skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was giving my sister a hard time about naming her kids Liam and Aiden, and she was like: ‘when I picked those names, nobody called their kids that.’ ‘And you got those names from where?’ ‘A baby name book on amazon.’

I got around the baby fad thing by just naming our kids after family members. It’s boring, but you don’t need an interesting name to have an interesting life, and I’m not sure I like the idea of expressing your personal quirkiness by burdening your kids with a lifetime of tediously spelling their name to customer service reps.
> this does not necessarily imply dishonesty or trickery. arguably, the most charismatic people might be those that are true believers

Not ruling out that a true believer might have deceived themselves! (It's turtles all the way down when trying to answer that about yourself.)
This part of the application is making me nervous because I feel like I'm missing something:

> what is one mainstream or "consensus" view that you absolutely agree with? (This is our version of a “trick” question, reversing the now-fashionable contrarianism.)

I searched Google for variations on the contrarian inverse of the question, but couldn't find anything that seemed relevant.

Can you help me?
> but OSS and business software development is frequently short-handed in people who can actually make the software

But you're begging the question here. I'm not the parent commenter, but it is not self-evident that the programmers/developers are the main class of "people who can actually make the software", not even in a literal sense, since software is not just its lines of code, anymore than hardware development is factory assembly.

For example, in "business software development", there are product managers and other business-facing people who have input on and make decisions, for better or worse, about software development. How is a programmer's contributions to making the software more significant than those of their product/business colleagues', if the latter have failed to cultivate paying customers?
I figured out the best way to shut up evangelists in those situations, it is 100% not rude, 100% effective. They start in with Jesus or Allah or Kraznor-The-Many-Headed, and you... get techical. Don’t engage the subject matter of whichever god they’re peddling, just use a flimsy rhetorical “oh that makes me think of...” and whip out the dryest topic you can imagine. I like to start with the differences between a scalar, vector, and tensor, then move on to the differences between Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Quantum field theories. Make no accommodation for your audience’s level of interest and expertise.

Inevitably they become the ones who suddenly have to do something else, and you get to read your book in peace. It can only backfire if they’re also highly literate in the field you chose, but then at least you’ve changed the conversation. One time a guy next to me on a bus tried to turn me on to Jainism, I started talking physics, and it turned out he worked in non-linear optics! We still stay in touch.

You cannot lose with this method.
I really wanted a daughter so we could name her after my great grandmother Eleanor. I just love the way that sounds.
> Can you explain why you feel rants and insults are necessary to maintain high technical standards?

It is possible that they are not truly "necessary", but they are one often-effective way to discourage disruptive/unproductive behaviour. Linus ultimately should not be asked to review changesets he will be far from willing to merge; and for him there are only so many hours in the day. It is, as a practical matter, necessary to communicate that there is a cost to wasting his time with work that somebody should have known was substandard, and it is important that that cost is borne primarily by the originator of that substandard work (i.e. it needs to suck more for the committer to waste Linus' time than it sucks for Linus to spend time responding).

It is a high-risk, unappealing technique, but we should be careful not to impose alternatives which fail to meet the same criteria at least to some extent.
But documentation is often not code.
This fits my experience. Also important to remember that success is cyclical. One year you think "wow I never thought it could take off like this" and the next year is "where did all the growth go, how did these idiots ever think this product would succeed".
Identical situation. Two boys; I swear frequently in front of them. They don't speak similarly.

In my case, I've emphasized the fact that if they start speaking as I do in public, they will face consequences from their teachers and the other adults around them. I think it helps that there are people, times, and places for which I distinctly modify my tone and vocabulary, and I think they have absorbed that along with everything else.
These things have nothing to do with civility etc. They are at their core as you said, mechanisms to try to force out political beliefs. Sounds like the culture wars have claimed another...and the community will not be better for it.
I think there is a market for this and started building on a similar idea last week.
Elon Musk is building a spaceship so ambitious,experts call it 'science fiction'
:)

But do we think it's limited to inference only? No on device training?
In his essay "Gramscian Damage", ESR explains what he sees as the source of our ideas about cultural relativity.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
I don't find the last part to be true. When I worked fully remote, we would meet up a couple of times a year and go for dinner and beers and lunch together and had a blast. Video calls were mostly all-business though since it's just not a pleasant experience.
I think generally you're right, but the comment you're replying to has something to it as well. If two parties are not "equals" in the arena they are in, things get Complicated. I'm not sure true collaboration is possible in situations where parties are on such uneven footing (and I mean this in the abstract sense as well: I don't think the model you've presented is complete as is does not give you a productive way to structure this kind of relationship).

