skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pebble is going to be one of those iconic products that very few understood, but that nailed the medium long before anyone else in the end! The Pebble 2 SE is probably one of the best gadgets I have ever used (I also have a Pebble Time and a Pebble 2 HR). When it's battery will die, I will open it and hack a new battery in there. It will lose it's water resistance, but that's life. Pebble will never die because none of the companies making wearable notification devices have any clue (Memory LCD and design) and it seems they never will! That said this video was boring as hell and the audio sucks (stopped watching after 10 minutes).
45 is the peak of life (knowledge, experience, network) if you are healthy and out of troubles, so no wonder.
If you tell them your boss is a pedophile and rapist you better bet your ass you can get pinched.
It's not at all clear that all of Mozilo's earnings came from fraudulent activity. In fact, it's almost certainly true that this is not the case.
$100 and we don't exchange info/I made sure no pictures were taken or license plates studied is generally baseline IMO. Even if they're at fault, if it's minor I do not want my insurance to know about the accident. It will boost the premiums much moreso than paying off those involved.
Funny thing is I removed mine when I got my new car home. When I took my car in for a service it came back with new plate surround.
High margins allow high salaries. Any money put into salaries is not profits it’s an expense.

This may sound like a nit but it’s important because they have high profits despite high salaries. It shows the lopsided value of well managed network effects businesses.
So true! The whole post is just completely offputting and strange. What strikes me as the most odd is that the author thinks this makes him look good. imo it just discloses that he's a nightmare coworker.
Apparently, Betteridge's law of headlines doesn't always hold up.

On a more serious note, it will be interesting to see if currently, ad-free on-demand services will undergo the same transition.
Shareholder's demand insane growth every quarter. Can't leave money on the table.
The Shrink wrapping is far less harmful for wildlife. It's a question of what forces are being applied and the lifetime of the material, not the amount of material.
Startup spooling no problem. But every business, needs capitalization proportionate to the scale. Therein lies the problem. I'm not hooked up with the right people, just the shit financiers. So looking at doing it off of positive cashflow (takes longer, since the working capitol comes out of the till).

Right now I'm doing consulting, but the service model, sucks (multipliers too high relative to the stagnant "wage growth"). Not a lot of people trying to grow their businesses (that have the cashflow to invest in their co's).

To be blunt, I'm actually looking at the weed market. They're going legal, investments minimal. But the price of weed is crashing, and theirs a supply glut coming down from Canada (where all the fin money is going). Short term its dead (fin money is basically capitalizing foreign producers due to the quasi-legal status), long-term its got excellent growth potential.
I assume that you are referring to cortical columns aka hypercolums aka cortical modules and not cortical minicolumns?
You might be interested in the parse python library

https://github.com/r1chardj0n3s/parse
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=18211529&goto=threads%...

> Not every place seeks the jack-of-all-trades types of people.

I'm not a jack of all trades. I'm a master of several. Difference.

And I pick up fields, psycho-quick. At expert levels.

-

I put out a full resume for a bit, and no calls. So I asked to sit down with one of the HR people, and go through the resume. About 10 seconds in I realize what the problem is. They thought I was lying on my resume (like people do this?).

So I suggested we go through it one-by-one and I could explain the circumstances behind each one. Which we did. At the end of it, they acknowledged it was all true after I gave them details on each one. :) Didn't get me the job. They hired h1b's.

> but more likely because of a more pragmatic one: they might not have the company structure to support people with those profiles and give them room to grow, to contribute in ways that are both nourishing for the company's and the employee's goals.

I've been autonomous on every job I've ever worked. And a direct report to the c-suite within weeks to a month. And I get shit done.

Most of the time I'm just filling in the CEO on what I did, where I'm going next, what possible problems there might be, and what dangerous situations I've encountered along the way (things that require executive attention). Also some business suggestions on where the company needs to go (once I clear out the low lying fruit). Whatever job title they hire me for is irrelevant.

> I find myself often drained by the type of situation you mention encountering (although I seem tot lack the self-confidence you are pushing there),

Eh. You get old enough, you know the score. Personally I consider it a plus to get rejected from a shit company. I'm skilled enough to want to work with the best, on the hardest problems.

> In a way, the interviews you encountered might be at places that are more realistic with their own skills and needs.

First company I worked for was a temp agency doing data entry. CEO of a 20 SBU international conglomerate came down to my desk (as a 17 year old) to ask me how I did my work (short story: I uncovered a catastrophic problem that would have killed their business in months). Been like that on almost every job I've been to.

It don't matter what industry you're in; it don't matter what your business is; it don't matter what your corporate culture is. I fix it. So long as your serious about your business (its not your personal piggy bank/fiefdom) i.e. you show up to work, same as me.

