skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That formed my opinion that it was too many moving parts than necessary.

Ingress controller and log shippers are pluggable. I'd say most stacks are going to want both, so it makes sense for a MSP to provide these, but you can roll your own. You roll your own, and install the upstream components the same way you run anything on the cluster. Basically, you're dogfooding everything once you get past the basic distributed scheduler components.

> I think that is the key. End of the day, it becomes a value proposition. If I run all my components manually, I need to babysit them in operation. Kubernetes could take care of some of the babysitting, but the rest of times, I need to be a Kubernetes expert to babysit Kubernetes itself.

So it depends what you do. Most of us have an end goal of delivering some sort of product and thus we don't really need to run the clusters ourselves. Much the same way we don't run the underlying AWS components.

Personally, I run them and find them quite reliable, so I get babysitting at a low cost, but I also do know how to debug a cluster, and how to use one as a developer. I don't think running the clusters are for everyone, but if running apps is what you do for a living, a solution like this is most for all levels of stacks. Once you have the problem of running all sorts of apps for various dev teams, a platform will really shine, and once you have the knowledge, you probably won't go back to gluing solutions together
Is this something limited to art? What markets commonly have 7.5 times growth in 3 years? Also, it seems that getting an appraisal at a value that nobody would pay seems off to me. What is the appraiser basing the valuation off of if not other recent sales?
Right, but it seems to me that an entire - and unbelievably rich - industry is moving along with “just my experience“ when it comes to UIs.
Definitely this. Reading logs is a skill.

It's pretty much the same for debugging. I notice the juniors often start to look at where the problem may be. I usually try to first look where it isn't, so I can drill down to where it actually it, in stead of just looking at code and hoping to find what's wrong.
If you are on the do not call list a warrant SHOULD be easy to get though.
Firefox 62 has DoH support enabled.

https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/06/01/improving-dns-pr...

Has been plenty useful getting around court -ordered clampdowns on torrent sites in India.

You can configure it to use any publicly known DoH server: https://github.com/curl/curl/wiki/DNS-over-HTTPS#publicly-av...
I'm not sure where you are coming from. I recognize the sentiment, but I don't feel it for this one. The mathematical notation used here is commonly taught in high schools.

The basics of Probability Theory, and Integrals are prerequisite to the introduction. p(x|y) means the chance that x happens if y happened - that notation is more common in the US I believe.

There even is accompanying code. MatLab is admittedly less common than python, but the code looks nearly the same as it would in NumPy.

This might seem intimidating, but is conceptually rather easy.
Does your server allow Google Ads because honestly, I would feel like a hypocrite blocking their ads as those ads basically pay for what Jigsaw does. Just saying.
Maybe you should read up more on existing theory and science before disagreeing with something that is entirely uncontroversial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
Tasks and team chat combined – think Slack marries Trello
Some great advice in this thread already. I'd add learning to use git from the command line (together with the concepts of a rebase, a merge etc), it will be useful in every single CS job.

Figure out what parts of the stack you're more passionate about. This may shift over time, but if your working on things that you truly think is interesting it will keep work from being work.
SmartDec smart contract audit beginner’s guide
Awesome work, I'd try to check it out once it's up again.
Not sure it's in Uber's interest to play up the dangers of self-driving cars in general. Nobody's gonna look at this story and think "I guess Uber's not that bad after all!"
There was just an article about how the IRS is doing fewer audits in recent years due to lack of resources and political cover.
My experience has been the opposite of yours; DDG gets me better, and in particular more up-to-date search results recently.
I'm sure you won't get any extra attention if you show them a freshly wiped phone, totally normal.

Unfortunately I think you'd have to have the phone activated with a different Apple account. But if they ask you questions (like "do you have any other icloud accounts") don't lie, it never makes it better. Just say that this is your travel account. This is now quite standard practice for execs when travelling to e.g. China.
It's so sad how these companies are spending billions on developing this technology and then still cheap out on the test drivers by having them drive solo and for too long hours (and presumably at minimum wage)
You answered the point yourself: some of those "charities" are just tax loopholes.

Especially those related to art: there's a loophole where the deduction is exponentially higher than the value of the donated art (on the article it's spelled out: If instead that asset is contributed to a DAF, an appraiser determines its fair market value before it’s donated. That yields a bigger deduction,), and even worse, the donor doesn't lose access to art, since he donates it to his private "museum" that's only open a few times a month or a year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-g...

http://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles-20...

And, as the article says, * their financial advisers may be allowed to direct how the money is invested and earn management fees.* , so they can still pump money into the companies they need to and extract wealth (very useful when pumping a private equity debt-laden corporation).

