skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This reminded me of a story:

In an op-ed promoting campaign finance reform, the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, proposed raising the limit on individual contributions from $1,000 to $5,000 and banning all other contributions. No corporate money, no union money, no soft money. It sounds great, except that it would never pass.

Campaign finance reform is so hard to pass because the incumbent legislators who have to approve it are the ones who have the most to lose. Their advantage in fundraising is what gives them job security. How do you get people to do something that is against their interest? Put them in what is known as the prisoners’ dilemma. According to Buffett:

Well, just suppose some eccentric billionaire (not me, not me!) made the following offer: If the bill was defeated, this person—the E.B.—would donate $1 billion in an allowable manner (soft money makes all possible) to the political party that had delivered the most votes to getting it passed. Given this diabolical application of game theory, the bill would sail through Congress and thus cost our E.B. nothing (establishing him as not so eccentric after all).

Consider your options as a Democratic legislator. If you think that the Republicans will support the bill and you work to defeat it, then if you are successful, you will have delivered $1 billion to the Republicans, thereby handing them the resources to dominate for the next decade. Thus there is no gain in opposing the bill if the Republicans are supporting it. Now, if the Republicans are against it and you support it, then you have the chance of making $1 billion.

Thus whatever the Republicans do, the Democrats should support the bill. Of course, the same logic applies to the Republicans. They should support the bill no matter what the Democrats do. In the end, both parties support the bill, and our billionaire gets his proposal for free. As a bonus, Buffett notes that the very effectiveness of his plan “would highlight the absurdity of claims that money doesn’t influence Congressional votes.”

This situation is called a prisoners’ dilemma because both sides are led to take an action that is against their mutual interest. In the classic version of the prisoners’ dilemma, the police are separately interrogating two suspects. Each is given an incentive to be the first to confess and a much harsher sentence if he holds out while the other confesses. Thus each finds it advantageous to confess, though they would both do better if each kept quiet.

From the book The Art of Strategy. Great book.
https://www.ft.com/content/022de0a4-54f4-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...

> Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time

Conditional probabilities matter.
If I showed up at a new job to work on Project X, and they assigned me to Project Y on my first day instead, I might be pretty upset too.

The problem isn't the reassignment itself. It's the lack of communication.
I have a family friend that is 70+ yr olds. Unfortunately, the best deal I could find for him via his AT&T prepaid plan was a $70 Huawei Ascend XT2 @ Walmart (locked to AT&T). It's performance is great: fast charging, long-lasting battery, 2G of RAM, and intuitive UI (despite being Huawei's custom modifications of stock Android).

What are the best alternatives (in terms of security updates and privacy) for Android phones with 2G of RAM and $100-$200 unlocked? The Ascend XT2 is so great for non-power users, that I'm even willing to overlook Huawei's awful practices for my next phone. All other phones are either too expensive or never have official security patches released for the OS.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212624.
> If your idea…
Sigh, how is it my idea?

However, what it does show as a fact from the recent historical record, it that it is _trivially_ easy for an industrial nation with a sea border - and the stomach for some unpleasant optics - to solve mass migration by simply taking the 'first-world future' option of the table.

As Austrialia showed, most of the migrants dried up after that.

By contrast, mediterranean migrants often deliberably scuttle their craft to enter the EU.

Why was my answer to the op: who seemed to suggest that mass migration is a difficult problem to solve. It really isn't.

But well done on taking the opportunity to signal your impecable virtue.
It used to. In fact Spotify shared the same auth database with Facebook (not oAuth, the literal same password - change it in FB, it changed in Spotify and vice versa)
How do you know nobody broke in?

And if you're responsible for storing personal data for millions of people in your home, and you left the keys in the door for a few hours, and you can't prove that nobody broke in, then maybe you should let people know that there's a chance their data has been compromised.
Dan Geer is wrong. I already made the argument, upthread. I'm responding to your appeal to his authority with an appeal to my own experience. It has gotten harder to break into things, not easier. The Morris Worm was arguably bigger deal than NotPetya --- certainly, it was more sophisticated. Every couple years, there's some malware or other that manages to infect huge numbers of machines. IIRC, Nimda took down the entire Naval Marine Corps Internet. They said then that we had crossed some threshold, and from now on attackers were just going to get worse. Who cares? Guess what: the opposite thing happened.
Bayes’ Theorem in the 21st Century (2013) [pdf]
It is silly to suggest conspiracy theories like that. This is not "one of the most important experiments that modern physics has attempted". Most physicist would say "the result is a forgone conclusion, but it is our job to double check". This is why the experiment is not a priority compared to experiments where the result is unknown.

