skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's a catch-22. Here's an example:

Right now, my earning are in the top 5% of my specialization. Realistically, I'm probably overpaid by about 25%.

I'm currently employed and I've gone on a bunch of interviews. I get hit with two things:

1) I haven't found a single employer who will even come close to what I currently make. I will take a pay cut of at least 10-15%, no matter where I go.

2) A lot of employers want me to take an even bigger hit. Which I'm OK with! But then they get suspicious, wondering "what if we hire him and he just leaves as soon as he finds someone that pays better?"

I've actually considered lying about how much I make, but that seems a bit stupid. As I see it, they're getting me at a discount, as they see it, I'm a liability.

It's a p.i.t.a.
That was Aldrin.
Could be local only. New faces are saved as they're detected. Then later on your computer, add notes to the new faces ("John Smith, met 11/7/19 at Liz's party, programmer at Initech").

When those faces are re-detected, show the info text.

Would certainly be nice if you could do a similar thing without needing a camera on the glasses at all though. How can we recognize a person reliably without seeing them? Maybe by their voice?
Around our house, we definitely cook with the expectation of having leftovers. While we do plan ahead some, a lot of our meals involve looking in the fridge and trying to figure out something to make with whatever raw ingredients happen to be in there, and hopefully scaling whatever spices/sauces/etc to match. It's only two of us, and we'll often cook 8-10 servings of something to have lunches for the next couple of days.
I didnt know this. I see plenty of teslas on uber.
In America you would find a hard time justifying anything other than just a two lane road with this low level of traffic.
It just gets priced in. If the ads were 100% effective then the price per impression would be higher.
Source? That sound very unlikely, unless we are talking about CO2 only. But then keep in mind the total CO2 emissions. Coal needs more workers, more machines and more transportation.
For now money will be passed along to the best-in-class organizations doing hands-on carbon removal projects - I believe there are several excellent non-profits with the right efficiency and transparency. Yet even though these great organizations exist and plenty of people care about the environment, hardly any money ends up on their hands. I think there is great grass-roots potential to change this and it is equally as important as marginally improving the efficiency of carbon removal tech.
This doesn't make sense, the trees themselves are valuable. Why flood the market with cheep tree's and make useful stuff out of them. As suggested earlier, we can use way more trees in our building materials ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18286855 )
Maybe it’s because they feel isolated and socially rejected ?

In France, there is a lot of atheists or agnostics, but they live as well as any
It was Buzz Aldrin...you can find it on YouTube. The guy deserved it!
I mean in an audit, the test person can install the app on a device he/she has physical access to. And conclude that his/her phone was registered on the ad agency logs, yet no ad where shown. The fraudsters could however make it so the phone only sends fake impressions after a certain amount of engagement, so that audit/test person would have to play "my little pony" eg the child game - for one week ...
It's not about CO2. It explains where two major environmentalism schools of thought came from and how they approach the same problems differently.
Not if they're treated with preservatives and built into houses. Every wood-frame house and piece of wooden furniture is carbon sequestration.
I'd be extremely careful calling a computer science professor's opinion shit-posting. He's basing his argument on end-user experience. You, on the other hand, are giving dev-experience more weightage. Depending on what you want, WASM may or may not be useful.
We have some ducks in our backyard, who aren't the same pairs I usually see during the Spring. This group showed up a few weeks ago, and haven't left... I imagine they're coming from somewhere in Canada far north, but it's unusual to see them linger for so long. Seems like the current climate is confusing to the animals and the trees.
Search for Amazon HQ2 Sparks Real- Estate Speculation
The definition I’ve been given of faith is that is is a “belief which is acted upon”. To “have faith” is then to believe something and act accordingly. Taken out of a religious context it’s clear that in order accomplish anything in life you must first believe in something and then act upon it.

Under this definition, faith can be a path (or perhaps the only path) to new or prevoiusly undiscovered truth. For example to prove P = NP (or P != NP) one must first believe that such a proof exists and then act on that belief in search of a proof.

You are right though in that it’s a stretch to call faith a “reliable” source of truth. For every truth that is believed and acted upon there are far more falsehoods to believe and act upon, some of which are really popular.
Note that phytoplankton accounts for 50% of photosynthesis on the planet, already capturing 50 GtC/year.
Archived copy, which works with JS disabled:

https://archive.is/v6oKf
You've got it switched. Progress in the context of Christianity logically follows from the notion that some things are better/truer/holier than other things. If you can accept that anything has gotten better/truer/holier over time, then you believe in progress. Specifically, if you believe it's good that the Church is no longer teaching poor people that they have to pay for their family to go to heaven, then you believe in progress. If you don't believe in progress, then you don't believe in truth/goodness/holiness, then you are actually questioning the entire faith and we can't have a meaningful conversation.
Do you hate Nazis?
Free speech is a principal (one that existed before the United States) and a goal. You can have a goal, and operate principally, and still have univerally agreed upon edge cases and exceptions.
Except of course iOS 12 has made my old 6 run like new
This made me laugh. Perfect. :)
Make sugar with the pure carbon, a la photosynthesis?

