skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's definitely true that part of the reason Google+ dropped its real names policy was internal employee activism, alongside external pressure.

Unfortunately, that reversal and Facebook's more weakly enforced continuation of the same old type of policy both went mostly unnoticed. (Yes, I realize G+ is going away for consumer accounts in August. This change was years ago.)
Real-time artistic style transfer for photos and videos on Android
Google Cuts Blockbuster $1B Deal for Mountain View Campus
> Agriculture was the main driving force of the world economy for eons? It was a stable source of food and income for families and communities for generations. How is that not a golden-age?

For most people in most of history, agriculture was subsistence. A bad year means you go hungry and possibly die. Far from being a stable source of food, in countries such as China, there was pretty much always some region that was undergoing food scarcity (famine) at any given point in time.
You can literally make this argument anywhere.

Any good China does for its people or for other nations? That will just serve to legitimize their totalitarian government and encourage imitations abroad. Ergo it's bad.

In general it's better to state your fundamental premises at the beginning of the argument rather than reveal them midway through
Yes. Note that there’s also lag, this survey was taken much earlier this year. And so:

> When asked why they used nightly, people responded with a broad range of reasons including: access to 2018 edition, asm, async/await, clippy, embedded development, rocket, NLL, proc macros, and wasm.

wasm, clippy, embedded, and proc macros aren't nightly any more. NLL, 2018 edition are coming soon. (December 6)
sounds like a DRM sales pitch
You don't need a blockchain until corruption and lack of transparency forces a need for one in order to re-build trust.
That's a really interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it. Certainly it feels dystopian reduce everyone to their resumes and strip all shreds of their identity from themselves. "Entity 4571, I see that you have achieved primary qualifications and meet the requirement of 2 years of experience; we may now proceed to interrogatory verification of qualifications."

However, I pretty strongly disagree. When evaluating a resume, there's no legitimate reason to consider the name, age, address, or gender of a candidate. Contrariwise, there are significant problems with people considering that information anyway. Therefore, it seems like that information shouldn't be present.

You say "does it really seem healthy to ignore value of cross-generational achievements," but that's the same thing as saying "throw out the resumes of any young people who apply, we already have enough of them."

Now, if you're fine with the plan of explicitly deciding to hire only a man/woman/old/young/person-from-the-right-neighborhood/school, that's a different discussion, which I won't get into here, but if you're going to do that, it should at the least be done very intentionally and not in some sort of informal "eh, guessing based on their name, this is the wrong sort of candidate" way.
I have similar experiences.

In some European countries the government is pushing for softer herbicides and pesticides usage by public agencies. Where I live it's met with resistance all the way from 70 years old who use bleach on plants to get rid of slugs to workers who prefer splattering herbicides all over the walkway and in the gutter to burning herbs with some kind of small flame throwers.

People are completely mad here, spending most of their saturdays or sundays circling their garden on their huge lawnmower truck. It's a valley so there's a constant whirring noise from April to early November. There's a lot of education to do and frankly.. I believe it's getting way too late :/.
US nixed FBI checks on staff at migrant teen detention camp
You've made far better one than me below. Hats off.
It would feel that way, except that I’ve spent many years working in civil service.
Downloading the newest Wi-Fi protocols: 802.11ax and 802.11ay explained
>Does it really seem all that healthy to just dismiss and ignore and totally compounding value of cross-generational achievements and accomplishments

What exactly does this mean? Giving someone credit for their ancestors' achievements sounds like nepotism
But this was 139 out of 88K employees [1]. Doesn't seem like that many? How do we interpret the other 87K+?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-ti...
Rent seeking is the amount that Apple charges for media it sells.
Transit App now lets you compare Uber, Lyft, Via prices and ETAs
> kind of hyper-meritocracy

Which is particularly ironic considering that most of these schemes are proposed to fight _against_ meritocracy.
In this case you're still beholden to your ISP and whoever controls them. True decentralisation would be something like mesh networks, making use of only local device capabilities.
> If you say "them" that infers multiple or an unknown party.

If it's unknown you can say them. If you know the person then presumably you know their gender. Why can't you say him or her in that case?

As I understand it Google is trying to avoid assigning gender statistically to an unknown person based on their job title, not avoiding using the gender to a someone who is known.
It's not really free - for CI to be useful you usually need a test suite to run, particularly with the interpreted languages like Python that are commonly used for scientific or exploratory programming. Test suites are a waste of time when you can't define what the expected behavior is, and we're talking about a particular problem domain where the goal is to find the expected behavior.
Instead of using IFPS, which currently needs gateways, you can get a fully distributed site using https://beakerbrowser.com/ It's based on the https://datproject.org/ which is also used to archive and distribute scientific data.
The thing is, ideas developed without free criticism are like programs without tests. (Only worse, because most programs aren't core to anyone's social identity, which puts extra pressure on the kind of ideas we're talking about here.)

