skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not really a 'principle'; I was genuinely curious, not trying to make a point.

I like electric scooters, actually. But it does seem strange that suddenly there's an expectation that things can just be left on the sidewalk while enjoying the full protection of the law. I don't think that if I left my bike sitting unlocked in front of someone else's apartment building indefinitely, I'd have much of a case against the kid that walked away with it. But companies can do it and because they are companies, it's a different story.
This line:

> (If you prefer a smaller-scale model, just transpose: city → condo building, neighborhood → floor, block → unit, etc.)

is where I realized why this whole post felt wrong. This is how cities are built, a handful of buildings at a time, Jira-style.
Why not reflect on the one you just finished? Stop. Think.
The number of prospective employers that will actually pull up your github / portfolio project website / etc (let alone read it) is not especially different from zero.

It's important to have stories to tell during an interview, but getting the interview is the hard part.
The US Auto Industry Is about to Implode
You could argue that deregulation played a significant role in the fiascos that brought down both of those companies.
Someone has to eat the loss: the original owner or the last purchaser. The question is, between the two who is the "least cost avoider"? That is, the one who we can most easily incentivize in order to arrive at the best overall outcome.

In short, if the last purchaser got to keep the car, that means he would be less risk averse to buying from car dealers with risky reputations, effectively increasing the market for stolen cars. And this increase in the market would result in more stolen cars overall.

The existing default rule is, of course, based on a judgment that we won't be worse off in a world where people can fraudulently claim that their car is stolen and then get it back while also capturing the sale profit. Considering that most people are law abiding and have very good reason already to protect their car from theft regardless of which default rule we choose, it's not a bad rule on its face.

> in an ideal world, I think there should be some sort of safe harbor protection for people who make a reasonable effort in good faith to check that a transaction is bona fide.

It sounds like you may have a legal education given the language you're using. IIRC this is how the rule for real estate works in the presence of land registration systems. We flip the default rule to incentivize recordation. If two fraudulent sales are made by a seller back-to-back before title is recorded, it's the last purchaser who gets the property. This incentivizes each purchaser to record his purchase as quickly as possible, and to do so in a manner that closes the window for a fraudulent sale, such as by keeping payment in escrow until recordation is successful. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_purchaser)
Id did. According to insiders Romero was busy spending time playing Doom all day during Quake development, leading to the firing.
Sending someone to jail just because they're deemed "incompetent" by some subjective measure is a good way to make sure that nobody ever takes that job position

I believe this happens in transportation sectors often enough to be an important skill in those industries.

To be sure, the subjective measure I'm talking about is laws that don't yet exist, but if you have a problem with law enforcement as a monster of subjectivity I can't speak to that.

most competent cybersec people are wary of inevitably being fired because of some random breach that is mostly out of their control

I would like to hear of instances where this has ever happened, and at any rate it would be an absolute-minimum penalty in a Target/Equifax/Marriott context.

punishments for "incompetence" would have the opposite effect.

I don't understand the scare quotes, but like I said (or tried to imply), bad things happening on someone's watch where best practices are established and not followed are criminally punished often enough to mention.

HN's probably going to frequency-limit me after this, so don't think I'm not reading just because pg won't let me post for the rest of the day.
Yeah we reached that point pretty early on while developing the PaaS with the tool, so had to incorporate support for mixed synchronous JS blocks. you can check out how to do that here:
https://medium.com/connect-platform/inline-coding-in-connect...
Google+ to shut down early after privacy flaw affects over 50m users
> Equifax, however, did not fully patch its systems. Equifax’s Automated Consumer Interview System (ACIS), a custom-built internet-facing consumer dispute portal developed in the 1970s, was running a version of Apache Struts containing the vulnerability. Equifax did not patch the Apache Struts software located within ACIS, leaving its systems and data exposed.

1970s? Am I reading that right? HTML wasn't even developed yet.
Wild speculation follows:
So there could be two kinds of employers each competing in their own pool: one pool that believes gender (directly or indirectly) is a significant factor, and the other that does not think it is a significant factor to job performance.

Because pool 1 believes that gender is not a significant factor, they know that wage discrimination on the basis of that factor would be illegal and open them up to lawsuits. Pool 2 does think gender is significant, maybe indirectly laundered through other things like personality assessments, and they therefore think they can and should act on that information.

Critically it doesn’t matter if the sexist pool is openly sexist or using factors more strongly correlated with sex than job performance (like whether or not the employee looks the mental model of the part). The result is the same, they believe they are justified in paying women less. The arbitrage opportunity would never occur to them because they don’t think the labour is worth more.

