skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The content itself doesn't cont much but that isn't what people are after. Most of the budget goes towards branding to build trust in the content. That is what you are really paying for - the feeling that your sources are credible.
It is not that internal transfers are impossible, but they are never as easy as advertised. Yes, many companies have formal processes for them, but stars still have to align just right both at your old team and the new one.

> All it took was the dev to say that he preferred working on a specific project. Some teams even have further internal hiring processes from the talent pool.

I'm not sure if I read that correctly, but don't these two sentences contradict each other? Of course some positions will be more coveted than others, so additional processes are necessary to choose from all the people interested in the position. But it means that just saying "I prefer to work on X" is not nearly enough to transfer (of course it isn't).
What does "debt-based" have to do with extracting money?
It's getting easier to build them.
What about Whatsapp?
They invade my privacy to do it.
The current economy allow creation of an almost infinite amount of debt and has since at least 1971 I think. It should be obvious how such an economy incentivize extraction, one of the most obvious being credit cards.
Video games: the addiction (2010)
UV do damage because of energy of a single photon enough to break some bonds. It is the amount of damage that depends on intensity.

Similar to Monet case, one can get a NIR camera by removing the IR filter in front of typical digital camera.
Hulu/Hulu Plus always advertised. I was very excited a year or two ago when they finally offered ad-free streaming for an additional few dollars.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/consumer-debt-is-set-to-reac...

https://www.creditkarma.com/studies/i/average-debt-american-...
I’m not sure GoFundMe is actually a great replacement for universal healthcare.
It's wrong. Not because the stated probability at the point you stop the experiment is wrong, but because the (stupid) rule is that we'll approve the drug if the probability that the drug is better than the alternative is above some arbitrary threshold value. If you run experiments a fixed number of trials, you'll get a variety of conclusions with different strengths. If you stop as soon as you are in the "barely passing" zone, you'll get a lower number of failing result, a higher number of barely passing results, and none at all that do better than barely passing.
Assuming you are in the Star Trek teleporter camp, which believes that your consciousness continues if you get destroyed somewhere and recreated somewhere else, then if the universe is infinite your consciousness might continue forever.

If the universe is infinite, with infinite matter in all possible configurations, then if you happened to be disintegrated one day, your perfect copy is already waiting for you somewhere out there.

Who knows, maybe you already died a bunch of times, but picked up somewhere else, never noticing that you left. You could still witness others dying of course. Nothing would seem out of the ordinary.

Even the surroundings of your new location in the universe would be the same as accurately as you are able to tell. Information about the planets of the solar system is part of your brain – the new location must also have those planets, otherwise you would not be identical.
Your logic is incredibly flawed and assumes that the prisoners dilemma does not exist.

If I donate money to the government expecting it to improve things, I can't expect other people to be donating the same amount because it's impossible for me to know. If we consider people to be rational actors (as free markets often do), the free market would effectively dictate that no one would donate money to the government because that would be against their own self-interests.

Additionally it ignores the fact that I as an individual have far less influence than say, Elon Musk or Bezos with the amounts of contributions they make.
Wow! Fascinating! The portion displaying the regular expression for matching email addresses as per RFC 5322 was excellent. I've not once seen a regular expression written out this way.
The articles are ads.

Eg. https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/1051475468199833600
you'll just end up really hurt and frustrated and they'll all think that you are the problem.

This so much this.

It’s so hard to find a tribe of passionate driven people who care crazy amounts about their vision and purpose.
> [...] but does it also define a $100 million dollar software business?

It depends on the type of software business.

Technically, a lifestyle business is just one that is not expected to ever go through a high growth phase. So a $100M SaaS is probably not a lifestyle business (high growth is at least potentially possible, unless the TAM is too small), but a $100M enterprise software VAR probably is a lifestyle business.
There are publications that work this way, you don't see ads if you pay. I don't think there is any "magical thinking" in it. It's a common enough selling point for subscriptions that people expect it.
One of my teachers at university kept repeating that you can't really call yourself a programmer before you've implemented at least one language. I don't know about that, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

What I do know is that it's one of precious few things in software that I still find interesting enough to bother [0]. I'm guessing part of the answer is that this is where you end up sooner or later.

And then we have the internet, which is a big part of the equation. It's easy to get numb, but I remember a time when information about implementing interpreters/compilers was VERY hard to come by.

It's all good from my perspective, we're barely scratching the surface of what is possible and there are plenty of good ideas left to rediscover in our history.

But I do wish that more designers would dare to step outside of the box more. Creating a language isn't about cherry picking features from existing languages, it's about finding better ways of solving problems.

