skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We did this in CI at an earlier job, and what we found is that it works if and only if you have a good test suite. In our case we had too many false positives because of badly written legacy tests, so it was not a usable approach.
Yep. I'm essentially arguing that simplifying here is dangerous, no construct is easy to deal with, and I'd rather more care were taken (broadly across the entire industry, not singling out YC here) in representing that.

Also: these terms are completely reasonable and under normal circumstances if I were doing a startup – and this valuation made sense – they'd be terms I'd be happy to take. For the avoidance of doubt, all of this is about the marketing, not the substance; the substance is above reproach.

As you say, speed, costs, rights (board seats, information, pro-rata, drag-along/tag-along, you name it), pref structure, etc are all real things. I just prefer addressing those all up front.
James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" is likewise excellent.
whatever happened to the saying, "if you dont like it, dont use it" ?
The author founded XP.

Anyway, I suspect he's proposing it not as a serious methodology, but as a thought experiment to spur you into how you can make your changes smaller, simpler, and more atomic.
> Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" and "not evil"

Hah, good one!

But just in case you're serious: Did you see Zuckerberg's Senate hearing?
Facebook is blocking users from posting stories about its security breach

Some users are reporting that they are unable to post today’s
big story about a security breach affecting 50 million
Facebook users. The issue appears to only affect particular
stories from certain outlets, at this time one story from The
Guardian and one from the Associated Press, both reputable
press outlets.
...
The situation is another example of Facebook’s automated
content flagging tools marking legitimate content as
illegitimate, in this case calling it spam.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/28/facebook-blocks-guardian-s...
Sadly, where I live, Texas, that handful of media outlets is what is viewed by the majority. Also, relating back to FB, it has become an echo chamber. Most people lock into one source, and once they are locked in, that information becomes gospel. They favorite/like/follow these sources, and that's all they will accept. Before I left FB, I was inundated with other people's posts from this handful of media outlets. People I know and consider friends, but this is what they are into. It was tiresome and baffling.
This is the not-so-secret sauce when training neural nets and backtesting for algorithmic trading. It dramatically reduces the time taken.
That really stinks - I don't work for Google but I'm still sorry that's happening to you.

I'm not using the most powerful machine (i7-8550U + 8gb of RAM) and I'm running Chrome 69 on Windows 10. It's a little slower than the previous version, but nothing I'd call unbearable. In fact if I'm being really honest, I'm not even sure if it is slower, or if I'm just saying that it is to fit in. :)
That's really shocking for me to know that a Master's degree is frowned upon these days.

However, since its one of my life's dream to get a MS in CS from US, I will do it.
Turning ten people who have the right to vote away, to catch one cheater is a ten times worse violation of integrity then the converse.

Not letting a citizen vote is just as much voter fraud as a non-citizen voting. Except its worse, because it is performed by the state.
Nonsense. We've been asking for voter id for years and you've been opposing it for years. Why is that? You talk about conspiracy theories. This notion that there is this huge population of legal, eligible voters who are functioning in our society without ID is ludicrous.

But if you want to implement paper ballots across the board at the same time, or even 1st, than let's make that happen. As you say, any progress is better than none. Since you are obstructing voter id and not obstructing paper ballots (I assume), than by all means, let's do that first.
Yes, I am, following the explicitly stated intent of the authors of the United States Constitution. They deliberately did not want direct democracy, fearing mob rule.
Guardian didn't say censor, they said block, which is factual.

Nice strawman though.
Petain was Commander and Chief of the French forces in WWI, prime-minister of France during WWII and leader of Vichy France. So not only a major leader in both wars, but in the second war he held high office on both sides!

(and FDR was Asst Sec of the Navy in WWI if you count that as a high office)
How is this not being flagged by a mod? This is just a slanderous attack on people who work at Facebook. HN is supposed to be a place for intellectual conversation and instead we have someone telling people that if they don't quit their job they are malignant scum of the earth. Of course it's at the top to. If you think Facebook is cesspool, HN is no better.
That's why the red-green-refactor style of TDD is so useful. You start by writing a failing test, then make it pass with the simplest possible change, and then refactor the code while keeping everything passing. You'd be hard pressed to write a test which fails and then passes by accident. It leads to extremely clean code IME.
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-helped-reveal-china...

There are hundreds of more similar articles documenting hacking by China and Russia. The data breach at the parent of this article even is supposed to have been done by a coordinated nation states. How can a company ever compete against a nations resources? Expecting Facebook to magically secure themselves against attacks by a nation is wishful thinking. If you want to stop breaches like this, the nation's that are doing it must be held accountable. Facebook is an easy target, but that's just attacking the victim. China and Russia are much more intimidating but are the ones who are the true perpetrators.
There's no accused person.