But if you see the arbitrage opportunity, that puts you in Pool 1 by definition. And so those who are aware of the opportunity know that it would be illegal since the gender isn’t relevant to their position.
He wasn't banned for being far right. He was banned for sending racist comments to another user. Send pretty straight forward violation. They are just enforcing he agreed to when he signed up. Why is this news?
> There's nothing wrong in using SSNs as an identifier.

There's plenty wrong with this. SSNs were already a pretty bad identifier when they were invented and didn't get better.

There's no check digit, so if you make any mistake at all it's probably a different person's valid SSN.

Until relatively recently they were assigned both chronologically and geographically, so one digit error in SSN plus Address plus date of birth... Causes no red flags, it looks about right. Modern ones are randomly assigned, but it'll be decades before that's most people.

Like most similar systems the US SSN also very explicitly says it isn't suitable for any purpose except numbering Social Security recipients. People you want numbers for may or may not have SSNs. Don't worry though, since they all look pretty similar and there's no check digit the people who don't have one long learned to give a bogus SSN, probably belonging to somebody else. Somebody you know probably does this today. What a useful "identifier".
Because this article is about concrete.
You've broken the site guidelines badly in this thread. Would you please stop doing this flamewar and not do any more flamewars on HN? Regardless of how strongly you feel about a topic.

Copying and pasting flamewar comments is a particularly destructive flavor of arson.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It makes a lot of sense and I'm likely to sign a forced arbitration clause if I think it will be a fair process.

People respond to incentives and there are lawyers specialized in trying to grab huge payoffs from companies. They are not allowed in arbitration.

This is a sensitive issue and the last time I posted, some innocent bystander got banned.

You can review my post history, which is serious. Yes, people respond to incentives, and yes, massive payoffs by companies when a seedy lawyer is one of these incetives is one of these. Why people here don't understand this is beyond me. People understand that giving equity in a company produces great labor from early employees. It should be equally obvious that allowing massive, inflated, and ungrounded lawsuits encourages the opposite result.

If done well, there is nothing wrong with forced arbitration.

I can only repeat: I myself will sign a forced arbitration clause, if I expect it to be vaguely fair, even if it deprives me of the chance to file a huge golddigger lawsuit.

I prefer to play on the winning team, not sue them. Forced arbitration, done well, helps this.

Why would I sign if it's so evil?
> unions have borders

there are international unions and federations of unions actually
>While Lil Wayne has never been celebrated for the complexity of his word choices, I expected 2pac, Snoop, and Kanye to be well above average.

Huh, with 2012 restricted data he didn't include most of these rapper's opus but he expected differently?
That's an interesting idea. I wonder what, fundamentally, caused the marginal tax rate to fall? Is it the perception (or reality) that governments waste the tax money? Or is it simply the corrupting influence of wealth in govt?

I don't see how any of these would not have been true earlier though.
Minority unions don't have the same legal status in the US. The contract would be unenforceable.
Having had a drone's battery catch fire, I'm not sure the math necessarily works out on that.
It's not the simplistic bare-metal services that are growing in AWS. It's all their serverless products where the end-user could care less what the underlying tech is running on so long as the API/performance is what they expect.

Amazon runs a very large number of fully managed load balances, S3/DynamoDB data servers, Lambda clouds, etc. More than 90% of their services are completely abstract the user away from the underlying architecture.

It doesn't matter what AWS charges for these services wholesale (and I believe they're currently providing same performance in EC2 at about a 40% cost saving over the Intel equivalent), the value is in the cost saving of them running their own services on this tech.
Well, guess Intel's thinking "there's always Microsoft (Azure)."

I don't think it's settled which of Azure or AWS captures the most market share in the next decade. AWS has a lot going for it but MS is coming in hard and fast on the OSS to cloud integration front. Probably would have made sense for Amazon to pickup Red Hat from IBM.
As with most interesting problems, this legislation hasn't been written with a focus on what sort of end-results are easiest to arrive at a technical solution for.
This article characterises that as 'magic wand regulating' -- I'd hate to see an alternative where EU directives contain explicit technical implementation guidance!
Policies like this make it glaringly obvious how little our government representatives around the world understand technology.

It almost seems malicious, or at the very least anticompetitive. Who has access to such filtering systems already, or the resources to create one?