Use electrolysis to split water, get the Hydrogen and Oxygen, insert Carbon, excrete glucose...
Armstrong's son says[0] it's a good film. You can search for interviews to see what the people closest to Armstrong himself say.

[0] https://variety.com/2018/scene/news/first-man-astronauts-wiv...
> If that was actually the case why would the mediocre straight white male feel threatened?

Because revealing that gets the majority of people who aren't straight white males united in opposition against it, while the myth of meritocracy, as long as the facade holds up, gets at least some significant share of the losers to buy into the system, which reinforces it's stability to the benefit of the straight white male winners.

> Honestly that would be a pretty powerful safety net.

It is, as long as only the beneficiaries see it, and as long as they don't have any kind of moral compass.

If everyone else sees it (including beneficiaries with a moral compass), they start lighting it on fire, which makes it less effective of a safety net.
People down voting this are ignorant of how cities affect the local climate. Urban effects would dwarf global climate changes pretty much always.
> they can simply lease self driving cars from the companies directly

Nobody really knows what company will develop truly practical SDC tech first. Therefore nobody really knows what revenue model that company will have.

If a vehicle manufacturer does it first, then probably their main goal is still to sell equipment, so they would probably be open to selling/leasing it to anyone and everyone.

If a tech company gets there first (or any company without an existing revenue stream), there's always a chance this company will want it all for themselves.

Sure, Uber and Lyft have the name recognition. And they have the active users (accounts created, apps installed, payment methods on file). But SDC is such a killer tech that whoever has it might decide it outweighs everything else and they can build their own app and get the users to come over.

If you're Uber/Lyft and this happens, you could be completely left out. Not only is your service less sexy, you're also paying labor costs that your SDC competitor isn't.
Simple. It is called "compromise". Understand their concerns (they are valid IMO) and offer to change the logo but say you will keep the name for discoverability.

Using for example a baby bottle as your logo would be less offensive. IMO.
y, sounds like it worked out, I think you handled it perfectly.

Nice work btw, I'll have to find a use for this.
Thanks for posting this; the comments/memories at the end of the article are pure gold!
«Digital Nature» by Stepan Ryabchenko
Thank you, that's reassuring.

I'll proceed with ignorance then.
I moved from the Seattle area to eastern Washington about ten years ago. When I first moved here, people said "oh, this isn't a normal winter." Summer came "Oh, this isn't a normal summer." Several more years went by, with some winters having no snow, others piled up to six feet. Some summers it was 100F for a month straight, others just a week. I finally came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a normal year to my non-meteorologist experience, because the normal was spread over a decade or more. I've also come to the conclusion that there are a lot of micro-climates in the northwest, having observed that with mountains, water, prairie, rolling hills, etc all over the place the weather can change significantly within just a short drive.
I run a website where we used to use one of these. People were constantly getting fooled by it. They would reply:

"Oh awesome, yeah I have a question about using XYZ"

and then the system would instantly reply, "Please enter your email here and we will get back to you. <Company Name> typically responds within 3 hours."
The people who think "hate speech" should be deplatformed are actively seeking to stop the discussion from happening.
I was wondering if it was about this story:

“Man Dies from Extremely Rare Disease After Eating Squirrel Brains”

https://www.livescience.com/63831-squirrel-brains-rare-disor...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18268219
(Related) I've always gotten a chuckle out of this TechLoaf joke: https://www.techloaf.io/2018/05/29/bitcoin-enthusiast-in-the...
What incentive does a car company have to lend them the technology vs running self driving taxis themselves?
I see what you're saying, but that doesn't actually strike me as too crazy of a goal. 0.8 is 16% of 5, and 6x-ing an industry seems within reach, given sufficient incentives.
Why? It seems to work pretty well compared to before.

Boston in general is a traffic nightmare, so I’m not sure how to measure success/failure.
The poster above was respectful that they would not comment on your experiences, merely that a single persons experiences does not defy statistical data results. To argue further with more personal experiences does not adequately address the concern...
Alphabet are also demonstrating aerial deployment of burritos https://www.gearbrain.com/google-alphabet-burrito-drone-deli...
I'm opposed to the dishonest copy used, not the concept of having a contact button conveniently located in the bottom right corner.
People used to talk like that when someone suggested they switch from windows to linux. My my, how times have changed...