If it were illegal it wouldn't be in place, full stop. This is the crown prosecution service, what ever you may or may not think of them, their procedures have to be legal. If a procedure that is in place is challenged in a court and found by the court to be illegal then fine, it gets changed. But those following said procedure beforehand are not breaking the law and are acting in good faith.

But data retention isset in law (at the time under the 1998 act, and now the gdpr and 2018 act) and the cps follows those laws like everyone else must. Their procedures follow these laws.
> This raises a more generic question: What's the proper upgrade path for hardware authentication tokens?

This is the reason why I'm still using only a password manager.
I agree that a hardware token more security but the lost/stolen/change key problem is really not easy right now.

I hope there will be a new common API to change all enrollment you have done but it seems hard as the key don't even know them.

Maybe in a future version ?
Agreed. Would have been nice to hear a little more from her in this piece. While I deeply admire Eric for his incredible talent and follow-through, his partner must have gone through hell to facilitate his ambitions.
So Facebook is trying to block a story that they themselves made public just a few hours ago?
The 9am rush hour (why JavaScript is a performance bottleneck)
When people say that an advantage of Bitcoin is that it is a currency not controlled by a government, they do not mean that governments prevent them from spending their dollars, or that governments are aware of what their dollars are spent on. If that was what they meant, you would be right to say, "Those two are the exact same goal." But that isn't what they mean, and so you are mistaken.

What people actually mean when they say "not controlled by a government" is that the dollar has lost 98.3% of its value since its peak in 1792–1833. It fell 6.3% in 1834, but stayed at that value (with occasional deviations downwards) until 1932. From 1932 to 1970, it lost 47% of its value, mostly in 1933. In 1971, it became a fiat currency, and fiat currencies are famously prone to inflation; since 1970, the dollar has lost 96.6% of its remaining value.

I'm measuring the dollar against gold here, not just because gold was what defined its value from 1792 to 1970 (and part of 1971), but because gold was the standard of value for international commerce from sometime around 100 BCE until 1971. You could reasonably use a different good as the standard of value, and you'll probably get marginally different results, although a few goods (passenger pigeons, 32-bit multiplications, warships) will give you significantly different results. Gold is relatively convenient for this because of the wide availability and verifiability of its price. Gold's short-term volatility makes it useless for very short-term comparisons, though, by which I mean anything less than 10 years.

When Bitcoin people say they want a "currency not controlled by a government", they mean that they don't want 97% of their savings to evaporate in a mere 50 years because the government decided that printing money was a good way to meet its payroll and pay its bonds.

As fiat currencies go, dollars are actually doing pretty well. Here in Argentina, our peso has lost about 25% of its value each year for the last several years, but this year, it's accelerated; it's lost 50% of its value since April. (It's worth 5¢ today, down from 10¢ in April.) And of course everyone remembers Zimbabwe's hundred-trillion-dollar bills.

Now, you could argue that 5% inflation per year doesn't really impair a currency's use as a measure of value or a medium of exchange, only as a store of value. And you might be right. But there are a bunch of people out there who would love to have a secure store of value that they can also spend, which is why the dollar price of gold more than tripled in 2005–2012. (It's recovered a bit since then.)

I am not going to take a position here on whether providing a potentially safer store of value than dollars is a good thing or a bad thing. It's a thing some people want, and you might not want them to have it. That's okay. I'm just pointing out that they want it, and it's not the same thing as money laundering.

(Historical gold price data from http://onlygold.com/m/Prices/Prices200Years.asp.)
The dude abides.
What are ethical ways to market a Startup to developers?
I am a privacy-focused developer - I don't have a Facebook, I run browser extensions to block ads and trackers, and I have multiple emails dedicated to keeping spam away from my real accounts.

Like other developers, I also hate LinkedIn Inbox spam, cold calls, and other marketing techniques most companies employ.

I am now attempting to start a Startup to take tools I've built for my own use and build them into a product for others to benefit from.

The problem I'm facing is - how do I ethically get our name out there to others like me? The standard tools of Google and Facebook Ads are brutally efficient because of how little they respect privacy, and I am loathe to use what I've spent so much time avoiding.

So far, the only tool we've come up with is sponsoring conferences to go talk to Developers in-person.

What other avenues does a small startup have?
Probably useless in terms of existing, standard development processes, but it seems to me like this Limbo effort is to come up with a new one (in which we can assume, by the principle of charity, that this is not entirely useless).
Very much this; in other words - the officials are trolling the world, with their electorate in on it.
>> At least in the early 2000s having a page on a high authority(however you define it) domain automatically guaranteed higher rankings.

I totally agree. And in all of those cases, the page that is on that "high authority domain" has INTERNAL LINKS from other pages of that site. The site has high authority because other high authoritative links point to that site. And that site links internally to that page. That's why that page ranks.