I don't want to discount anyone's views, and it's not an all-or-nothing "they're brainwashed, ignore them", but to the extent the views were formed in a censored environment, I genuinely can't weigh them equally as evidence. Censorship is corrosive.
You can make the opposite tradeoff, work on side projects very early (I start working on mine at 4am) and work at normal hours after.

The tradeoff is you might be less enthusiastic at work, but I've not suffered from this yet (big yet, remains to be seen). Also, you need to be more of a lark to do something like this.
Amazon and Twitter eventually went public and made their investors umpteen billions of dollars, so I'm sure they don't care now.

If they had gone bankrupt instead, and Amazon was nothing but a static HTML page while Bezos was building his own marina I imagine someone would have been asking some questions.
Watching YT videos on Xbox or Chromecast makes looking at the descriptions impossible
Don't take technical choices big tech companies make at face value
Shareholder value[1], not shareholder profit. There's a subtle but important difference. It's pretty easy to engineer short term profits, but usually results in cannibalizing long-term value.

The amassed engineering talent and accumulated knowledge-base at Google is a strategically important asset to Google, and defection of that knowledge-base en-masse would be a very bad thing. Both by handicapping Google's ability itself while simultaneously seeding the marketplace with a large concentration of individuals that know the inner workings of Google technology. While this already happens through normal attrition, happening en-masse would be far more of a market risk.

In this instance, Google employees being as vocal as they are is more influential than you make it sound. Even viewing it through the lens of shareholder value. Which is also not actually a legal requirement, which [1] provides details about towards the end.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder-value.asp
There are two different ways to connect to an airline inventory system (what you call the catalog). Either direct, by signing a contract with the airline, and building the necessary "pipe" (IATA are pushing for a standardisation of this, called NDC). Or through a global distribution system (GDS) - which is a fancy name for what used to be called computer reservation systems. There are three major systems, by decreasing importance: Amadeus, Sabre and Travleport. They will cache and distribute the inventory and fares for all client airlines, and also allow you to perform bookings. Every travel agency in the world (including online travel agencies like expedia) is connected to one or more of these GDS.

Now the pricing can be complex, a good first order approximation is that you pay a fee for access to the GDS, that varies depending on how many queries you are doing. For a traditional travel agency this fee will be very low, obviously for a major OLTA it will be big. However, for every booking that you perform, the GDS will give back a sizable amount of the distribution fee that it took (we are talking several euros per flight here). So as long as your "look to book" ratio is reasonable, the access costs will be small compared to the incentives you make.

Edit: Why are airlines pushing for the "direct" channels? Because it means they can cut out the middleman of course, the GDS. The problem is that this makes it hard for a travel agency to connect to every airline - the fixed costs of setting up pipes to every airline would be astronomical. And there will be an incentive for agencies to negotiate preferential deals with certain airlines. Both of these factors are obviously negative for the end user, travelers. It's a similar question to the whole net neutrality thing
If I was giving out a disobedience award for 2018, it would go to Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed.

(This is not to imply that I think anyone in this article is undeserving of an award for things they've done.)
I think the same could be said of developers. Or, maybe in both cases, it's the companies that don't know when to stop.

As a developer, and maybe more relevant here, a user of software, it's kind of surprising how development efforts often continue well past the point of shipping something useful. Now, I'm not arguing that this applies to every software product, or that people should stop at the bare minimum like "welp, we shipped v1, let's pack it up everyone."

But this underlying belief that things must be continually improved is very pervasive in software and even moreso in open source. ("Last commit was 6 months ago? This project is obviously dead!")

I don't know that anything can or should be done to "fix" this, but it's an interesting observation. Think about it next time there's an "upgrade" that breaks something or changes a workflow you liked. Why did that happen?
They get to fine billions too, which goes into the EU budget.
Points 1 2 and 4 are pretty well studied in academia concerning intelligence. Intelligence is defined as "g", and it's 60 to 80% heritable depending on the study (leaning towards 80%).

More info for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
Student loans, high housing costs, risk aversion.
Combine the two and then you get those rat brained robot things. Gives you a nice little shortcut to true awareness in AI, by cheating and using meat to tell the silicon what to do. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401756/rat-brained-robot/
The owner of a node on a blockchain doesn't own the data store, the owner of a git repo does. The owner of a git repo can even rewrite the whole history of a repo. To equate the two doesn't make much sense to me.