And that's without getting started on how they have access to all the "charity's" assets, so they can use buildings, vehicles, even private jets on the "charity's" dime - see Ingvar Kamprad and IKEA:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035734/ikea-is-a-nonprofit-and-...

So I don't agree that they're always better off not giving to charity. There are some legitimate charities, but there are also a lot of tax loophole charities.
Can I ask you if you work for Google? If so you should probably disclose that because you post history makes this very much look like astroturfing.

Sorry for bringing this up (I never do that on HN) but this is just too questionable of a defense to be putting up.
I love it so much. The only Finder's feature(well, aside from label) I miss when using Windows Explorer. I can fly through my folder hierarchy quickly with just directional keys, with crystal clear picture of where/how deep I am in the directory.

Windows have an alternative File manager with Miller Columns called OneCommander, though it is quite sluggish compared to Finder.
Next question : as an indie developer, what are my options for code review ?
I never had a single stinkbug in the 13 years I lived in my previous home. I moved 10 miles north in the same city and the new house was full of them.
Hahaha, that had to be deadpan humor.
The Grievance Studies Scandal: Five Academics Respond
Very hard to prove fraud for the IRS, I guess. Nobody's saying these rich people are behaving ethically.
Not limited to art. It's easy to get a trusted appraiser for the wealthy. It is very difficult for the IRS to challenge.

Examples other than art: Company shares, real estate, time in certain contexts.

Edit: I'd like to point out	GFischer's excellent summary on this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18130720
I work with lots of donors and their DAFs. Most people who use DAFs (from my experience) are just trying to smooth out their charitable giving so that they don't have to pay taxes during windfall years. They want all the money to go to charity but don't want to donate a huge amount all at once, especially given that many smaller charities are not capable of absorbing/utilizing windfall amounts, or they want to do research on charities before donating.
You have been on this site for less than an hour and yet you have three flagged comments already. Maybe it's time to change your approach?
The photos look just like any catalog or magazine shoot, i.e. not having what I assume would be Instagram's charm of spontaneity and reality (I don't follow Instagram).
If the world has begun with a single quantum,
the notions of space and time would altogether
fail to have any meaning at the beginning;
they would only begin to have a sensible meaning
when the original quantum had been divided into
a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion
is correct, the beginning of the world happened
a little before the beginning of space and time.

Lemaître, G. (1931). "The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory"
I still don't really see the issue here.

The donor gives up $1m, suppose he has a marginal tax rate of 40% on his income, he can subtract the $1m from his taxable income and save $400k in taxes at the cost of $1m.

The donator is economically worse off. Even in the best case scenario that a $1m donation reduces his to-be-paid taxes by $1m (is that how it works in the US?), there's still no gain. Instead the stock could've been sold for $1m, and there'd be a hypothetical future $1m tax payment, so he'd be left with $0. Or he'd give away the $1m and there'd be hypothetical future tax savings of $1m, so he'd be left with $0, too.

As for the DAF, he can never retrieve that money, nor spend it on anything that's not for the public benefit. Donator has no economic benefits to gain. Perhaps prestige, or donating to a politically-coloured charity (e.g. a charity that informs on abortion rights), but there's no direct economic gains to be made here for the donor right?

I can see why it's problematic if donated stocks in a DAF depreciate. But I see no reason to believe that would consistently happen, nor why there's any reason to not liquidate the donated asset right away and invest the cash into a diversified portfolio until the money is spent on a charitable cause. Typically stock-markets rise in the long-term, so it's more likely that appreciation will occur, in which case the 'subsidy' of a $1m tax break for a >= $1m asset seems well spent.

Would appreciate more info as I've got very little knowledge on this and I don't really see the big issue.

The only issue I see is if assets consistently get misappraised, e.g. a $1m asset appraised at $10m, generating a huge tax break. But that's fraud, illegal.
They're never going to give it to John Goodenough. :(
Even a small town is far, far larger than the tribes in which we evolved. The amount of our history which involves sich large communities only encompasses something like 1% of our evolutionary history and should be considered in that context.
There's soft power gained by effective and selective charitable giving. Donating to specific major charities and organizations that operate at a metropolitan level can provide access and influence with other organizations and donors that can't be bought by any other avenue.

Dollars and cents, you're absolutely right. But at a certain point, money isn't that valuable to the wealthy.
I've worked for a few companies and startups trying this kind of thing. It's the wrong question.