That's completely different than having an orphan page or an "orphan site" (a set of orphan pages) that are on a highly authoritative domain. Just because those orphan page(s) exist on an "authoritative domain" doesn't mean that it will rank. Even 10,20 years ago that was the case.

In the case of this AWS site, the Amazon S3 page(s) that rank, they're orphan pages. I may be wrong, but if you go to the home page of that amazon domain, you can't click through to the page or pages that are mentioned in this original post.

Just because the orphan pages(s) or orphaned "site" is on an amazon domain, doesn't give it ranking power--because "domain authority doesn't exist.
Not all code should have unit tests.
Did he serve you? Was the food he prepared delicious?
Did he ever say anything about his hiring process?
People would just write tests which can never fail, and (in the best case) add the assertions in the end, one by one.
Your comment history shows no criticisms of truly awful nation state dictatorships or any of the 95% of all companies that behave far worse than Facebook. Facebook is just an easy target.
What if someone doesn’t browse the web like I do?
If Facebook is a publishing company, then they should be treated as such.

They should lose their immunity to lawsuits for user created content on their publishing platform.
I have no idea how you can compare Gmail to Thunderbird + your own domain + any decently sized email provider. It's absolutely trivial to move domains and email providers and using a client like Thunderbird means your experience remains consistent (and performant) over time.
Yes. It was broken for the ten years I worked there.
I like the irony that this post is being flagged from HN because its a duplicate.
In addition to Michael's point, the other thing that we're seeing is that sometimes people will voluntarily push a priced seed round in order to convert existing premoney cap safes -- because they have no idea what the cap table really looks like.
A resource can be locally limited despite being globally (or universally) unlimited. Energy for example (to a certain degree)

Also I'm not sure "zero sum" is the same thing as "limited". The former imposes stricter requirements.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one.
And Touhou.
Do people not typically modify the tests in the change where they introduce a feature?

I have never worked anywhere where I would check in a change without the tests passing. If you are making a huge refactoring, you do it a step at a time, with each incremental change still having passing tests.

When I was at Google I believe that changes were automatically rolled back if they broke enough tests globally. I don't recall anyone ever complaining except that the rollback was slower than they would have preferred. You simply can't check in a library change that breaks half the company, after all.

If people are writing adequate tests and consider commits to be "change lists" instead of just a random thing they want to back up from their local machine... this is a no-brainer. But it does require the culture of having your code reviewer check that they think there's enough code coverage. Otherwise "passing tests" doesn't mean anything.

(Google's tools happily showed lines of code that were covered by tests in the review UI, so you have objective and subjective data as a code reviewer to look at before approving.)
Test && (commit || revert)?

Or (test && commit) || revert?
"Block" might be a better term than "forbid".
The is how I’ve developed code for almost a decade. For a given test we have the following behavior triple: desired result, expected result, and observed result. A test fails if it’s expected result differs from the observed result. The set of development work is every place the desired & expected results differ. The CI is passing when no test changes behavior. There’s a revert “window” where a change-in-state can be blessed.
The biggest problem I see with deflation is that it becomes rational to avoid actually using the currency. This massively decreases demand.

Not many people are using bitcoin to buy pizza any more, because there's a hope that if they just HODL a bit longer they'll be able to buy lambos with the same amount of bitcoin.

That makes bitcoin less useful as a day-to-day currency. If the entire world economy was based on bitcoin, there would be a deflationary spiral and no clear way to fix it. This would be the mother of all depressions.
Im just going to say that the phrase: " biased against conservatives" sounds oxymoron. The "conservatives" that I keep hearing about on the "conservative" news sources, are IMO organizations that try to hinder and destroy any effort at evolving as humans. So, at what point can a company like google say: "Fuck those people" officially?
> the part beyond "the wall" is moving away faster than light: the data would never reach us

To nitpick, the wall itself is moving away at about one light-year per year. The photons that are not moving from our perspective because they are receding away from us at the speed of light will soon find themselves in a space where they are again moving towards us.

"we routinely observe galaxies that have, and always have had, superluminal recession velocities" -- Davis & Lineweaver.
In the other side, I've done both things (webdev with Scala/Play/Circe/Akka, webdev with Rails) and the Rails stack was so fast to develop with that we could leave just one person to do that job, while the rest kept developing our core logic in Scala.

IMHO there isn't much to gain with static languages when doing web development. A good framework is much more important. Static languages are awesome when coding business rules, though.
Maybe I've just bought into the image Mark wants to give off, but I believe facebook's naivety in its actions to largely result from Mark's optimism and lack of skepticism. He comes off as a person with hope and belief that things are good and positive. He doesnt come off as a cynical, worst case scenario type person. Time and time again, something happens, he writes that "it isnt so bad" and THEN evidence comes out that it’s a bit worse. Usually the press invents a new level of hyperbolic hysteria, pretending it’s even worse than it is for ratings.