In the situation where Linus is far more qualified, and obviously so, and someone is trying to get him to "approve" a patch, there's no way it's ever really going to be a truly collaborative dynamic.

This doesn't mean Linus has to be a dick about it, but it's definitely not collaboration between equals.
The article makes exactly this point:

> "First, let’s do a little freshening up on what exactly “Damascus steel” is. Damascus, Wootz, and patternweld are all names given to different types of steels and blades. Basically, the idea is that two or more steel alloys are forged/cast together through various methods to give the wavy artistic pattern that comes from such a layering process. Unfortunately, the technique for making both Damascus and Wootz steel has been lost to the centuries. Anyone claiming to be making authentic Wootz/Damascus these days is delusional. Or lying . . ."

...

> "The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called “Damascus steel”. Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost since about the 16th century. The art form has resurfaced, though, and in 1973 bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his “Damascus knives” at the Knifemakers’ Guild Show. Ever since then modern pattern-welded steel blades have been called “Damascus knives”."
That is correct. He was a colossal asshole to her. He only played an empathetic scientist/statesman on TV.
the last thing the US needs is to have anything move further to the right.
I am in complete agreement that Linus is one of the best we have, and I personally think it would be a huge loss if he were to pull back from the project, and not only for technical reasons. Without sounding like I’m engaging in hero worship, I think him being around is usually positive. However, I’m not convinced—and it would seem he isn’t convinced either—that treating other humans as if they’re inhuman is a fundamental part of what makes him him.

I don’t know how we ended up at a point where we believe the only way to tell someone “No” or “You need to do better.” is through incredibly aggressive interactions. I suspect it’s just another hold over from a different time period, and we just never asked “Why?”

It sounds like he believes that treating other humans with respect won’t shatter him and I tend to agree with this assumption. His fundamental personality won’t go away and his skills certainly won’t suddenly disappear.

I’m interested to hear more regarding your comments about corporate interests. While I strongly and completely agree that we must resist letting their interests work their way into being driving forces, I’m not clear why some believe his most egregious behaviors are needed to keep these separations of intersts in place.
Not really, they are starting to move into the phase of trying to clean up their images and establish better legacies.

Controlling the media is just efficient.
This is already a thing:

- https://parsecgaming.com/

- https://www.paperspace.com/

Those two collaborate to do more or less exactly what you've described. It ends up looking a lot like RDP/VNC, but without the latency.

If you take the time to calculate Paperspace's profit margin, you'll see that it's a risky business to be in. You'd have to buy GPUs in bulk, and, even then, you're competing with the same company that's selling you the GPUs.

Nvidia doesn't license the most useful API, Nvidia GRID (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_GRID), with consumer cards. You have to get their datacenter-grade cards (e.g., the Tesla line) if you want access to the most relevant APIs. It's possible to unlock consumer cards for this purpose, but, as you're lacking the respective license, you're liable to get sued. This effectively means Nvidia is two slices of your pie instead of just one. (They can do whatever they want with their own hardware an APIs.)
I agree with most people’s advice about going to Google. My additional reason for advising you to go to Google is that you seem to be on the fence. The startup option is a great option if you’re very passionate about it.

While I didn’t have a Google offer, I had a Lockheed offer and that was always a company I really liked growing up (also former Marine). It was a difficult choice for me as well, but I chose Lockheed and I have zero regrets. I learned a lot about large organizations and got to work with a huge team of very smart people. Many of which who very directly mentored me. I worked there for two years + 3 years previously for internships.

When the startup bug became irresistible, I knew it was time and went and co-founded DataRank with some friends. The Lockheed experience helped me in the sense that it “validated” me, much like Google on your resume will certainly validate you.

In regards to money:
When I finally went the startup root I made 1/4 my salary and had zero benefits for the first 1.5 years. If you’re passionate enough about it you won’t really care about that 1/3 salary (for a while at least). Then I bumped my salary to 1/3 my previous salary! It wasn’t until after 2 years when my salary returned to 80% my previous salary. Eventually a surpassed my previous salary, then double and tripled it, and now I optimize more for doing what I love.
Likely the only connection to work is on the side of a 10-lane highway though. Not exactly a pleasant bike ride.
Commercial freedom is an important part of the "free" in free software, no? The values you're calling strange are basically the ethics of RMS. Perhaps there is a bit of a martyrdom to RMS' lifestyle, but I would hardly say that his ethics are strange at this point.