Yes, those things work. You'll want to select hardware that is well supported though for the best experience.
It’s not that they do it. It’s that they allow it. Not outright, but they don’t go out of their way to suppress/stop it anymore more than anybody else.
Oracle announces EPYC cloud instances
That's not exactly how it works, of course. The people did not lower their quality of life to support the cause, per se, they did it to vanquish Those People. An actual enemy to focus on. And a pretty short timeline. Now you'd ask people to declare war on their own quality of life to fight a consequence which is necessarily vague over a timeline that likely exceeds the remaining lifespan of half of everyone alive today.

Good luck.

In the meantime I sure would like to try some mitigation techniques.
By "more modern manufacturing node", I mean anything more energy-efficient than the 28nm process node used to build the SoC in this device.
Only for the hypothetical self driving mode.
USB 2.0 Battery Charging Spec 1.2 goes up to 5A.
The corruption is appalling but also easy to fix. The threat to people's retirement is not happening because of the corruption though - if this was a fully funded scheme and the board was taking kick-backs to steer business from one fund to another one it would still be appalling but it wouldn't risk tens of thousands of people spending their old age in dire poverty.
Curious, how does desert flooding fit into this? It's basically energy creation using hydro or am I missing the point here?

Edit: Never mind, missed the YC dessert flooding article:

>> This system of oases would be used to grow phytoplankton. With additional desalinated water, it could irrigate the surrounding area to propagate vegetation as well as provide fresh water to nearby communities. These oases would operate similarly to the ocean phytoplankton cultivation concept but executed in a relatively controlled and, thereby, safer environment than in the ocean. Unlike BECCS, the oases would absorb CO2 via phytoplankton growth - phytoplankton produce biomass faster than agriculture, reducing the necessary surface area by almost 4x - which would be periodically harvested to extend the length of sequestration and set up downstream use as fertilizer or other higher value products. This would be the largest infrastructure project undertaken, making its scale the main challenge.
> can't be achieved through reading a book.

Note to others: Some people learn better when they first acquaint themselves with some theory, then take that mental framework into practical situations and use it to orient themselves and pick out the important features of a situation. Know thyself and if thats you, avoid disorientation by being getting good book (or class) recommendations and discussing them. Just make sure it is a tool and don't let it be something you use to retreat from the discomfort of practicing a very new skill. You can't learn the skill only from a book.

> Don't sell a drill, sell the hole. Clients are not looking for the specs of the drill, but the size of a hole.

This is an example of a true piece of advice which is a very pithy way of stating what is in fact some reasonably meaty theory.
Show HN: BankSpot.org
A good chunk of the travel time savings is mostly just shuffling the process around; rather than travel to the border Lo Wu and go through border checkpoint there, you do border clearance in West Kowloon.
It's a form of time-arbitrage.

The cost of regulation is a decrease in both convenience and innovation. By eliminating regulation, you get a whole host of new startups that were previously held back, some of which solve genuine problems that have no existing solution. Consumers flock to these startups because right now, in this moment, they solve problems better and are more responsive to customers than the existing regulated incumbents.

Many regulations solve problems that only appear at scale, so as long as the new startups are small and voluntary, regulators take a hands-off approach and let these startups enjoy their competitive advantage. It takes time for regulators to catch up, so for several years, these new solutions can grow and get new adopters. Eventually all the bad behavior that caused the regulations in the first place appears, and there're calls for regulation, and the new boss starts to look an awful lot like the old boss. But people don't make their purchasing decisions based on what's going to happen in 20 years, they make their purchasing decisions based on what they need now.

You see this with a lot of dot-com era startups. People knew in 1997 that Amazon was going for monopoly and was just going to jack up prices when they achieved it; hell, Jeff Bezos even told investors as such. But consumers didn't care: we wanted convenience and low prices now, and even if we did without, other people would give Amazon their business, and all we'd succeed at is disadvantaging ourselves. Similar with Facebook; most people knew they were trading away their privacy (Zuckerburg's "dumb fucks" IM was made public in 2010, and he said it in 2004), but goddamnit, people wanted to see what their grandkids were up to.
The ocean phytoplankton technology sounds like it has the potential to screw the planet up worse than the climate change issues it's trying to solve.

Massive, self-replicating system of genetically engineered bacteria? I'm certainly no marine biologist, but I'm pretty sure phytoplankton are a super important part of the world's ecosystem. Suddenly massively increasing the number of them that exist in the open ocean seems like it would wreak havoc on the world's ecological balance.
For most of the early astronauts, later life was one big letdown.