GRPR regulations, while I absolutely realize their necessity, have made it difficult for me to expand my side business into the EU. This would just be another road block for innovation.
Please don't post flamebait on HN, and please don't use it for repetitive political battle. This is a site for intellectual curiosity, and those things don't go together.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
my son would agree....
After landing a lucrative job at a tech startup, I had made a terrible mistake
Alternatively, they could have spent the original profit or lost it on another investment... In other words the end result was similar to a loan. I'm curious whether the claw-back included a risk-free interest rate.
The fine obviously wouldn't be imposed on only one of the small subsidiaries when the problem was caused when they were still unified. You'd impose the fine on the unified company before cutting it up.
I wonder if when they count in Kool Keith they also factor in Dr. Octogon, Black Elvis, Dr. Dooom, etc, etc. If they did I bet he’d be a lot higher.
Yawn, the amount of publicity ARM gets for free for the past decade to enter the data center is perplexing. The economy of these designs are not good versus the competition full stop.

There are three chips that work well in the data center: EPYC, Xeon, and POWER. All of these are billion dollar designs. Nothing about the ARM ecosystem supports designing to these same constraints or spending that amount of money to enter this space seriously.
OMG, they're my favourite youtube people. So, much, joy.
> I've never understood this urge to find the spark that started a wildfire. The cause of the fire was the large amount of dry vegetation in the area.

Well, in the same way that if someone is shot in the chest, the cause of rapid bleeding out might be the big blood pumping organ in the area.
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We've asked you several times. If you can't or won't stop, we're going to ban you.

If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended, we'd be grateful.
Eugene Hasenfus
I’m having trouble understanding why people are so opposed to using fossil fuel "as cleanly and efficiently as possible." It’ll take many decades until renewable and other carbon-neutral energy sources can fully phase out coal and natural gas so doesn’t it make sense to invest in both technologies until then? If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions as much and as fast as possible it seems that we could make greater contributions by tackling both
This was posted today, illustrating the power of Common Lisp read macros (not to be confused with regular macros):

https://github.com/y2q-actionman/with-c-syntax
Wow, the Wikipedia page for Kuru says there’s a mutation of the Kuru prion that confers immunity to Kuru. That’s crazy to me, but makes sense from a selection perspective.
The firms aren't certified, regulated, or required to be objective. Civil courts have a much more balanced mix of outcomes; arbitrations almost always rule in favor of the business against the individual.
> I was finally using a real operating system with an incredible programming language, Objective-C

I know that NeXT workstations were pivotal to id's work at the time, but I still love seeing some casual ObjC praise included.
Django you say?

Check out Zappa. If your mind isn't blown after you start to grok what it can do, comment here and we can go through it together. It's very cool.
> I'm curious why I haven't seen any signs of people going after the arbitration firms and their impartiality, rather than going after the companies using those firms.

I think the reasoning people have is the alignement of incentives is messed up:

Big companies will use arbitration if it provides them a cheaper alternative than going to actual courts.

The arbitration firm that is more employer friendly will save more money to a company than a firm that is less employer friendly, therefore the company is more likely to hire the first one. And arbitration firms are more likely to be employer friendly since their financial success is impacted.

Ending arbitration isn't necessarily the right solution, since courts could be too crowded, but maybe authorizing it, only if the case is handle in a timely fashion, and the employee has a right to "appeal" to a regular court , could make it more fair and more economical to both sides?
Still nice, but 15 mins will barely scratch the surface I'm sure.
Interesting article:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in...

Its basic thesis is that the modern nation-state is being hollowed out by a twin insurgency: criminals and terrorists from below, and plutocratic corporations from above. Neither of these actually seeks to destroy the state; rather, they act as parasites, using the vestigial remains of the state for their own purposes while fulfilling none of the duties that membership in a nation-state has historically entailed. The criminal insurgency uses the state for infrastructure, wealth, and a trusting population whose productivity it can siphon off. The plutocratic insurgency uses the state for its legal framework, populist legitimacy, and social services. Both populations seek to create zones of autonomy & comfort by taking advantage of the national population, who continues playing by the rules even though the former group ignores the rules and the latter stacks them in its favor.

Seems somewhat apropos here, given that we were fighting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq and doing so to enrich the plutocratic insurgency, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
Now the ratepayers have a lot of skin in the game in terms of wanting the company to act properly.
Seems like a better deal than we get here in the UK.

These £9 Pi's rarely go for less than £12-14 and if you can get more than one, they won't be any cheaper.
These companies presumably have these forced arbitration clauses in order to save money. There costs would increase if they no longer had these clauses. Where is that money going to come from? I'd suggest it probably comes from lower employee salaries.

Further, the deck seems pretty stacked in favour of the company in court anyways. They have a team of lawyers each way more expensive than any lawyer I'll be able to afford. Not to mention the time and effort that would spent suing a company when I'd really rather be moving on with my life.

So its not at clear to me that I'm worse off with forced arbitration. Without it, I'd have a lower salary and only slighter better chance of winning a suit against my employer.
The idea would be to eventually transition from state-by-state to nationwide, it's just easier to do it one state at a time than try to go from 0 to 100 with the whole nation at once.