I think it would work better to argue, open source is about leaving aside the ethical considerations (which are highly charged topics) to focus on how effective is code sharing as a development methodology, and within that, what licensing regime under current law works best from a business perspective. And the question is different for an academic talking about larger society, vs. an individual business or developer who is choosing his/her/its own license. Obviously your duty as an attorney is to grapple with the latter question.

Thus, while I personally am more or less with RMS on the ethical inquiry, I see no reason why your L0 ideas should not be discussed within the context of open source. I personally would not choose to use your license, but that is irrelevant.

One point of errata in your essay: free software (I hope) does not depend on copyright protection. Far from it. Free software viewpoint is that copyright protection should not extend to software. Rather, the law should require published software to be free software.

However, given that the law is not going to change anytime soon, the GPL was written as a clever hack to use copyright to promote the values of software freedom. This has been successful to some degree, so it is a perfectly fair question to ask what we would do for software freedom if copyright protection as we know it today did not extend to functional software. But this is probably not a question that would be asked within the context of "open source" I guess...
Apparently I'm a postmodernist. Interesting.
Collectivism can manifest itself behavior like this. I can't speak to China, but I have a lot of family that migrated away from Cuba, am a descendant of Cuban immigrants myself, and met many Cubans during my time in Florida. Those that grew up in the socialist system often have a sense that cheating is okay as long as you're cheating "The Man". Maybe these days we call it cheating "the system". Basically, stealing and fraud is more tolerated if it's stealing from some faceless group or organization, like governments or companies.
Again an abuse of the word monopoly. I wish authors could grasp the difference between having a single actor in a market and one that is dominant among many others. This is absolutely not the same thing.
Drop me an email? [kc at hc dot ai]

We've got a team of ~40 super passionate engineers creating the worlds best developer experience; CTO.ai.

We're on market with Vancouver comp and are very comfortable with hiring people with 3-4 years experience. We hire based on potential rather then simply raw experience.

Check us out. If we're not a fit for you, I would personally be happy to introduce you to a number of other companies that I know.

My advice; I've worked / lived across Canada and if you can stick it out in BC and get rolling - the W/L balance and mild winters definitely win out over the rest of Canada.
Ok, can I just ask, what do you think people are lying about when they’re being diplomatic about criticism? You said being diplomatic is a “tiny form of a white lie”, so I’m wondering who you think is being deceived, and what you think they are they being deceived about.
Ctrl+A but I also remap caps lock to control.
OK. I see where you are coming from now. I disagree with you that the AGPL and prorietary software licenses are not copyright licenses. You only need a license because otherwise you are not allowed to use the software in that way -- because of copyright.

If I'm a server software producer and I sell you a copy of a piece of software, you can't actually use it unless I also give you a license to use it. This is unlike any other kind of machine that I might make and sell to you. If I sell you my fancy coffee roaster, I literally can not force you to use it in a specific way. This is actually why printer manufacturers put software in the ink cartridges -- so that they can force you to agree to a usage license.

The reasoning behind being able to extend copyright to running programs (which I think is BS, personally, but I don't make up the laws) is that the computer that runs the software must load, and therefore copy, the software. You only have permission to do that if the copyright holder gives you permission to do that.

This is where the license comes in. I give you a license to load the software into running memory (and hence run it), on the provision that you follow the rules I state. You don't have to agree to the license, but if you don't agree, then you don't have a license, and you are forbidden by copyright law from running the software.

With the AGPL, the license is given provided that you agree to give the users a compatible license to the software. Again, the contract consideration is: ability to run the software in exchange for agreeing to the terms.

You are right that the GPLv3 does reference propagation. I should have looked. It mentions it specifically to state that the GPL does not come into effect on propagation, only conveyance (which is the main difference between it and the AGPL).

Edit: spelling
I assumed it would be something ?x[person(x) & does.physics(x)] where '?' is like the existential operator, but doesn't guarantee existence in the current world of evaluation (but in at least some possible worlds).
Or opiates, or benzodiazeprines, or amphetamine. The list goes on.
Yep, this is correct, 3 phase.
> "The other type of pattern-welded steel is the so called “Damascus steel”. Originally used in middle eastern sword making, the method has been lost since about the 16th century.

That's simply wrong. It wasn't pattern-welded. It appeared similar to pattern-welded steel, but was manufactured without any pattern-welding.
Google dismantles the web, cont'd
Not every person that _starts_ and _makes_ a project successful grows _with_ the project. Being the person you were yesterday doesn't guarantee that fit the pattern tomorrow. I think that Linus should be the person to make this call. Perhaps Linux is where it is today because of Linus's low tolerance for BS, and he just notices that the components of the 'old' Linus are no longer acceptable/necessary going forward.