Seems this is an exercise in how loosely we can define blockchain. In my opinion all that's being achieved is confusing blockchains, as defined by their creator, with merkle trees.
> maybe we can agree would have been better

Maybe not.

The vast investments in renewable energy (incl. technology, driving down costs, acceptance, grid, load prediction, offshore wind, decentralized energy production, de-centralized ownership, ...) instead of an incompatible nuclear landscape had and has huge impact in the feasibility of renewable energy - not just in Germany.

Coal gets also reduced. Maybe you have seen the massive protests of environmentalists in Germany against new coal power plants and further coal production. There is not much investment in coal-based electricity, because it is priced out of the market and quite a bit now needs to be exported, since there is not enough demand in Germany. Mid year 2018: renewable energy electricity production +10%, coal -10%. Renewable is now at 36% share of electricity production and now the first time more than coal. On two cold winter days the renewables provided 71.6% and 81% of electricity for Germany, an industrialized country with more than 80 million people.

This would have not been possible without the massive change in direction.
We felt the same way about QEMU before we started crosvm. Glad to see you all found some use out of it.
I, too, had a very similar experience. Although I am of Indian descent, I still strongly agree with your views. It's really unfortunate that the leadership at Google doesn't follow the "do no evil" mantra anymore. These sorts of decisions aren't in the hands of an every-day engineer, so they are not at fault here in my opinion. And by standing up and vocalizing that distaste, I believe they are doing the right thing. Google makes some amazing products, so I see the appeal of working there. But many of those engineers have been around before the company started going in this direction, so I can't blame them. It's the leadership that needs to understand values > profits. At least if they want my continued support.
To an extent that’s true - genetics can detect your race and gender, both of which have a very strong correlation (although definitely not causation) with success.

That said ever since we have been able to run genetic tests people have tried to use them to demonstrate that group A is “worse” than everyone else, or the group B is superior. Before that they tried to use phrenology. In every case they successfully came up with a measurement that demonstrated that some group was inferior.

Weirdly the measurements confirmed stereotypes of the time, it’s almost like there was some kind of external bias effecting their results...
Right because having hardware and software separate has done amazing things for the usability of Android devices and Windows PCs....
I know it because we have a farm at home and I see the diversity of insects constantly and the amout of some new species causes problems in the farms
Removing the headphone jack doesn't push wireless into the mass market. It was already in the mass market and it was going to be in the mass market regardless of how Apple designed their phones. If you want to use a wireless headset, you always could. Removing the headphone jack didn't give you any sort of advantages as a wireless user, it just removed an option you didn't use.

And no, it's not courageous to do something dumb and getting skewered for being dumb is not evidence of courage.
It's still used at NASA. The NASA Center for Climate Simulation at Goddard does much of their climate work in Fortran.
> It's a sad state of affairs, really. The only people who have enough money to play the game are either corporations or are in their 90's and bought the ground when it was $30/acre.

I don't think it's sad, more efficient users of resources are bidding them up which is exactly what they should be doing. The idea of a small farmer is great and has a lot of American nostalgia, but in general a giant company that produces much more food on the same land is way better for the country as a whole. It gets messy with subsidies, but the idea of more efficient players replacing small timers is how we keep upping productivity year after year and get richer as a country.
I had to shutter my business due to nobody having any money. Regular people could not pay my reasonable fees. Even those with seemingly decent jobs. You have to sell to big corporations.
It does with me, but I'm less picky about traditional experience than most people. I'd prefer a list of technologies that someone knows, a list of things they want to work on, and a blurb about how they might fit in to the role I'm hiring for.

The cover letter seems to have fallen out of fashion, but I find a couple paragraphs of prose far more revealing about a person's abilities than a resume. Of course it's also more work to craft one for every position you're interested in, and doesn't help much if you're looking to put yourself into a database for recruiters (e.g. LinkedIn or any other job site), where they force you to iterate your experience in chronological order and list technologies with no context.

I think it's important to leave off things you're not interested in. I did Perl for years but there is no amount of money that would get me to do it again, so I minimize or eliminate its presence on my resume, and put extra emphasis on the technologies I want to work with now.
Spaceflight’s 64-satellite rideshare launch takes off tomorrow on a Falcon 9
Even though Google's search engine will censor some content in China, it will still be miles better than Baidu. People who use Google will find highly relevant results quickly when searching about health, academic research, and a million of other things. They won't have to worry about finding thinly disguised promotions of illegal hospitals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi) on the first page of Google. They don't have to worry about combing through pages of search results for something that should've been found in seconds. They don't have to play the game of mouse and cat just to get a usable VPN to use Google outside of the GFW.