[0] https://github.com/codr4life/snabl
None of this makes any sense unless you're manually authorizing all connect()/write() calls, manually monitor network traffic and correlate it in real-time with user actions, or have some form of surveillance software to automatically do this for you. All of these seem extremely improbable.

Otherwise, on the network, git fetch and telemetrics to github will be indistinguishable (except if you start doing opaque data pattern analysis). There's also no automatic correlation on the network.

On the machine itself, the closes you could get is something like Little Snitch, which still won't be able to help at all, as permitting Atom to speak to Github on port 443 will permit everything while disallowing will block everything, and it's also designed to be a manually populated whitelist, rather than a constant authorization system.

> If something legitimately requires background network activity, and security updates might qualify, it should go in Crontab. The system should have exactly one package manager, and apps should not re-implement their own.

First of all, eww. Nothing is worse than updates running on a crontab, causing shit to break because it updated automatically.

Also, welcome to 2018. Everything outside Linux bundle their own updater, and on Linux, flatpak and other newfangled things bypass most package managers (even with dnf's flatpak integration, it's still not going through any yum repos).
Don't worry, they'll be monitoring your sentiment during boarding and passengers that appear agitated will be calmly denied access to board. And you'll be monitored in your seat as well during the flight.

It's not Orwell's imagination anymore, it's reality. Only privacy law can stop it, maybe.
Our zoned housing capacity fits only N residents. No matter how much money you throw around, rents will simply rise until only N people can afford them. We don’t need more and more dollars chasing the same apartments. We need more apartments. Give low income workers more to spend on housing, and the only person whose life materially improves is the landlord.
Google says the Pixel camera application soon supports external speakers
The Complete 118+ Free ICO Listing and Rating Sites 2018
I love working with people who “don’t work well in a team”. There’s something beautiful about these crazies. They make amazing stuff if you just have the wits to lead them.
I actually use neither but I waste just as much time online on other sites, youtube, HN, news sites.

sometimes I wonder if it would be better for me to actually use Facebook and Instagram MORE, just like everyone else.

For many, it has become the norm in how one shows interest in other people.

Anyway, I tried browser plugins and they're surprisingly effective for me. But I always manage other means to distract myself with, that is ultimately non-productive and unfulfilling.

I clearly have problems. lol.
I agree with a tiny caveat, in that I'd change Jeffreys prior to reference prior.

On the other hand, these priors can be difficult to create in some (many?) situations and it's often more tractable to do ML.

Bayesian inference seems more principled to me in general if you allow for and use reference priors, but outside of that I think there are still reasons to prefer ML. There's two areas where I still have problems with priors.

The first is that the sequential testing paradigm (that is, prior -> posterior -> prior) doesn't always work in reality because you often have multiple experimenters operating simultaneously and independently with different priors. In one sense this is a trivial problem but in another sense it is not. E.g., if you are a meta-analyst faced with integrating such results, is prior variation akin to publication bias? What implications does that have?

The second is that there are situations in which using a prior actually might lead to unfair inequities. For example, let's say you're trying to make some inference about an individual, and know that ethnicity provides information in a statistical sense about the parameter you are making an inference about. Is it prejudicial or not to use a prior? I think using a reference prior would address this situation, but depending on the scenario you could make an argument that it is unfair (e.g., if the informative prior would suggest a positive outcome, not using it might be seen as prejudicial, but if the informative prior would suggest a negative outcome, using it might be seen as unfair). In this case, not using a prior at all actually might make sense--you might make a similar argument about non-Bayesian inference as Bayesian reference inference, but using non-prior-based inference does sidestep the issue in a sense, in that there is no longer a prior to decide about. This might be especially important in that, e.g., if you have a series of individuals, the act of choosing a prior might be seen as prejudicial in itself.

I generally consider myself as an "objective Bayesian" in the Jaynesian / reference prior sense, but there are practical and theoretical scenarios where I think people are likely to run into problems.
I tried contacting spotify about this and they told me to wait several months until my subscription expired and then create a new account.
Yes, it will use the same marker bytes.
> 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.

Hamburger joints getting extra scrutiny at the government’s expense doesn’t seem like a problem to me, especially since they often already do.
The people who aren’t getting audited often enough are not Mom&Pop hamburger joints, no one is arguing that. The premise of the parent poster is that the IRS is underfunded to deal with real large scale white collar crime, and as I understand you argue that’s not possible without splash damage to small buisinesses. But they're unrelated: you can specifically target large buisinesses, and you can make the government pay for audit services for small buisinesses.