He should be the judge of that.
Perhaps the author read Terry Pratchett because this whole thing smells a lot like Ankh-Morpork. You pay a certain amount to the Thieve's Guild and you're safe for a year.

> someone who can't or won't afford crime insurance is a net liability to the rest of us. The insurance premiums will vary greatly with the conditions one agrees to. Very few people would be unable to afford any such conditions.

Bypassing the "won't pay" for now - if someone can't pay, they're a liability? Then what? Let them rot?

A very large number of people live in conditions where they are unable to affect the overall crime levels. Sure, they can keep them from going up by one, by not committing a crime themselves, but they don't have any control over externalities.

All that aside, it's very easy step to the idea that if one doesn't have crime insurance, that, in and of itself, is a crime. This already happens with car insurance.

This is a stupid idea that taxes a person just for existing and if they can't pay, could possibly wind up making them a criminal themselves.

It's basically a cheap shot at the poor.
League of legends: SoloRenektonOnly.
People.

Success breeds some weird shit, especially if you were close to people, which happens a lot in startups with a high work ethic. Friends turn into strangers, friends turn into enemies. Some make more money than you — a lot more — and some make less than you — a lot less. Brews some weird undercurrent sometimes. Money changes things. Even if you don't make real money... the perception of success changes things, too.

The road to a "successful startup" can be paved with a lot of bullshit. Burnout, depression, stress, mistakes. Regret. Employees locked in their handcuffs, even though they hate their work and their lives. Taxes. Paying people to advise you on all of these things. Trying to do something bigger the next time. Trying to move up and forward, bigger and better. Recapturing the lightning in a bottle. Dealing with yourself, and your reactions to all of this. Feeling uncomfortable about those feelings.
> people who are able to accomplish their goals by rallying others to their cause.

Like Linus.
I think getting more women into positions of power will be a start. Testosterone really does affect aggression.
Words can't describe how happy this makes me!

Linus is very much a Sheldon Cooper: Brilliant, usually right, but lacking in empathy (colloquial: an "asshole").

That he's finally recognizing this deficiency AND taking steps to correct it is the best news ever, because it means Linux development will flourish now that a toxic element is being removed (the behavior, not Linus himself).

Bravo! And good luck to you!
To take it one step further, I'd say that it's more of a probability function than a 2d chart. I think of it more as your chart, plus a 3rd dimension of "context", then a density cloud.

Put another way, people have probability distributions of alignments based on context.
Especially since programmers in Seattle earn more than 2x programmers in Vancouver.
I can listen to him talk for hours (and do). He has absolutely mastered the English language, in the sense that it sounds like he's talking gibberish half the time, but you still know exactly what he means. That to me is a skill in itself, but then he also REALLY knows what he's talking about, to an incredible depth, so the puns and unique expressions actually complement some quite serious knowledge and teachings.

I wish I was half as good with words and explaining things.
Coding on the beach or in a park? This can't be for a very serious programming task. I've tried it a few times and the glare + lack of ergonomics makes me go to a cafe and then ultimately back to the hotel to bang out actual work lol
I'm curious to see how this plays out but happy it's happening.
Remember that 95% of the stuff on Amazon is manufactured in China. There’s a demand in China for sensitive information that is beneficial to the folks running the factories. Sometimes for commodity products are priced pennies apart —losing a contract can put the factory out of business.

That doesn’t mean that Chinese are inherently more risky. It’s just far more likely than an employee in China is a risk for certain types of corruption than an employee in Munich or Brazil. A warehouse manager in New Jersey might be accepting bribes, but for a different reason and different impact.
Get more women into positions of power.
This is the interpretation that makes sense to me - his rhetorical choices are intended to communicate the gravity of the content of whatever he’s saying to a large group, not just to the person he’s immediately replying to, or even lkml.

Commenters here and elsewhere frequently compare his interaction with maintainers to a code review, or similar, and proceed to excoriate him on that assumption. Rather, he’s managing a team of managers whom are all (successfully) guiding the resources of dozen(s?) of (more or less) competitors, none with a strong natural interest in giving away software, and each using and contributing to the kernel only insofar as it benefits themselves toward a common mutually- and societally-beneficial end. That doesn’t justify his rhetoric, but it may have made it an effective communication strategy

(that said, what do I know either)