BUT whether its "fake news" or "data misuse" Mark is wrong because he believes all else equal, good is more powerful than malignant, and I think he is wrong.

Mark has a megaphone, he can amplify whatever the fuck he wants. Any story, any fact, any narrative. And he chooses to be passive, inactive, reactive, and let the algorithm decide, because he can maintain a position of faultlessness, forever blameless, as long as he can point a finger at a math problem, a glitch, or an oversight. He speaks in response to controversy, not preemptively.

The answer to election manipulation, fake news, etc, is to find better ways to rate and surface GOOD content. What SHOULD people be reading. Not, "well we only show what your friends posted, so blame your friends." Why is every person with money buying a newspaper? Because they have realized what Mark hasnt. To speak out, without prompt, about what is right and good. That means having an agenda, that means having bias, that means having an opinion. Mark cant have an opinion, because is trying to please 7 billion people at once, and has chosen to favor blandness and inoffensiveness. I believe he has made a mistake; both in his lack of pessimism towards collective human behavior, trusting monkeys with typewriters to come together on their own; and for not having the courage to come out and say more offensive things. He should have torn the senate apart like Howard Hughes in The Aviator. Instead he played nice, hoping they would soon forget about him.

Quick plug to sites that DO surface good content daily: What Mark SHOULD be doing. A facebook front page, a TIGHTLY curated (looking at you msn.com!) of what people SHOULD be paying attention to, things that actually matter to humanity, avoiding stories and serialized controversy the news cycle invents for its own riches.

https://www.aldaily.com/

https://www.techmeme.com/river

https://redef.com/channel/media/feed

https://longform.org/

https://longreads.com/

[I don't think Mark is being insincere, or speaking in bad faith, when he says Facebook takes security seriously. Of all companies to scale quickly, facebook has not been one that appears to allow technical security debt to accumulate, unlike just about any non tech company in the world.]
Indeed. I always have to change a condition in the test to make sure that it's actually running, rather than that I just happened to get it right the first time ;)
How does playing bad cop help you find the best solution to a bug? To me it seems like you're stretching here, so how about we just assume we're both operating in good faith?
I think you've slightly moved the goalposts but essentially - yes.

Have you used a Lenovo Mirage or similar?
This is part of why I left last year so... too true.
Private companies have much more freedom to do as they wish with regards to price dumping in their local markets, as compared to public companies.
Some users are reporting that they are unable to post today’s
big story about a security breach affecting 50 million
Facebook users. The issue appears to only affect particular
stories from certain outlets, at this time one story from The
Guardian and one from the Associated Press, both reputable
press outlets.
...
The situation is another example of Facebook’s automated
content flagging tools marking legitimate content as
illegitimate, in this case calling it spam.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/28/facebook-blocks-guardian-s...
> Facebook offers a service that people wants. A service that is not morally bad, if any connecting people is a positive thing.

People also want heroin. That doesn't mean it's actually a positive thing in people's lives. If anything the evidence is mounting that it is negative, e.g.: https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t...

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, though. I believe it's possible, though very rare, to work at Facebook and have a positive impact.

And there's definitely a total mismatch between regulation and the realities of big tech companies. I'm skeptical of government regulation solving privacy issues specifically (I think that stems more from a widespread cultural misunderstanding or unawareness of privacy concerns) but maybe it's needed for other ways these companies are negatively impacting the world.
"based on anecdotes and fake data." ... "Sure FB does some shitty things".

So which one is it? You are contradicting yourself.
Relevant comment from a thread a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18043293
Automating your iOS app development and distribution workflow
Meanwhile, they were able to win market rate so fast that it took a while for competitors to show up.
Is this in any way related to the person earlier who said they would livestream hacking Zuckerberg's account?
The Fog of War is perhaps one of the best documentaries that I have ever seen.
I assume that commits are being made to some sort of topical branch (Edit: I guess not? That seems like a poor decision). Personally, I encourage the developers across our organization to do an interactive rebase prior to pushing to a remote, to "curate" their commits (squash/fixup).

This greatly improves the utility of the commit history, at the expense of losing the actual commit history as work progressed:

- FeatureA should ensure valid user session
- fix test
- missing semicolon
- null check
- fix incompatibility with FeatureB
- shit broke the build
- address PR comments
It will show you everything coming out of the switch port but only traffic to/from the connected device will come out the switch port.

You have to use ARP poisoning or some other trick to get other network devices to send ethernet frames to your mac address in order for the switch to forward them out your port.
The max volume of the radio when you start the car. Prevents it from being too loud if you were listening to it loud in the last ride.