The software side of a touchscreen is solved. You can run a number of operating systems and develop in whatever you want. Embedded Linux framebuffer, OpenGL, WinCE, Qt, WindRiver running a military GUI toolkit like VAPS, Ubuntu running GTK, hell - my Mazda's infotainment system is simply Opera running a bunch of Javascript code.

The problem is the hardware. There is no universal platform that can satisfy all of these ideas.

The cash register needs to be thin and stylish in a custom case. The menu board needs a weatherproof rugged box to hide behind a panel display. The in-flight system needs to be FAA-approved. The vending machine needs vandal-resistant glass that still works with a capsense system. The bulldozer needs industrial temperature ranges and IP67. Every customer is a special duck and it's going to be a custom build.

It's just one of those problems that looks easy on paper.
That tester detected a serious bug in the whole concept, inadvertently risking his life during testing. He should've been promoted.
Pretty piss poor considering I'm making double that waiting tables. We can argue the aesthetic differences between the types of work, but both are decidedly entry-level, non-glamorous work.
This is about preventing dns manipulation attacks. That assumes that a DNS server (like 8.8.8.8) is generally accessible, but an adversary is trying to manipulate the responses. In China, you anyway can't access regular global dns servers. You need to use official dns supported by the government. So the question of dns manipulation is moot.
So this is going into the land of RPC, have anyone work together on the load this would demand on a bigger scale than one man's $5 box.

Already a seed of thought in place for this:
https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/116
> What were the design decisions that led to that?

I'm guessing "It looks really great on designer's retina display"
This is a completely different thing. The article is talking about donor advised funds, which are 501(c)(3) public grant-making charities that allow you to donate cash or non-cash assets. The DAF then allows you to recommend grants to other 501(c)(3) public charities. 501(c)(3)s are completely barred from participating in politics.

Dark money runs through networks of 501(c)(4) organizations. They're a different beast entirely and can participate in politics. You don't get a tax deduction for donating to a 501(c)(4).
I agree that this is one of the most useful things that you can do and one of the most commonly overlooked for whatever reason. I can't underestimate the number of times I've worked with someone who is looking in seemingly random places to solve an error instead of tracing backwards from the error message in front of their face.
I don’t believe that you, as the donor, could maintain control of the DAF - in other words, contributing to a fund from which you derived management fees.

I have never heard of this being done, most DAF’s are run by independent foundations or by special wings of investment funds.

So, it’s not that the donors are getting kickbacks in the form of management fees. It’s simply that people are upset that money is going into these funds and isn’t instantly available to charities. Never mind that many large charities like hospitals and universities run their own endowments that invest contributions.
Knowing the right people (and its corollary, knowing how to find the right people) are critical managerial skills. I've seen otherwise great managers struggle to get anything done, because they keep trying to push on people who can't enact the changes they want.
Yes, dual standards because of dual internets. Alphabet is contributing to the trend of dual internets predicted by its own ex-CEO Eric Schmidt[1], "a Chinese-led internet and a non-Chinese internet led by America".

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/eric-schmidt-ex-google-ceo-p...
Especially when drowsiness detection has been an option in various production cars for a decade now
>Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum.

Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."
I find it ironic that both CloudFlare and Google which this app uses, were involved in the censorship of DailyStormer. It was a vile site and Google and ClouFlare were fully within their rights to terminate their business agreement with them. However, they do not also get to turn around and claim the high moral ground of being anti-censorship in principle. So this is not about censorship vs free speech, it is about government vs corporate censorship.
Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030
IIRC, Spotify used to do something like this, at least in the desktop app?
In this regard, I'm always reminded of the "Global Village" metaphor that was popular some decades ago; which seems to be getting more and more literal.

Imagine living in an actual small village - there's no anonymity or pseudonimity, any information is either private or public with almost nothing in the middle. If you go to a store, the shopkeeper knows not only your purchase history, but your interests, your family, your habits, your relationships, your personal events and thus what you're likely to buy. If you're going to get married, they know that as you come in through the door. If you buy condoms, they'll likely know with whom you're going to use them; if you buy baby socks, that'll inform them who's pregnant. If you ask someone for Jane's phone number, people will know that you're interested in Jane and make any conclusions that are obvious. If you call Jane, the (early 20th century style) phone switchboard operator knows that she connected you to Jane, and possibly even might be listening in; she shouldn't, but she might. If you go somewhere where people see your face, everybody knows (through gossip) when and where you went. The old lady sitting on her porch performs much more invasive surveillance than any security camera could do. For every fact, either it's kept as a secret that (almost) nobody knows, or it's likely to be known by everybody who cares. If you keep something in your bedroom, that's private, but everything that you do or say in the public is, well, totally public.