> 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.

That’s utter nonsense. The large Republican doners not only have large tax bills at stake but believe they should not.

http://time.com/5075076/koch-brothers-tax-bill-campaign/

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article...

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/05/sheldon-adels...

Each one of these doners individually spends hundreds of times more than the national small buisiness association on lobbying
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00005433...

And it’s harder to tell the exact numbers, but probably thousands of times more more than all small buisinesses in donations.

How ideologically bankrupt democrats are is irrelevant and doesn’t change what is happening here.

> 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.

The idea is we should be outraged at the tax law and fix it, instead of celebrating the loopholes for billionaires.
>The basic problem here is very simple: found- and- fixed vulnerabilities aren't breaches.

What makes this less than simple is that we may not know whether or not a particular vulnerability was exploited (i.e if a breach has occurred).

My opinion is that the likelihood of an undiscovered breach and the potential damage of any such breach should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to disclose a particular vulnerability.

>The incentive problem isn't eliminated just because you only target Google with the new norm.

I have no interest in targeting Google specifically (I'm actually a shareholder). They just happen to be big and have a lot of personal data. They are in the crosshairs of regulators and politicians as well, which is another reason to err on the side of transparency.

I'm also not trying to eliminate the incentive problem by limiting it to Google (or other big companies). On the contrary, my opinion is that disclosing vulnerabilities in a timely fashion should be seen as building trust and become the new normal. Making it the new normal is what should fix the incentive problem over time as people get used to it.

People tuning out is not a bad thing. The difference between an actual breach and a fixed vulnerability will not be lost just because vulnerabilities are no longer kept secret.

But as I said, I don't think end-users should be notified of every single vulnerability.
MORE Coin (MORE) https://twitter.com/getmorecoin (previously Legends Room (LGD)) is pushing the dancing industry in that direction. Seeing how bottle service in clubs is marked up 1,000% and dances are, well, expensive by nature, I can see a place for flagrant crypto spending in that space.

A lot of dance clubs label themselves as "restaurants" (Gold Club SF) or funnel money through their Cayman Islands Holding Corporation (Spearmint Rhino in Vegas). Moving impossible to track purchases through crypto may sound enticing to them.
In other news, top 3% of us taxpayers earned the majority of income in 2016
Your teacher was either pulling your leg or you simply misunderstood the point they were trying to make. Russians can immediately identify a native English speaker – it is one of the most placeable accents for Russians thanks to decades of depictions of Americans and Brits in the context of Cold War-era entertainment. Furthermore, many Russian speakers can determine from a English speaker’s accent in Russian whether that English speaker is from the USA or the UK.
> It's possible that we could actually raise government income by doing less enforcement, because $3 is the average. It would be a net gain to eliminate the ones where we're spending $1 to raise $.50 (or $0) as long as we keep the ones where we spend $1 to raise $20.

Keep in mind the likelihood that the enforcement actions we spend $1 to raise $0.50 are there to deter tens or hundreds of billions in related avoidance or fraud schemes. That's more important than the actual revenue recovered.
And russian metastasis all around it. Also Middle East and South China Sea.
Is this actually a market inefficiency? Maybe this is an opportunity to discover how humanity can still make information known about products and services without having to make our entire cultures about consumption.

I mean, advertising is about information sharing in a way. Can it be more efficient without clobbering art and media?
"Pay their fair share"

3% of us are floating 50% of the population. How much more "fair" can we get?
People are being too hard on this guy here. It's true that big companies are full of politicians and jerks, and that this can be frustrating if you just want to get good work done.

There are some things you can say about the style of writing but... There is stuff here that resonates and accurately describes downsides of SV life. Just because "it's like that everywhere" doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to better. Just because we don't like some aspect of this guy's communication style doesn't mean we should dismiss him.

If you're reading, Morgan, don't despair at all the people displaying needless aggression in this thread.
The author is Yascha Mounk. I've listened to his podcast for a while: https://player.fm/series/the-good-fight-1528359 It's really good.
Please read the second paragraph again. Where they didn't even bring charges for an unrelated crime of financing terrorism that they found out later. That was my answer to your question.
> When YC launched I wasn't in a place to take advantage of what they had to offer (already had a spouse and child + house and couldn't relocate).

That describes my situation at the time pretty well, except I had (and have) $SPOUSE with severe asthma instead of $CHILD, which precluded relocating to the SF Bay Area, or anywhere with higher humidity than the southwestern US desert (we relocated from Las Vegas to Albuquerque 10y ago).

