a circle, this includes Hangouts Chat.
"little fallout"

Pfft. They've been required to offer credit account locking and unlocking services without charging individuals for the privilege. That's a serious blow to executive bonuses. Surely they'll all have moved on to other companies with a more encouraging compensation structure, leaving Equifax a shell of its former self.
> But if it's a fraudulent loan and you could prove it was fraudulent (which I agree could be difficult to prove), can you be held responsible?

The simple answer to this is "no." Identity theft can take time and, occasionally, a small amount of money to clean up. This has a very real cost if you happen to be a person that has little of these resources. But you can never* be held responsible for a loan you didn't take out.

This is also the core reason why Equifax has not suffered many consequences: it's because the real world harm of their negligence simply wasn't that significant. I don't even know if there is any data to show that the number of identity thefts has increased in the wake of their breach.

*Unless I guess you receive a summons to a court date and don't show up and someone gets a default judgment against you. "Never," here, as usual, means "extremely rarely."
It's been known forever that all opiates are addictive, varying only by degree to some extent. At least with Methadone there was the excuse that it was chemically different...
"The videos are not removed and access is not terminated."

The linked article clearly says that the videos were deleted.

FTA: "Navalny’s aide, Leonid Volkov, said in a social media post that Google deleted the videos after the Central Election Commission had sent a letter of complaint to Google about the advertisement — a demand Volkov called illegal. "
That's fun and a bit surprising, but maybe it shouldn't be. I'm reminded that Dana Scott with Christopher Strachey showed that by using lattices or complete partial orders with a bit of topology to model graphs of possible computations of a program you could, just as in analysis, define least upper and lower bounds and a notion of continuity to derive a construction of limit for a computation which is analogous to a limit in analysis. They called this model a domain. That bit of of math is the basis of denotational semantics of programming languages and is necessary because sets are largely sufficient as the basis for algebra and analysis but not for programs which have evils like partial functions, side effects and variable assignment. I believe that Christopher Strachey with Scott also introduced the formal notions of sum, product and recusive types. They also showed how definitions or models of recursive types and functions could be well founded through their construction of limits on domains. An early tech report on it can be found here:

https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3228/PRG06.pdf

and here's a more recent free book from David Schmidt on the topic:

http://people.cs.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/DenSem-full-book.pdf
I don't understand what they mean when they say that "personalization" is the most important thing for customers when buying cars.
I often daydream about quitting work for “the man” and making my own software product. Maybe something like kicad, or maybe shotwell.
Protonmail or fastmail are both decent.
> Rather than be limited to a single one-sided fits all form factor for all your transportation needs, you'll be able to call upon the optimal vehicle depending on whether you're commuting, hauling a load, going on a road trip, spending a lavish night on the town, or sending your kids to soccer practice.

This is the opposite of personalization. It's commodification. Instead of your car personalized to your specifications to fit into your niche, you get a dozen generic categories and decide that today you'll be summoning Generic Touring Vehicle but tomorrow it will be Generic Multi-Personnel Transport Vehicle or Generic Light Duty Towing Vehicle.

The fact that they offer fries in three different sizes doesn't mean yours is personalized because you picked the medium one.
I’m intrigued. Email me. My email is in my profile.
It seems easier, although maybe riskier, to have a trusted friend (or even your attorney) ghostwrite it for you. That would also avoid reintroducing your idiosyncrasies during the "patch it up" step.
1. Less than 1% of the users are going to both hear about and understand those instructions.

2. Google can say >99% of users "prefer" the new setting.

3. Tighten the lock-in.
Yet we'll keep thinking this is an Equifax problem without realizing it's a systemic problem with companies we rely on ubiquitously with hardly enough regulation above them to prevent them from maximizing exploitation.