skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love how you are turning Facebook's attempt to manipulate the media, which was exposed by the media, into a talking point against the media, and thereby furthering Facebook's agenda.
Isn't there a secondary market for the RSUs?
The point of doing this is not to invoke these members directly on the object, though. It's to allow the object to be passed to anything that expects either IList<string> or IList<int>, or for runtime discovery purposes with is/as.

Perhaps a better example is something like IConvertibleTo<T>. There's an obvious meaning to a class implementing it for many different Ts.
> Personally, I will miss Hangouts more than Allo, and RCS is not an direct replacement for Hangouts either.

The replacement for Hangouts is more Hangouts, not RCS (that is, per the article, Hangouts Chat and Hangouts Meet are being opened to consumers next year, and are the official replacement for Hangouts classic for consumers, just as they already were for enterprise.)

> One thing I hate about Allo is its use of phone number as user ID, so the same goes for Allo.

I assume one of these Allos is supposed to be RCS?
I have mixed feelings about this rule because it genuinely feels like the majority of comments come from people who aren't reading most of the article.

For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805

...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.)

That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.
In case people aren't aware, Canadian-Iranian relations aren't exactly in a good place right now.[1]

Extraditing someone to the US for violating US sanctions against Iran aligns pretty well with Canada's interests right now.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Iran_relations
> I think you should go shopping

Sorry, you're right! I had quickly searched for a few multi-terabyte drives. But at around 100 GB the two kinds are close.
Non-competes under U.S. law are neither all good nor all bad. They have their legitimate uses but these are the narrow cases and not the norm.

For example, you sell a business to someone who pays you a big premium for your goodwill value usually tied to the value of the customer base. It is entirely fair that, having taken the money in exchange for the sale of your goodwill interest, you not be able to turn around the day after the close and effectively steal it back from your buyer by setting up a competing business and conducting raids to get back your old customers. A reasonable restriction on your ability to compete in that case makes eminent sense and is not in any way unfair.

So too if you exit a professional practice and get bought out. Same principle. You get paid for the goodwill value and you should not be able to capitalize on the payment and simultaneously raid the goodwill of your former practice by competing against it. Fair and reasonable even though it restricts you in your livelihood.

Thus, even states like California, which basically ban the use of non-competes in an employment context, will fully enforce them in the situations noted above.

On the bad side, non-competes tend to operate unfairly and to burden ex-employees by preventing them from engaging in their normal livelihood even when they have been paid nothing for the privilege. Many jurisdictions do enforce them in that context and the only way to challenge them is to argue that they are unreasonably broad, which (if fought out) takes a tidy six-figure sum to prove in court.

So, yeah, all jurisdictions should adopt the California rule that largely bans non-competes in an employment context. But I don't see this happening anytime soon.

In the meantime, as an employee, you should try to avoid these if you can, negotiate to be paid for any non-compete if you have the leverage, or, if you have no choice, live with them as best you can until the law comes to a better place. As long as the law enforces them, you are sometimes just stuck.
Sounds depressingly fqmiliar. I thought I was clever with a lock thru each wheel at u of m, but came back to just 2 wheels, sans frame. Curse you quick release, and things worse than curses to whomever stole our bikes.
This was in northern Norway, in June. The sun was defininetly shining, even though it was at 11 pm ;)
> K8s also allows upgrading apiserver connections to full, live, end-to-end HTTP/2 websockets.

There's no such thing as an HTTP/2 websocket.[0] Websockets are a purely HTTP/1.1 concept, and they're only HTTP/1.1 until the moment that the `Upgrade` happens, at which point the TCP socket gets hijacked.

I'm confused as to why HTTP/2 is mentioned. I guess they just mean a normal websocket?

[0]: https://medium.com/axiomzenteam/websockets-http-2-and-sse-5c...
Yep, I should have been more explicit, my point by "cannot be easily done" was the amount of stuff going behind the scenes versus what happens in language runtimes.

Thanks for clarifying it.
And they can just sue you anyway.
For me it was the promise to be able to maintain my dependencies up to date and avoid manually handling configuration files.

Working in a team it is often useful to have your versions "pinned" down so you have a reproducible environment regardless of upstream backwards compatibility policy (just to name one example).

The Pipfile + Pifile.lock combo seemed right for the task.

Creating virtualenv was a nice plus.
I did have ~40x my monthly expenses saved. I just spent them over the course of about 40 months!

I had no illusions about not working again, but I did do what retired people do: whatever the heck I wanted!
If the message is encrypted with some time component and a pre-shared secret then it is protected from a replay attack no?
I would focus on somebody that is able to lead, first. You manage things, you lead people. Management is about handling complexity. Leadership is about creating simplicity.