BTW rwalling, I hope you'll eventually see my Qs about what the "year of runway" looks like[0], and reply. I am definitely intrigued.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18205579
Don't you pay for license plates in the US? It was 30 euros last I did that.
A lot of the world's problems are just too complex and interconnected to have an accessible source of definitive truth. For example anything to do with pollution or major construction projects. You have to balance competing demands that are absurdly tangential, that should be a false dichotomy. But those are the choices that have to be made all the time and there is no analysis that can give you the answer.

Science and engineering strip out complexity to reach something simple enough to be modelled. It is naïve to believe that every problem can be treated like this.
Here in San Francisco Bay Area, you can use your debit card and the charge is identical to an ATM. If your purchase is $31.50, you're charged $40 (like an ATM) and given the difference back as cash.
Having a "formula" for the brain, even if incomplete, will better allow those in power to understand how to more fully enslave the rest of society.

No matter how intellectually amusing it is to figure out the human brain, I think we should curb our enthusiasm about the novel technical aspects and really think out, and stop, the dystopian implications of mastering the human brain.
No, not even close. But it seems there was not much of an Investigation to see if any laws were broken
It depends. Most (all?) antibiotics aren't sold without recipe. If they were and people started using them without good reason, we could end up in situation where there are no longer any effective antibiotics for the species (this is already the case to some degree, but accelerating it certainly isn't ideal).
Financial regulators aren't the only ones relevant here. There work is useless if there's nobody available to investigate it and bring charges.

That used to be the FBI's main job, but since 2001 they've been mostly ignoring white collar crimes to focus on counterterrorism.
”When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?'”
-Don Marquis
That link should replace the article really.
A popular sentiment was "no taxation without representation". Why not implement "no representation without taxation"? If you don't pay income tax, you don't get to vote that calendar year.
The issue is that Mozilo's behavior resulted in personal gains against extreme public losses. It's in our best interest as a society to deter such behavior, while enabling whatever legitimate business Countrywide conducted. How do we best do that? The public at large wins — Mozilo should win, the public at large loses — Mozilo should lose.

I think GP's point is that a $60M fine (against $520M in earnings) is not a an effective deterrent against such antisocial behavior.
So you’re willing to concede that the rich pay their fair share?
If you have a command line application, you probably either want to use a library that provides colors and more features, or output to file (where writing to stdout is more appropriate than "print").

When developing, "print" is more commonly used as an aid for the developer. Most "print" messages should either be removed or outsourced to a library when the program nears completion. "warn" fills a similar purpose as "print".

If you really want "print", a small function that writes to stdout is quick to write.
Exactly like that.

Blindly trusting authority and walking over dead bodies to defend our ignorance hasn't been working for thousands of years, it's about time.
I really wish there was a good alternative for Instagram. I use it a lot to post my pictures, mostly as a journal to look at old memories. For browsing pictures and sharing with people it still has a relatively uncluttered interface. Lately they added a lot of cruft like IGTV that I would disable if I could but I haven't found a better app so far. Maybe Flickr?
That doesn't actually follow, since average tax rates increase as you earn more.
Comment voir qui consulte notre profil Facebook – Untelephone.com
At least in the Valley, this is very much not true. Very few companies are willing to match the compensation from the tech giants. I work for a non-Amazon FAANG and I'll be surprised if a company was willing to match almost $300k of unvested stock (after 1 review cycle & 1 year of vesting), a healthy salary on top of my existing one, and comparable annual refresh grants - only companies I see really doing so would be another FAANG and VC firms.
Buy a cheap computer and you get (or at least used to) tons of shovelware. Buy a decent one and you don't.
“When a topic is complex, offering quotes adds little to the conversation” - Anonymous
GitLab code history
Could you explain that a bit better. I don’t understand how it works.
Please define fair, and rich.
Adding to that, the word "bitch" is more contextually associated with certain power structures in office environments. Pretending that words are just words is completely naïve and it usually signals that someone is upset that they can't be a jerk to other people without consequences.
Maybe because it would be the opposite of all democratic principles we cherish and stand for?
Because tethering economic activity to citizenry participation goes against the fundamentals of the us constitution, for one
A wall can blunt the force of the water, even if it still floods.
I’d expect you, “as a lead developer,” to know how the tokenizer in your lexer almost certainly works. Rather than frowning upon “every instance of regex used,” I’d expect you to be familiar with cleaner and more maintainable ways of writing regexes, which are, after all, just declarative ways of specifying finite automata. An NFA is infinitely easier to characterize than some mess of a hand written recursive descent parser, precisely because they are so restricted.