Yes, if it turns out that the result is positive, this would be enormously exciting, especially for these experts that you are worried would lose their expert status. It is just that scientist do not get excited over something that has pretty enormous chances of not happening.
Plus sucked and dropped the ball. It's obviously an account from his perspective and ego, but it fundamentally shows dysfunction and poor vision, if some middle level dude is actually doing fundamental redesign and is the only one concerned with cross-app experience.
That may be true, but I think you'll find that's further forward movement, not backward movement. I'm sure that aside from the operating principle, there are going to be huge differences between new and old steam engines.

One thing I know about, for example, is nuclear power generators. They are "steam engines", sort-of. That requires a creative interpretation of how it works, as it doesn't match at all.
Employees like these quickly wear you down if you are leading then. I am surprised Google is not doing a personality test before recruiting.

When I was a recruiter for ibm I always made sure to check if the potential was an asshole or not before going ahead with tech. Talent can always be learned by those willing. Attitude is permanent.
> there is a more benign possibility: VCs are not simply looking to identify the firms with the highest growth potential. Rather, they may seek investments that will yield the highest returns, and it is possible that young founders are more financially constrained than more experienced ones, leading them to cede upside to investors at a lower price. In other words, younger entrepreneurs may be a better “deal” for investors than more experienced founders.

Seems plausible, but is it true? Anyone have experience to back it up? There are obvious downsides of a better deal with worse odds.

I’ve certainly heard this theory before, so maybe there’s something to it. I’ve heard a few stories of more experienced founders failing to get a term sheet after negotiating well. It’s hard to ever know the reasons, and from what I’ve seen founders tend to take VC rejections personally and/or jump to negative conclusions about VCs when they don’t close, so I tend to take rejection stories with a grain of salt.
Sorry, I can't speak to the UK, just the US.
I definitely understand your point, but I'm talking about the specific context the acronym is being used in.

e.g.

callsPoiAtHome()
callsPoiAtHomeAtGeoPoint()
callsPoiAtFamiliarPlace()
callsPoiAtWorkPlace()

Edit: typo
Try to connect with recruiters from Europe via LinkedIn. If you are good enough frontend developer or designer, some large companies will be willing to help you get work permit and assist you with relocation. Just ask. The fact that you don't have a degree, especially as a frontend developer, is not a problem in most of job offers for frontend developers. Western Europe and Eastern Europe offer similar pays for developers, so it's not like you have to go to England or Germany. Try Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, or Romania.
Just tried this and it didn't work, (iPhone XS Max iOS 12.0)
Yep. Seems like a smart guy, but overwhelmed with bitterness. Also a fair amount of irony from someone complaining about fair treatment, like:

"Let’s call him Greg because his real name is just as vanilla"
I call BS on the interviewer because as this thread and that question I linked on Stack Overflow demonstrates, "joint table" is not "the" term for the concept in question, and in fact there is no accepted one term. So, "marking down" for not knowing that term doesn't seem right.

Edit: On the other hand, asking the question in a way that gets at the concept, not the term, seems very reasonable.

I don't think it's relevant, but yes, I have interviewed at such companies.
I read the Guardian article differently than you did but concede the Telegraph article makes the comparison plainer.
Look into xiaomi
> First hold Equifax accountable, then we'll talk about Google

They're both screw-ups. If someone breaks into your house, we don't say "first let's solve peace in the Middle East; then we'll talk about your house."

Something being second (or further down the list) doesn't mean it should be ignored. It's just another reason to look at the issue.

Google is more politically vulnerable than Equifax because more people know what it is. That makes it a better whipping boy for getting public support behind any resulting legislation.
Please stop. Whataboutism is not helpful.
If you were selecting randomly from the population, yes.

OP would have significant disadvantages that would make them likely to be below the median.
I’m guessing they worked at Nortel
I agree that shooting yourself while cleaning a gun sounds impossible, but there are enough guns in this country that the occasional absurd mistake is going to happen. You could accidentally shoot yourself before completing step 1. You could accidentally shoot yourself during steps 2 or 3 if you skip step 1.

The brush won't go through the barrel if ammunition is in the way, but that doesn't mean the cleaner won't keep trying.
If you read through the end, you see he is not happy because his Manager backstabed him and fired him (slow release as they say) because he felt threatened by him.
Wow. That sounds both brilliant and diabolical. But what stops politicians from flipping the switch again? Just that they have large coffers? Somehow I'm not convinced any amount of money would satisfy them.
> If they obtain a positive result, how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise?

This is true of most experimentation for novel theories, and it's true of many large experiments e.g. attempting to locate the Higgs Boson (the discovery of which invalidated many theories of physics just through confirming certain unknowns.)

> Suddenly, I wonder if they are having a harder time than other experiments, and whether there are any at CERN who actually don't want the experiment to occur.