So, the logic of this protest is that Chinese people do not deserve even incremental improvement, a huge improvement by the way, in their lives?
Making Cryptocurrency More Environmentally Sustainable
Show HN: I made an IMDB for Tech
> does not actually require disobeying anything

Or risking anything. You want courageous disobedience? Let's talk James Damore.
I learned Fortran IV and later Fortan 77 in the mid eighties and programmed professionally in Fortran 77 up until 2000. I was taught and programmed with fixed format. I believe that there may have been compiler switches to allow non-fixed format. I'm pretty sure that longer lines were allowed via a compiler switch.
You will, and I'm certainly not objecting to the use of CI once you know what product you're building and what its architecture will look like. But the whole point of this discussion is that you don't know that in this phase of startup development. There is a non-trivial chance that you will have to swap out your entire tech stack or drop whole components from the product. Building extensive infrastructure around code that gets run 2-3 times and then deleted entirely is a waste of time.
wipefs(8) is your friend here, it knows about where various signatures are and usually erases things more accurately.

Of course there is also the "nuclear" option of running blkdiscard.
> a better term

Permaculture, maybe? I hope you’re right.
Arrows, arrowheads, and armour were definitely reused. The Shakespearean "cry havoc" was permission for the men to pillage. In other words, the battle is won, get looting! There were harsh penalties, like death, for an early cry.
Combining GWAS data with social science... sounds like a recipe for generating incorrect conclusions from noise to me.

>"before the Human Genome Project had fully sequenced human DNA"

The human genome is still not complete by any normal definition, they just redefined "complete" to mean "we did our best". It is like if someone turns in homework with only half the questions answered and argues they should get 100% since they "completed" it.
Ironically your comment indicates that you are in a bubble. You reflexively dismissed them by saying "red pill", which is precisely what your bubble tells you how to react to anything that says "Jordan Peterson".

That's not your own thought and it's not an honest or meaningful rebuttal to the OP. Take your own advice by watching some full length Peterson lectures with an open mind. You may find that you've been mislead.
Since you didn't refrain from airing an unpopular opinion, I will counter with another one: you failed in your business likely because you didn't adapt quickly enough to changing market situation (locally and globally) and were unable to recruit and motivate today's workers in the industry in which you operated in.

Generalizations offer very little insight though older folks seem to love to complain that the youth/next generation are just not suited/hardworking enough.
Overworked South Koreans are finding solace in a fake prison
Use wipefs.
You can probably skip that module from the code.
It bothers me a great deal. It seems that the only constructive ways that progressives have been able to come up with to equalize the unequal has been to flatten, to push down, to dehumanize and to remove the differentiation between people, by administrative fiat if necessary.

The thing is, if you decide that Applicant #42 is a good candidate, you're going to bring them in anyway. If you have a ton of biases, you still have just as much of an opportunity to enact them as you would have before, though you might have to be a bit more subtle. This doesn't solve the problem; it's a patch on top of it designed to feel good while accomplishing nothing.

> Does it really seem all that healthy to just dismiss and ignore and totally negate compounding value of cross-generational achievements and accomplishments

If by this you're referring to the heritability of traits, yes, it's a shame that things that are statistically and demographically visible have to be erased in the attempt to flatten everything.

> somehow you can inhumanely simply strip humans of their humanity in order to craft a perfect specimen of humans

I don't know if this is the ultimate goal; my instinct is that this is the projected goal, because it is at least somewhat defensible philosophically even if I dislike it. The actual behind-the-scenes goal might be as simple as reducing people to more-manageable consumers that cause less trouble and more reliably produce the quarterly numbers we need.
It is a colossal misstep for the MIT Media Lab to move into social activism, and that is what this award is doing. If you'd like to be perceived as scientists, you lose your credibility to do impartial investigation of social trends. It's hard to trust a paper you've published on the impact of #MeToo when your department is literally rewarding the founders.

If you'd like to be perceived as engineers, you demonstrate a serious lack of focus. The Media Lab has historically been focused on innovative human-computer interfaces. When most people have spent significant time and several years interacting with social media, the Media Lab is no more qualified to speak on social media movements enabled by technology than the average person. They're borrowing the reputation of the lab to promote a political position, but its reputation is harmed by doing so.
To make it look empty, yes.

It's much easier to use a tool like sgdisk

sgdisk -Z
sgdisk --zap-all

(note the capital Z)