> I do wish you the best in trying to find the right fit.

Well thank you for your best wishes. :)
> I stand by my initial complaint: any speech that obscures the actual topic behind lingo available only to a small group of people should stay in that small group or improve.

These days, with the internet at everyone's fingertips, I find it very hard to understand the "I couldn't find what it means" explanation when a simple search for ILS returns some pretty clear explanations on Wikipedia or Quora on the very first results page. No need to even click a link. And if you do click you get pictures, explanations, everything you could want including how they can be hit [0]:

>> A localiser antenna. Point of interest: In case of an aircraft over-running the runway, it is the localiser antenna which gets smashed!

And keep in mind that FlightRadar24 is not a site for the laymen. It's for people with an explicit interest in aviation and there's a definite assumption that you understand these concepts. Perhaps other sources were clearer. Just like it's assumed you know what ADS-B, kts, or FL(350/360) are. They aim for a different audience.

[0] https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-ILS-Instrument-Landing-Sy...
Clearly the French FinMin (Lagarde) didn't agree with you. But if the 'rules' a group of people agree to are such that they are thrown out the minute they become inconvenient, then the entire concept of a treaty or written law itself becomes irrelevant.
This is a fascinating question. My guess is that all industries have different levels of collusion/wage-fixing. If something as big as THE TECH INDUSTRY can get away with colluding to keep a ceiling on wages, then surely every single other smaller industry can as well.
And if you believe Friston, Active Inference is how biological systems work!
> Nobody claims the solution is CEO-mandated "artificial" wage inflation, the report emphasizes the need for strong workers unions that can demand more equitable pay.

The report suggested multiple policies to attain "wage equality", including increased taxation and forcing companies to increase pay for subcontractors. The result of such policies would be downwards redistribution: less pay for high-skilled workers, more pay for low-skilled workers.

I'm sure you don't think that "wage equality" means that janitors in SV start making $250+ like senior engineers. That is not sustainable. Any realistic solution would bring engineers way down, while lifting the bottom a little bit higher.

I'm not sure when "equitable pay" became a goal. In a healthy free market, people are rewarded for their effort in developing rare and valuable skills. As far as I know, a market in which the government actively intervenes to keep all wages equal is called communism.

If the government wants to take action, perhaps they should work to make SV more affordable for everyone, for example, by lifting ridiculous NIMBY restrictions that keep housing expensive.

All those "high paid engineers" still can't afford a home anywhere near SF. Somehow I doubt the solution is to cut further into their pay.
"A Bayseian FDA regulator would b more forgiving". He absolutely would not. It should be obvious to anyone who gives the matter any thought that it must be more probable that you'll conclude drug A is better than drug B at the 5% level at some point over the course of an open ended experiment than that that will be the case at the end of a trial with a specific number of runs.

In fact, the open ended stop when you win method is the equivalent of running an enormous trial and then re-anlyzing the result at each point and publishing the most favorable point as the result.
Google Tink
I could see a dual tier approach like Hulu. The ad supported tier is only $5 a month
Of course they will.
A lot of which is legal "dodging", which is another large problem. There are more loopholes in the tax laws than there are actual tax laws. You have to have money and assets to be able to utilize a lot of them, though. The average Joe wouldn't be able to.
Still no end to end encryption.

Ircv3 would have been good 10years ago. IRC is great but everything has it's time. Even the web has it's time.
> If ads for subscribers are so annoying that people stop subscribing, then companies might stop advertising to them.

It also matters if there is any actual competition that does tings better. Cable TV is having a bad time, in large part it is because of ads, but it is only happening because of the streaming services.

Airlines are a competitive service, but newspapers are not.
The owners of the site have some "standard" agreements. Perhaps one of them, may be useful https://www.ycombinator.com/documents/
Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
I completely support the idea of the IRS sending individuals a default tax return which you can just use as-is if you don't have anything to dispute or amend and be done.

But that doesn't work for small businesses. If you sell hamburgers, the majority of your customers won't have informed the IRS of the transaction. If any part of your supply chain includes normal retail outlets, same thing. Small business tax returns are pretty horrific. (They're at least as complicated for large businesses too, but they actually like it that way for all the usual reasons.)

> I don’t believe the driving force is protecting small buisinesses from Audits- anecdotal, but small businesses in my family are still audited frequently.

And they typically don't uncover major tax fraud, right? Evidence that the existing level of enforcement is, if anything, too high.

> I believe it has to do with how unpopular the IRS is with the conservatives for ideological reasons

That doesn't make any sense. Both of the major parties are ideologically bankrupt and ruthlessly pragmatic. Some part of their constituency wants it this way -- and it's probably the small business owners who keep getting audited even though they're not evading taxes.