I think the full answer to your question would deserve at least blog post ;-)
Some journals do offer compensation - I think the American Economic Review used to offer £100. The solution hasn't been widely adopted, though, perhaps because academics enjoy the kudos of being a reviewer (and the chance to savage other people's work anonymously :-P... ). And while you can pay for reviews, it is hard to pay for review quality, which is very subjective.
And HN plays its part with the downvotes.
Basically any time someone who has more money than you do purchases something you can't afford, it's automatically assumed that they are laundering their money?

It's difficult to take housing issues in Vancouver seriously because paranoia nonsense like "all Chinese are money launderers" just wouldn't stop coming. As soon as a discussion happens, it gets swarmed by (dare I say it) bigots and immediately derailed.
You could build another Google, why not?
So what was false in the reporting? Do you have proof to the contrary?
>So what you're probably getting is ordinary cheap consumer-grade SSDs, but perhaps with encryption capabilities actually turned on. I'd be surprised if you were getting something like the Samsung 850 PRO without specifically ordering premium SSDs.

we've got various models through the years, yet still a notch higher - the 850 PRO has TBW at 300x-500x capacity where is the ones we've been getting got TBW around 1000x, and i think the earlier hardware was even close to 2000-3000x.
"free (as in freedom)"

Isn't that a circular definition, not the official Free Software Foundation line? Is it just a sneaky way of not actually saying "free as in speech"?
>"only dark matter matches all."

Dark matter can be placed arbitrarily so it can match pretty much anything. I remember recently there was a galaxy with negligible deviation of the GR-predicted rotation curve and that was taken as evidence for dark matter too (even though MOND was still the better fit for that case).

"Dark Matter" started out ok but has become a "god of the gaps" argument, I expect eventually MOND or similar solutions will be developed for all those issues.

Also, I gather that while MOND does seem not predict these observations exactly, it is not fully developed yet and often the presence of some "normal" cold gas (undetectable via light) could make it fit. Also, to get dark matter to fit the observations requires post-hoc assumptions and parameter adjustments. Eg:

"The amplitude of the third peak observed by WMAP merely falsifies the simple ansatz I used to make the prediction, not MOND itself. Indeed, I pointed out in the original papers that the ansatz must fail at some level, so I am hardly surprised that it does. All this means is that there are degrees of freedom (like a scalar field) that can oscillate separately from baryons in whatever the relavistic parent theory of MOND might turn out to be.
The real test was for ΛCDM: the third peak had to be higher than predicted by pure baryonic damping. ΛCDM survives this test. It "wins ugly" in that, in order to obtain a fit, we have had to nearly double the baryon density over what it was so confidently known to be before it wasn't. That, and the no-CDM prediction for the second peak is still bang on. Amazing coincidence, that."
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/

>"the predictions of dark matter were first made in the 1970s and 1980s, and were observationally confirmed later."

I'm afraid I have never seen this although I have looked into this topic (as a layperson). Can you give an example of this? It would make the dark matter idea much more convincing.
Your first argument is implying that the ethics of an experiment is dependent on its sample size. That seems ridiculous.

Your second argument is just incorrect. Given that obesity is arguably the foremost health issue in the country, inducing appetite is not "at worst neutral."

The bakery example actually seems pretty comparable to FB. IMO they are both fine because the magnitude of the negative effect of being made hungry by the smell of a bakery and being made angry by seeing a FB post are both insignificantly small.
> Both want to stretch the drives they have as long as they can, and at least in the past SSDs were less reliable and failed a lot sooner than mechanical drives did.

> And just in general, I don't trust SSDs. They have yet to prove themselves to me.

I'm pretty sure you're cherry-picking the data you're willing to look at. It's definitely not true that any datacenter ever avoids SSDs due to worries about drive failure rates. These days, high-end consumer or enterprise SSDs are warrantied to survive more writes than it is physically possible to send to a hard drive during the same 5-year span. Flash memory write endurance stopped being a serious concern by the time consumer SSDs reached capacities that made them sufficient for use as the sole storage device in a mainstream laptop.

Controller/firmware bugs are the only source of SSD failure that you have a non-negligible chance of encountering in the wild, but the rate of such failures is very small, especially if you stick to the major reputable SSD brands. And that's in the consumer market where the vendors aren't specifically validating each SSD model with your specific servers before you put anything into production.
In most cases, yes, it is an empty threat. However, the possibility is there. The company (or, individuals in the company who dislike you) can selectively use it against you to make your life harder. Or, if you whistleblow, they can use it to retaliate.
When Sun bought mysql they promptly stopped development. Around that time they were also neglecting Java.