For most of the later astronauts, later life was one big layoff. NASA had about 140 astronauts at the peak of the Shuttle program. They now have about 40, and no manned space capability. Maybe next year, when Space-X launches.
Feel free to - but asking people to show their evidence for generally accepted stuff is a great way for trolls to waste your time with useless questions - literally why the term sealioning was invented.

If you want to bring up new evidence and arguments that are not settled then go for it, but asking everyone to post their pedigree to talk about evolution or climate change is just catering to an american audience who is purposefully putting their fingers in their ears - we have no reason to cater to willfully ignorant people.
Do you feel that #2 is a plausible goal that can be realistically achieved within a decade? I'm not really seeing any political will to do something like this, and without buy-in and cooperation from those who actually can make such regulations (and, effectively, authorize massive expenditures to make this happen) the other points don't really matter.
I'm not C++ developer, but isn't str::string STandard Library?
From the Qi Wikipedia article:

> Rather than down-regulate the charging voltage in the device, Qi chargers meeting the A2 reference use a PID (proportional-integral-derivative) controller to modulate the delivered power according to the primary cell voltage.

So... a defective charger could plausibly damage the phone unless the phone contained a suitable protection circuit. Such a circuit could be quite simple - a transistor set up such that switching it would take the resonant receiver out of resonance would do the trick. The designer would need a bit of care to ensure that switching the transistor under wouldn’t fry it.

But IMO this design is a bit nutty. Phones already have voltage converters. Why not just use them?
Previously I had an s8 and would get security patches 6 months later. Plus they screwed up the ecosystem with their crappy clones of apps built into Android. I wish Google would just ban that practice if they want to be able to use the play store.
Don't be deliberately dense. It was the addiction that killed him, made him ignore his health and diet, ignore his friends and family
I have a breakthrough idea. Hold on, because it's especially disruptive. You can go out and get food... with your friends and family. Also, one very lucrative hobby is cooking. And seriously, that's not the market for shit like food delivery drones. Let's not beat around the bush, this will be mostly used by people who get high and play league of legends.

Anyway you put it, the time savings does not provide a good ROI for the rest of the crap which follows a company like Uber flying a fleet of buzzing drones in an urban environment.
Why didn't the adventurer mention that they were blocked? I feel like this is on them, though it would have been preferable if the task-creator had known the key was required. But, if I say I'm going to do something, and then don't do it and don't give any details why, it's always my fault.
I'm usually skeptical of somebody who puts something on their resume that they can't back up. If you've claimed to know something, you'd better have studied up enough to have a conversation about it.

One way I like candidates to get around this issue is to separate skills into categories like (for example) "very familiar with", "comfortable with", and "experience with". It's refreshing to see honest evaluations of skill levels, rather than people who say they know C/C++ but aren't capable of coding up a basic class in C++.
found this image on their "about us" page that shows a bunch of what looks like employees wearing focals: https://assets.bynorth.com/quartz/aboutPage/Company_Banner_P...

still look like professional photography, but at least shows a few more angles and on a wider range of faces.
Another related explanation is just simply that there are higher priority items, rather than just the priorities not aligning to working on any of Tasks A-Z efficiently.

Then the question is why are they saying things like "top of my list" when it's not? If they are saying that anyway. Maybe because they think they'll get punished for talking back to you about the priority list? Or just hope you'll go away.

Meanwhile if someone is aware of one of these canaries, it's asshole behavior to hide its existence from the person who is carrying out the related task, up to some limit of obviousness. There's something to this concept beyond just any tracking mechanism like "did they open that file in Perforce for edit?" (Ignoring they can work offline, or otherwise defeat the canary monitoring while still "collecting" it.) When it's something you know is needed to make progress, put it and all the other intermediate steps in the Tasks List for a work item if you know them; breaking things up into concrete realizable chunks is how we make progress and prevent floundering.
I'm not sure what kind of agenda that author has, but that's a pretty bogus argument.

Using his argument, the two very different words "amoral" and "immoral" would mean the same thing.
Nice idea!

You might want to make emojize a template which could handle string, wstring, string_view, etc.

A fun extension would be to add a flag to istream and ostream that told it to emojify/demojify output. I.e. use case would be:

std::cout << emojicpp::emojify << "here is a string. :smile: !" << std::endl;
std::cin >> emojicpp::demojify >> some_string;

Your stream inserter/extractors could be template functions that take references to constant string-like objects -- then you wouldn't have to copy the string and could just output the appropriate data (though you'd need a lookahead buffer for stuff like these:characters).
Sounds like an episode of black mirror
For any new or hopeful parents sweating this description, I do in fact have kids (the oldest is a teenager) and my experience with them is pretty different from all of this.