> Our president bragged about how dodging taxes was an admirable quality- that kind of attitude is the driving force in american rhetoric, not protecting small buisiness owners.

Not paying taxes you don't actually owe is textbook capitalism. The idea that we should be outraged at companies for not paying what the law we passed says they don't owe instead of replacing the tax laws with ones that cause them to actually owe taxes is some kind of nonsense populist rhetoric.
Netflix is rumored to start advertising between episodes

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/22/how-to-opt-out-of-new-ad-tes...
> The meritocracy you describe is rare to find. Politics is everywhere

"Taking complaints to your manager instead of verbally attacking them" has nothing to do with a meritocracy, it's a political action for a political environment. It just happens to be one that will accomplish what you're trying to do much more successfully.
Apollo 15 Postal Covers Incident
Technology happened bro, it's just that no one predicted that technology would bring MOB RULE!
Exactly. I don't know what your experience has been but generally the pressure from medical professionals is because C-section risks outweigh the benefits most of the time.
Not sure if the "moments" stuff is that "14-years-old". I'm not sure about the Snapchat implementation but the things on Instagram and FB etc. surely have people of all ages using them. Though yeah that's not the main point of the article I know.
The only sensible "non-informative" prior is Jeffreys' prior. Invariance under reparameterization of the parameter is what I would consider to be a non-negotiable feature of any non-informative prior belief.

To assign a (improper) uniform prior to the variance of a Gaussian distribution is to assign a non-uniform prior to its standard deviation, and vice versa. One can, in certain circumstances, assign priors to be non-inforamative in a particular way, but to be universally non-informative, no, it must be Jeffreys' or nothing at all.

In consideration of the aforementioned, the debate about non-informative Bayesian priors is a relic of 20th century philosophy. The construction of hiearchical causality networks for the purposes of unsupervised learning is the future of Bayesian statistics, and priors in this context are rarely non-informative.
That is incredibly obnoxious. Wouldn't they need your permission to make that modification?
They are pushing their own programming (trying to encourage consumption of the programming that you already have access to and already paid for). I don't think it's fair to the conversation to compare it with the umbrella of commercial endorsements.
Proof of Scam
> widely shared by many.

That's not accurate description of the status of the debate.

Some share it, but nothing seems to have been come of it after the debate.
Yeah, that and the spelling mistakes… I think I'll have another pass at this. I just re-read it, and I glossed over the numbers at times.
The default smartphone over here is an Android phone, not an iPhone.
Recursively Flatten JSON in Python
Twitter is being investigated over data collection in its link-shortening system
Indeed, which is how we got into this comment thread to begin with. Personally I'd gladly pay to hide ads in services I use frequently, but that also makes me more attractive to the advertisers. Fortunately most services that I use that have an ad-free option have also kept it ad-free, at least for now.
I think this article omits the most important distinction between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics: subjective vs. frequentist interpretations of probability. In my own opinion, neither is "true", they're both just different tools for different purposes.

Bayesian inference is great when you have to make a decision and there are many theorems that illustrate this (for example, the arguments around coherence [1] and the complete class theorems [2]). In fact, Bayesian techniques are often useful for creating estimators with great frequentist properties! However, Bayesian interpretations of probability, and thereby the meaning of Bayesian statements, are inherently tied to the beliefs of an individual. That means that Bayesian statements usually aren't "true" in the objective / non-relative sense that we often expect from science. On the other hand, frequentist statements tend to have more of an objective flavor. The trick is: all our mathematical models have short comings and ways in which they're wrong when applied to any particular situation -- so neither really has a claim to being true.

The frequentist perspective often looks at worst case risk and tends to give a more global understanding of a procedure in terms of "how does this procedure shake out in all reasonably possible scenarios?". So, frequentist methods tend to be a bit more risk-averse which is often useful but can cost you for being to pessimistic. Ultimately, the real win is to know your tools well and to pick the right one for the job.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(philosophical_gambl...

[2] https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoms/1177730345
Possibly, Hulu already does this and Netflix is rumored to start doing it soon.

However, an important difference between old TV and current-day streaming is that it is much easier to pirate shows that are streaming. There is an (ad-)free alternative to Hulu and Netflix that is becoming easier to use. At some point, streaming services may have to compete by not including ads.
The adverts are why I et uber in New York rather than taxis.
Interesting
How would you monetize this?
Like if people export code they won't pay hosting to you
Don't think that's quite the right calculation.

Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers

The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.
Here is an example of Ring partnering with a police department - Orlando - to offer discounted video surveillance IoT devices to citizens, with caveat that they can share their videos with cops to fight crime.