Well, possibly, but not for the conspiratorial reasons you're alluding to. It's a powerful device with only so much time to operate; the usage of that time needs to be prioritized, and that prioritization can really only be accomplished by gauging the likelihood of an outcome which produces new knowledge (either validating a theory or invalidating it). No one behind the operation of the ALPHA-g detector is going to block an experiment because they may personally not like the results; if the detector has a hand in a successful discovery, the detector and the team supporting it will be able to claim having a hand in the discovery.
I was able to successfully unlink my Spotify from Facebook using this method without deleting my account or losing anything. Thank you for this.
What if advertising mascots were living creatures?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=string&t=h_&ia=web

https://www.google.com/search?q=string

Judge for yourself whether context matters. I suppose the results will differ from person to person, but I feel comfortable saying that while Duckduckgo isn't a lost cause, it contains a lot of bullshit to filter through. Example:

> STRING: functional protein association networks
> STRING is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure: it is one of
> ELIXIR's Core Data Resources. Learn more > ...

I mean ... really ? I suppose it must be a string, but, and maybe this is just me, I'm not looking for genetic manipulation tips or databases when I search for "string".
I agree that there are trade-offs, but I don't find this argument persuasive.

Why is setting a high bail amount better than not releasing people? They're meant to be functionally equivalent except when someone can somehow manage to scrounge a lot of cash together.

I am very curious what motivations judges have for returning to this system of unaffordable bonds though.

He doesn't really spell it out, but I could imagine non-cash release having issues with reappearance or reoffence, but if that's the case you want to dig into the details, not just hand wave about it.
> Universal Basic Income is deemed necessary even by people like Elon Musk, do you know that?

Providing UBI through debt financing is a recipe for disaster.

Someone, somewhere has to earn this "income" so you can't just magically produce it out of thin air, if the Italian tax base can't service the current debt then how is it supposed to service further debt to provide a "citizenship income"?
What about the Netherlands? The country has, for reasons you will be well aware of, a sizeable Indonesian population, albeit mostly consisting of people who moved from Indonesia before or around the beginning of the republic. It will be easy for you to get acclimatised there (apart from the weather that is but given that you mention Canada as an option the Netherlands should not be a problem here). It is one of the most 'advanced' countries in the world in many ways, things generally work the way you'd want them to. Everybody speaks English and using English in the workplace is quite common, especially in the IT sector.
This is a semantic argument. The outcome depends on how you define "living".

Any definition that includes fire (i.e. hot air) is so broad that it makes the word "living" meaningless and useless. If you included fire, you'd perhaps have to include water or any other fluid.
What Google did isn't even a scandal. The whole story is "Google fixes security bug". Companies fix bugs all the time without notifying anyone. This is the silliest non-story.
Damn... That's deep. Totally
agree.
The Googleyness is weak with this one. Inferiority complex. Work-life balance problems (work over xmas break, late night after work). Not being able to stand for oneself (salary, reschedule meeting). Wanting everyone to like him (literally said it). Seems to dismiss other people's jobs and even names as being less important than his.

Nobody's perfect, we all have some bad things in our personalities. But it's impossible to read this and extract the value that he tries to convey that Google as a company didn't accommodate him (dismissing the design of buildings or noogler's orientation) rather than he tried too hard to be liked and perceived as valuable member.
The only job of a politician is to get elected.
> This is part of that half

The other half, selling proposed legislation to one's own (and one's colleagues') constituents, involves the same process.
I can simpathise with your desires and calculations - I’ve been there myself. While the country I’ve lived in (part of the USSR) was not that bad, back when the change was happening it really felt like the only rational decision was to flee west.

Due to some unfortunate buerocratic mishaps I was forced to stay. And 20 years later here I am - still in the same country, while companies are offering me to relocate and help me with legal expenses.

After travelling a bit abroad and seeing how life is in the countries I wanted to live in, I know have the feeling thet they all have their own problems, and you get to a pretty awesome standard of living if you stay at your unexpensive place, but get a decent european/american salary. And its totally possible with remote work nowadays.

And while I still think my life would have turned out better if I was able to emigrate back in the day, life here has gotten noticably better, a lot of expats are returning and bringing the culture I desired to be a part of here.

So yeah even if you don’t manage to get out, you can still sharpen your skills, and get to work for some first world companies with a great compensation. And with not that much money, even the lousiest places can be a great place to live.
I paid for alcohol in multiple countries between 18-21 years old. Do you think the US Gov cares that much about anything non-terror to seek foreign transactions?
The "coworker" seemed more like a superior. I'd also be wary of cancelling meetings with a hostile superior.
How is changing projects a punch? Haven't been longtime in a permanent position but there never was a project guaranteed during recruiting, only the skills and type of work.