Oracle has been a reasonable steward of mysql. They started making releases again. They haven't really moved it forward but I am sure they are taking care of their customers.

So far I haven't been impressed with mariadb and the other forks. For instance I would download it because I heard some hype but the installer didn't work.
I don't remember having an epiphany; it was sort of a gradual process. I guess the closest thing to a "moment of conversion" was installing and using Ubuntu, and soon realizing I no longer had to be abused by Windows. That was around 2010.

These days, I am much less fanatical than I used to be about free software. I still want to release any code I have control over as free software (probably AGPL to maximize freedom for downstream users), but I don't refuse to use non-free software. I am on Ubuntu right now (after more than a year of insisting Debian was better for me), but may end up buying a Mac so I can build and distribute apps for iOS.

Some reasons for my loss of zeal:

1) No modern devices can run on 100% free, de-blobbed software all the way down to the BIOS, like the FSF insists we all should be using. What happens when the supply of old Thinkpads is depleted? Will the FSF's annual ethical giving guides continue to push people to buy them for themselves and their loved ones?

2) Sometimes for work or school I need to use Slack, Zoom, or Keynote. Yes, there are free alternatives, but my colleagues or professors are not going to go out of their way to accommodate my refusal to use non-free software. I'm not as popular as RMS is, and probably never will be.

3) I'm a developer, not a sysadmin!
Suspicious how this comes right on the heels of negative publicity about Huawei's IP theft and possible infiltration of global telecom networks. I suspect someone might be wanting to apply pressure and forcing Huawei to respond.
I'm very glad we have the wheel and ensurepip now.

Yet, I think PyPA has not been taking the best decisions regarding Python packaging.

Your Kenneth story is not the only "weird event" in their history.

E.G:

Did you know that we don't need "pyproject.toml" at all ? That there is already a production ready plain text standard to replace setup.py ?

Did you know that this standard has been perfectly working for TWO YEARS with regular setuptools, is incredibly simple to use and completly compatible with the standard "setup.py stuff" workflow (and hence the whole legacy tool stack) ?

Yep. And nobody talks about it.

Let me (re)introduce...

Setup.cfg !

Oh, I know... Most people believes it's a useless file.

After all, the Python documentation seldom states to use it and for only one tiny option:

https://docs.python.org/3.7/distutils/configfile.html

But no. Setup.cfg is awesome !!

Put one line in setup.py:

import setuptools; setuptools.setup()

And you can now put all the rest - yes, everything - in setup.cfg. It's perfectly documented:

https://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/setuptools.html#...

Not only it has been working since 2016, but it has fantastic goodies:

version = attr: src.__version__

will include the version from __init__.py

"options.data_files"

replaces the MANIFEST

"license = file: LICENCE.txt"

loads the licence from any text file

Try it, it just works. And you can "python setup.py sdist upload" as usual with it. You don't need any new tool.

Now why did the PyPA decide to forget about this and create a new format ? The short explanation in PEP 518 is a bad joke. And why does nobody talks about it ?

When I asked the PyPA, they told me they were too invested in the new project to stop now. I don't like this answer at all: we suffered enough with python packaging during the "distutils, eggs, etc" fiasco.

setup.cfg works. It works now. It's nice. It's compatible. It does what we need.

Use it. Talk about it. Write about it.

Make sure a lot of people knows so that tool makers and PyPA finally acknowledge that there is not need for the XKCD comics about standard to be true again.
Spend some of it, take a vacation, do things you wouldn't otherwise do.

I sold my tech company at age 25 and suddenly had a boat load of money, and instead of doing the above I immediately went on to the next job. It's 10 years later I regret it.
There are. Sdr code for opening many cars, replay attacks (featured today on HN), and can-bus interfaces are all available inexpensively. Dealer style keyfob copiers and obd2 port hacking products are about 200 and up online. The scooters haven't been around as long.
> a couple of hard drives
> Latency is generally not requested.

That might be your experience, but it's not mine. I'm on a team that runs one of the three or four largest storage infrastructures in the world. In aggregate, those few account for a significant fraction of all the disk drives sold - enough that we have to account for possible market distortions in our planning. So I think our experience is relevant too.

In my world, the professionals very much do care about latency. Yes, the systems are built for massive throughput, but that throughput has to be within a certain latency. If latency goes too high, we get calls in the middle of the night. To keep that system-wide latency low, we deploy many racks' worth of equipment at a time, or shift load between similarly sized parts of the system.