IMHO (I'd be happy to hear counterexamples) everything creepy that modern "data factories" can do with your data was being done in such a village. Many (most?) of us have gotten used to a big-city anonymous lifestyle, but it relies on the fact that most people around us (e.g. people passing you by on the street) simply ignore what they see because they don't care about us. That wasn't the reality for a long time in history and possibly won't be in the future.
> ...thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there.

I'm struggling to see how this addresses the point about Google's variable standards. I mean, are you saying that somehow because Google needs to adjust its standard to make money in a particular market that it therefore doesn't have variable standards?

Not quite following you ...
I'd expand on this by saying that one should learn to program, not to simply code. This sounds silly at first glance, but what I mean is that if you learn how programming languages work, and truly grok what is going on under all that syntax, you'll find it's much easier to transition to other languages as you already understand the conventions at play (unless you are switching to a completely different paradigm e.g. OOP to functional).

This is one of the things that is dangerous about these code bootcamps you see. They are taught enough to write cogent programs for a given language, but the underlying bits and pieces of what make software tick is left out. There simply isn't enough time to truly learn the craft in a 6-8 week course.
> If they implemented GDPR correctly and in a sensible manner, you would get one popup per site, once. You would give your consent to data collection and usage, and they would save that preference in a cookie or your profile settings for that site.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly? If you choose "deny" then they can't track you, so they can't set a cookie or save profile data! Of course you'll get the same prompt the next time you show up. At that point you're just another anonymous visitor of whom they have no prior knowledge. You have to consent before they are allowed to remember your preference.

The same issue applies if you grant consent but take your own measures to thwart tracking, such as limiting cookie lifetime. The next time you show up they don't remember you and must ask again, or else give up and assume that no one ever grants consent.

If you are already signed in to an account that is a different matter, of course, but even for the minority of sites where I would have an account signing in would generally be more trouble than dealing with the pop-up, and thus not an improvement.

> ... into accepting their onerous terms.

There is nothing "onerous" about their terms. They have every right to require your consent in exchange for their services, the GDPR's infringement of that right notwithstanding. For that matter, they have every right to collect, store, and make use of whatever data they are able to gather from your interaction with their service without your consent. The law in this case is blatantly one-sided, and consequently unjust—you aren't forced to beg for their consent to remember and/or communicate whatever data you can gather about the them. For that matter, where is the GDPR equivalent for the government? They collect more information, and more personal information, than anyone else. Based on the same principles as the GDPR, you should be able to opt out of all those income and sales tax reporting forms, for a start, or demand that they delete you from all their databases, with no change in services received.
Same here. Instead we have all these meetings where a ton of managers talk about their workers instead of letting the workers talk directly.

Using your software for the intended work can be very eye opening. I have had many occasions where I had to use stuff I had written and quickly saw a lot of inconveniences that could easily be fixed. When I asked users about this they agreed but they never asked because they thought it would be a difficult change.

Recently I had to use our SAP system and there would be a ton of opportunities for small changes with huge time savings but somehow it seems they never trickle up to the devs.
But it's very hard to prove such fraud. If you artificially pump the value of an artist by a few well placed public auctions - the art might have been bought by a front man for the owner, then the IRS doesn't have a leg to stand on, as a "market value" for the artist has been established (my mother worked on auctions for a time and there were a lot of shady schemes to pump up value of collectibles).

The 0.1 have access to the very best tax advisors money can buy (and probably some IRS insider info as well).
Five ways to detect phishing emails (a technical guide)
I understand how mail works trust me, I used to manage a fleet of about 40 mail servers in a past job shudder

I'm sorry but these comments aren't really saying anything with any substance. If my mail provider "scans my email for targetting" - Do you mean ad targeting? Both the mail host and the app are paid products, not ad supported.
Twitch is what made you realize you weren't good enough? VODs in the 90s for Starcraft or CS were more than enough to convince me that being competitive was nigh impossible.
> Venezuela and China are very different companies

c o m p a n i e s
Please don't post fluffy sarcastic flamebait here. We'd like to have discussions from which we can learn something.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As long as work is required to survive, employers will be calling the shots. They don’t have to employ you but you have to work. So they will do whatever they can legally get away with to exploit this and keep as much as they can for themselves.
Amazon’s Kindle Oasis has a new competitor: the waterproof Kobo Forma
If you can setup a non-profit like this they can theoretically give forever. That is what the philanthropists are going for. They want their gift to keep giving and be their legacy. Preventing that is not a good idea in my opinion.