Even if the project was guaranteed, things happen. Roll with it. Building resentment you are just hurting yourself.

Fuck, posts like these piss me off so much. There are so many candidates who would give their arm and leg to work at Google.

Heck, if i didn't have a startup I would have been happy to work even on Orkut at Google.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212528 and marked it off-topic.
I've used facebook/google logins for some small projects in the past. In theory it should be easy. The user doesn't need to remember their username let alone a password, or even if they made an account already. They can just click to log in.

There were two main issues. The first is that people don't trust facebook or google even if they already were signed into their services. They didn't want to give them any more information.

The second was that it was a huge pain to maintain and test. Facebook and google changed how the services worked semi-regularly and it was not trivial to find their documentation on how to update everything (and during that time nobody could log into your service).

It should have been easy, but it wasn't and it was not worth it.
There’s a special kind of rottenness in big orgs when the only thing they can produce is “like X but by us”.

I understand why it happens, I’ve been on a few projects like that. The problem is that it’s hard to come up with a genuine new idea that a stack of middle managers will agree on and execute.

But if you say: “Let’s make Twitter/facebook/App Store”, then the middle managers can’t really disagree with you since there’s already a successful example of that thing on the market.

There’s also no room for miscommunication, everyone already knows what Facebook looks like, we just have to copy it.

The problem is that this work is dull, uninspired, and likely to be unsuccessful. What’s the point? Why not just kill this shit before spending millions of dollars on it?
Tiny Nanoparticles to Treat a Huge Problem: Snakebites
>The writer seems unbalanced

That doesn't mean anything, and if you're trying to give it meaning, you're probably not qualified to diagnose someone over a twitter thread.

Everything, all-caps profanities and all, would be part of a normal conversation where a friend is ranting to you.
FlyNYON changes equipment, but not business model, after fatal accident
I am the author of an implementation, although not the author of the file format itself. Although yes that it is still a fair point if you look at just the one blog post. However there are a series of them where I clearly explain the process and my involvement, so don't just look at the last.

I agree though the message would be better if it came from a third party. I was hoping this would happen, but it didn't look likely before the GA4GH conference (where both myself and MPEG were speaking), so I self published before that to ensure people were aware and could ask appropriate questions (to both myself and MPEG of course).

As for royalties, CRAM comes under the governance of the Global Alliance for Genomics & Health (https://www.ga4gh.org). They stated explicitly in the recent conference that their standards are royalty free (as far as is possible to tell) and promote collaboration on the formats / interfaces, competition on the implementation. For the record, we are unaware of any patents covering CRAM and we have filed none of our own, nor do we intend to for CRAM 4.
Pretty interesting... it really makes you ponder how many things in our world can be refitted and sequenced into codes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia
a1) Legally migrate to a better not necessarily first-world country (near Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand come to mind; further away, South American countries might be interesting, like Panama, Argentina, Chile; not sure how feasible that is, but Singapore would be an amazing option). That will allow you to earn/save more money, learn more useful skills, and upgrade your CV to improve your chances of migrating again to an even better country.
> What Google did isn't even a scandal

There is a case to be made that tech companies hoarding sensitive data should have heightened disclosure requirements around confirmed and potential breaches. It doesn't have to be a public process. But maybe there should be some process.

Regarding "it's just a bug," I personally disagree. A bug that takes down the video player is different from a bug that could expose data. ("Could expose" isn't language we like to use in technology, but the law is fine with such ambiguity.)

Analogy: we don't wait for bridges to fail before giving a damn about the cracks. Google et al have never been treated as critical infrastructure. This is a discussion about whether that should change.
Unfortunately in big companies no one is valuable. If someone is, the company has a problem.
Try and find or do remote work.
This is why I aggressively block ads in my household. There are basically no good actors in the ad space, and I’d prefer they all go away.
Interesting, and kinda awkward.

Good job for finishing such a side project.
"virtual shoulder pat"
It's weird to read a blog post about software that you know in and out. There are a few inaccuracies here and there but it's very clear and well done. Kudos!
The Big Lebowski :)
Equifax is arguably a more serious breach, with more obvious problems in security - complete lack of forethought in security.
This isn't a story about Google+, it's a story about a disgruntled employees failing at a job as told through his own glasses filled with illusions of grandjour and sense of superiority.

That said it's still an incredibly interesting story, and I have the feeling that many managers could gain some insight into what's going on in some of those "I am gods gift to development"-type individuals who can be both a huge benefit to a project yet at the same time be toxic to work with.
Also, it would be nice if Spotify could bring back the ability to follow friends without requiring Facebook.
No it isn't. It's just given a different name.