For us and our peers, this capacity/performance gap is a huge issue. Has been for years, and it keeps getting worse. Those concerns might not apply to everyone, notably you, but they are quite real.
Not sure if you're understanding what he's saying, but just in case:

Bitcoin and similar are Proof-of-Work currencies, which have you do arbitrary hashes to prove that you deserve a vote on the blockchain. The cost of that computing energy makes it infeasible to generate bad votes when the entire community is voting against you.

Ethereum and similar are Proof-of-Stake, which require you to own coins to vote on the blockchain. That doesn't require any computational effort since it's easy to verify that you actually own the currency. Given that it's distributed, it still requires more energy to reach consensus than a centralized system, but it's basically infinitesimal. For all practical purposes it can be ignored.
> As far as I can tell, the whole difference between "Hangouts [Classic]" and "Hangouts Chat/Meet" is that the former was for consumers and the latter was for businesses/enterprises.

Chat and Meet replaced the classic interface for business. So, it's replacing classic for consumers, too.

(Which is interesting, because originally Hangouts was being announced to be pivoting to being business exclisive, with Hangouts classic for consumers left as-is with the implication that it, and consumer Hangouts as a thing, would eventually be killed, while Hangouts for business would be further developed, which is what Meet/Chat was. So it looks like Hangouts unpivoted.)
That was 9 years ago and the second is no longer maintained (for about 2 years at this point).
Using Drone.io to Handle Multiple Petabytes of DNA Information
> Should men be able to "play the male card" to get something they otherwise wouldn't have?

In most organizations the male card is automatically in play and must be explicitly un-played. That's what is usually meant by "patriarchy".
"The article mentions that ..." accomplishes the goal of calling out poor comments while taking the high road.
Project Rōnin | Senior Software Engineer | San Mateo, CA | ONSITE | https://www.projectronin.com/

We have an opportunity to truly impact the lives of millions of patients with our intelligent care system. To do that, we are building a team that is passionate about providing service to others in the best way we know how - creating life-altering software. With real-world data, real-time symptom management leveraging machine learning and a tool for clinicians to quickly and intuitively view and restructure patient information, our platform is allowing for truly individualized care for every patient.

You’d be one of the first engineers, working on the foundation of the product, building it from scratch! We’re building a service-oriented architecture with Ruby on Rails, React, Python, MySQL, Kafka, Heroku, Oracle, Docker, Kubernetes (and React-Native). The API server will interact with the oncology interface, the patient facing mobile applications as well as our data science tier.

Apply here:
https://jobs.lever.co/projectronin/850e9dc0-cde6-4c61-aee7-0... or send us an email to hiring@projectronin.com

(We’re also looking for a seasoned Product Manager, preferably with Healthcare experience, as well a Designer)
I find with BeautifulSoup or JSoup it is often just as easy to write a scraper than an API client, particularly when the authentication for the API is like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ObCoCm61s
This varies between fields a lot. In economics, I haven't seen many cases of e.g. thesis advisors rubberstamping their name on to someone else's work - not that it doesn't happen, but it is rare, and it would get you a bad rep if it became visible. In other fields I've interacted with, it seems quite standard for the lab leader or chair to get their name on every paper of the lab, and for papers to be padded with authors who did not contribute that much.
I think you meant to say that the mass accelerates opposite to forces acting upon it.

An idealized -M + M = 0 pair of particles (one normal, one negative mass) could experience runaway acceleration. Author touches on this in the paper as a potential source for the incredibly high-energy extra-galactic cosmic rays.

Granted, the paper describes a model in which something that acts like a particle with negative mass exerts this force upon things, but has no claims as to what a physical manifestation of this would look like.
The problem is this, you're always violating some law.

Even in the US, there are over 20,000 laws and regulations at the federal level alone. In China, there are even more. Any small foreign operator in China naive enough to assert with 100% confidence that they are not in violation of any of those codes is being dangerously foolish.

So here's the thing, I actually agree with you. What China will do, they will do out of retaliation. However, I can pretty much guarantee that whoever the patsy is, that person will be in violation of some obscure code that no one in their right mind would have been paying attention to. They will definitely be in violation of some law. And they will condemn him/her to whatever ungodly prison camp for however many years.

So China will also be simply arresting someone for violating their laws. That's the issue.

Now my point is that if you are American, and a small operator without the clout to prevent this sort of thing from happening to you, it's best to try to get out in front of the problem. I know that I really don't want to be one of the poor stooges sitting in a Chinese prison for a decade because these people are trying to make tit-for-tat points.

I'm not talking politics or philosophy. I'm just saying that China is not like the US, and I'm advising people to be careful if they are small and plan to operate in what appears to be a dangerous legal environment that will likely be getting more treacherous with time.
Ha, that’s an interesting one! I am sure I’ve done that by accident given how unreliable i find pulling the handle to be.
They're nervous. Good.