Orlando police department was called out for civil rights violations when they partnered with Amazon's facial recognition technology. The thing about Ring is it's marketed to consumers as a cheap camera....not a hard core image processing face rec AI tool for policing built by Ukraine's biggest tech company.

Every single security article you read about Ukraine's cyber attacks warns about IoT and russian intelligence officials penetrating the private sector. Do american police forces even care about the vulnerability of having this portal app on their phones? Again, nothing is encrypted.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange/os-orlando-ring-...
I've flown LH, BA and FI in Europe this year and don't recall any back of seat adverts

There are some in the on board magazines I suppose, I don't read them though, why would I?
I think your characterization of people who go into STEM is detracting from what could be an otherwise compelling argument. There are stronger reasons why people choose STEM. I agree that adding a few ethics classes won't change ethical behavior outcomes for those who would have chosen STEM programs anyway.
Agreed, I can't think of a better device I've purchased in the past two years. The Pebble 2 SE nailed it. I have mine running Rebble now (rebble.io) and will keep it going as long as I can.
I'd rather see cardboard and cans, which other brands are using, than cardboard and bottles.

Canned beer has become associated in the public mind with bad beer, at least in the US, but cans are a superior way to preserve and transport any kind of beer. Luckily some of the "craft beer" brands are adopting cans again and ending the stigma.
Not only is it terrible, but misleading too.

Google has 88k employees and had a $32B revenue last quarter. Let's assume 25% of employees are R&D, each paid $250k/y: Google would spend $5.5B a year on R&D, or 4.2% of revenues ; not quite a "large portion of their capital".
If you are a tribal resident, you get a PO Box, not a street address
You cannot refuse to sell something to a particular person. However, you can refuse to sell it to anyone (i.e. not for sale).
There are many ways to suppress wages besides wage-fixing collusion. About 25% of American workers have non-compete clauses in their work agreements, for instance.
Right, I wouldn't call it a "requirement" per se, but not having such a high IQ is like being only 6 feet tall in the NBA. It takes some serious cognitive abilities to be able to amass 8 figures without any prior family fortune of any sort.
If you can't opt out of it it's pretty damn fair to make the comparison.
Not only that, due to expansion, the subset is getting smaller by the second!
And assuming insurance didn't pay for the pills (this would fall under the category of "stolen" or at least "misappropriated")
> Let's assume 25% of employees are R&D

25% of people are researchers at Google? Are you saying that's what you think it is at the moment or hypothetically? Research is a tiny tiny proportion of Google's work.
> Issue for the future is that all interesting problems are beyond the comprehension of any human, so ... machine learning will win.

I agree that there's a set of problems that are both beyond human comprehension and interesting to humans. Specifying them, measuring the results of algorithms to solve them, and paying for the results will probably have to remain within human analytical capability, or you wind up with Skynet (unlikely), or some analog to the 'gray goo' problem, where machines are optimizing with unintended consequences.
The Higgs field is not directly related to gravity. Linking gravity with quantum mechanics is still an ongoing research area.
He already had investor monies and two customers.
They ruined any trust between advertisers and consumers through deceptive, bad faith tactics, and reduced the entire equation to pure game theory. If an advertiser can figure out how to get their ad copy past my sophisticated filtering attempts and get into my mind in a memorable way, then more power to them. Otherwise they don't have any "right" to exist and make money off stealing my time and resources, both mental and compute.
Wow, higher than bbc.

What's more annoying is adverts are a mere 7% of income, yet make it unwatchable.

So lucky in the UK.
A) Tech already hires psychologists to optimize mark fleecing.

B) This is rich, coming from an exec at a "nonprofit" that gets most of its money from Google.

C) Spend more time around humanities professors--no less ruthless than the engineers, but they can pull quotes from Foucault and Derrida to justify their own assholery. A less enlightened engineer would just have to accept that about himself.
Have you ever come across a Spotify issue on their support site which they have fixed? I personally have never seen this. Everything on there is pages and pages of people with the same issue and nothing from Spotify to address it. They really have zero interest in giving their customers (paying and otherwise) what they actually want. The only alternative is Google music which is probably worse!
> What is an actual example where you can make more money committing a crime than you would be forced to pay back if you are caught and convicted?

> I don't think your assertion is true.

I think you just haven't bothered to look.

First, our prosecutors arn't convicting, they are settling. HSBC paid 5 weeks of yearly profit for cartel money laundering.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-exa...

The justice department also called this a fair punishment for an unrelated money laundering crime for Saudi nationals funding of terrorism. They didn't even bother to bring charges. (Which is a perfect answer to your question.)
> they have contributed far more to society than building over priced toys

You consider this honest opinion?
Leavingthebayarea.com