Some advancements that have been made state-by-state and then finally nationwide, rather than nationwide all at once, include the abolition of slavery, gay marriage, and currently in process, marijuana decriminalization.
Origin of tiger.eps (aka “cubic spline tiger”)
This comment also breaks the site guidelines and only makes the thread worse.

Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when commenting here.
Seems pretty just. Who would be paying for the domestic work, anyway?
GNU Emacs -- throw in Common Lisp and SLIME if you need something akin LML or stick with Emacs Lisp --

Pharo / Squeak smalltalk.
Didn't think I'd ever see "Bagram Air Field" and "vacation" in the same sentence.
In fact, when the dial was turned up all the way on prejudice and discrimination, slavery was the result, as an extreme version of this ability to arbitrage the pay gap. As insane and unjust as that was, that really existed.

Today, if there is a pay gap it would be exploitable, no? Salaries are typically the by far the most expensive cost for most tech startups. Discrimination against women is illegal and socially shunned today. So what's stopping entrepreneurs from arbitraging this opportunity?
An Investor's Take on the Ethics of Neurotech
You're really so naive as to think that companies are just going to avoid gigantic markets for engineers just because of unions?

You know that unionized jobs are _not_ drastically different over those that aren't, right?
I also thought I'd never use it. At some point I realized that Amazon's free tier allows me to execute some minor periodic tasks (like hourly site monitoring, verification that backups have been performed, an easy way to send notifications to myself).

This way, the deployment issue of an application and its maintenance kind of goes away. It's also free, meaning I don't have to spend any more money or pack the code in another server.
If the woman’s domestic labor enables the man to work overtime and she enjoys a legal right to half his earnings, I guess it works out.

But when people are not pooling resources as family units (for whatever reasons) it does seem like women are the ones left holding the bag.
Let's say you are a small startup owner, and you have enough cash on hand to hire 6 male devs.

You then realize you could hire 7 equally competent female devs at the exact same price, all this while still offering more money than their supposed current employer who is underpaying them.

If all of this were true the price would shift over time on these margins, and this "gap" would disappear.

Why is it that we must constantly slice up society on demographic lines, point out a statistical in-congruency with some ideal (non-extant) world, and then claim some third party is culpable for causing this?

If women were malevolently directed away from a field by educators, families, or traditions, why is it now an employer's responsibility to calculate said deficit in interest for a field and allocate resources sub-optimally in one direction or another for the sake of aligning statistics on some dubious spreadsheet?

Don't tell women no, encourage them in what they want to do in life, and if in the end they don't choose the path that aligns with your macroeconomic utopia... get over it.
I admit I actually rather liked Google+, for certain communities it was really active and well suited. However now that Google is decoupled and free from G+ shackles, it has really room to take off and grow in new areas, which is exciting to see. eg G+ logins will now be returned to G or Gmail branding, probably dramatically increases consumer confidence and mindshare, and other stuff. Developer teams can be fully redeployed to other products etc. Building of "micro" communities within Maps, YouTube, etc will accelerate, and that's really where it should be, rather than forced to accede to G+ product area.
The t2.nano without unlimited burst credits relies on staying under a usage threshold. Why wireguard over something like sshuttle?
- As a founder, after you are up and running, be prepared to spend lots of time on tricky, time consuming and seemingly "non-core" jobs. Eg legal, fundraising, HR, accountancy, tax, compliance. Because these are actually important things for you to understand when running a business. And regardless of whether your a "startup" or not, your still a business - just like all the rest. Ignoring this side of things will lead to a world of pain.

- Related to the above, you will learn more useful information about running a business from a person who runs traditional business, not other startup founders or blog posts. It's well worth chatting to some. Sure there are differences (eg fundraising, spending) but the basic operations remain the same.

- This is often said, but I think people gloss over it. If you are doing it for the money, then you are not very good at financial management. Do it only if you enjoy serious challenge, want to build something huge and need some big guns (VCs) to help you achieve it.

- If you are setting up a B2B business you should ideally have a few years salary saved. These things take time.

- Overestimate costs and underestimate profits when budgeting, where possible. It's great to have more money than you planned - it can be catastrophic to have less.
Fortunately we don't need to rely on your hypothesis here; we can simply look at what's actually happening in the many countries where unions for software engineers are common.

Do you have actual examples of irrelevant jobs in software engineering that have been kept on because of unions? How about unions advocating for proprietary software in order to keep out open source software?

Given that many software unions already exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove that such things are actually happening. It's unreasonable to expect someone to prove the negative here.
Pretty sure they’ll just start bisecting the screener population down.