skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If it's something that doesn't take too much wall time I just simply initialize those from scratch for every test. If I have multiple tests which need some complex setup I just put that down in a separate function and call that in every test. If it's something reaaally expensive to initialize I just use lazy_static:

https://crates.io/crates/lazy_static
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18801531
Don't do this here.
Then how come we haven't seen anything of substance/value?
As long as one doesn’t own land and has to rely on hired labour, there is no point in farming near a city. As a hobby, yes. Otherwise, no.
Definitely part of it is them trying to latch on to new industries so they don’t go kaput when the oil runs out. But I do think they want seats on boards of tech companies so they can push their agendas too.

Aside, I would like to see the actual justification behind how the episode constitutes cyber crime aside from “because we said so”
Market cap is misleading as a signal for demand, since it's based only on the last few transaction prices.

That doesn't mean the whole market can be traded at that price, especially for something as volatile as Bitcoin.
2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13174542

2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8835085
I just realized another way that Watson's claims exceed the evidence.

He said, "I'm worried about Africa because our policies assume their IQ is the same as ours" (paraphrase, not an exact quote).

To base "worry" about a section of the world on differences in IQ tests relies on the assumption that IQ is a major determinant in how a section of the world fares.

In other words, even if you accept that we have evidence of IQ differences, we have no evidence measuring moral differences, community/social differences, ambition levels, etc.

So his comment doesn't reflect careful, nuanced thought. For someone who usually does think carefully, it's not unreasonable to think the lack of careful thought here is driven by a desire to confirm a pre-existing bias (such as the bias that whites are superior).
That is very not new - even transaction based decentralized databases technically date back to the 1980s - even if they received less practical use. The theory of databases are pretty old and practically ancient in computing terms.

Before blockchain was a thing much less a hyped one cloud computing used it and before that some databases practiced 'tombstones' for databases. The easiest way to maintain absolute consistency has been known to be not really deleting things but marking them as 'deleted' and leaving them to be ignored by default until consistency can be achieved. That was the approach when cloud computing dawned to make things scaleable and avoid the bottlenecks and load-balancing server overhead.

Transaction based databases are logically equivalent to an append only database. If you have a list of transactions that add up to the same resulting database state - with the option of more versatility if you don't constrain things to be operational order insensitive.
Yeah, but on the plus side, if you were buying "polished" products, 300 € would get you a hub and two lightbulbs...
Cryptocurrency is just alchemy for the internet age. Same failures, same etiology, same promise of unexpected insights in another, future form
There absolutely is a genetic aspect to intelligence. We need only look at genetic issues like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disabili... to see that there is a connection.

The question, I think, is, since concepts like "race" are primarily social constructs (indeed, genetics helped overturn the older view that "race" was an entirely biologically concept), why should we think there is a genetic correlation between race and intelligence?

When you write "It seems that the scientific community", bear in mind that many people in the scientific community are also racist, sexist, and otherwise biased. That is, you can't always infer significance just because there is open dialogue.

You write: "the genetic evidence is POSITIVE". Except the link you pointed to includes "Other scientists gave the paper a mixed reception, ranging from outright dismissal to acknowledgement that the hypothesis might be true and merits further research" and "Assuming that today there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors." and "Criticism of the genetic explanations" and "Cultural explanations".

At best, isn't it just an hypothesis, based on a single research paper? I do not think that's a substantial base for your argument.

You write "we should be able to have the conversation with people like James Watson". Except, "we" have. How can you have a conversation with someone who isn't listening? What do you do with someone who, for decades, has made unjustified statements like (quoting https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Nobel-Winner-s-Theori... ):

> there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

> Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious.

> "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said.

> Watson showed slides of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa.

> Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer because of sunlight deprivation.

That was 18 years ago. The evidence doesn't support him. Yet he keeps making the same statements.

You write "We should also not write articles like this with condescending dismissal of the very idea as backwards and racist."

What if the idea really is backwards and racist? You've said that you don't have the knowledge of the field to determine what the science is, so I don't think you can make conclude that such comments aren't justified.

"unlikely to get a definitive answer either way"

In many of the things Watson says, we know that Watson's statements are unsupported by evidence. How much more definitive do you want to get?
Another I fondly remember is Red Sweater: https://red-sweater.com
What is reported here has been demonstrated many times via autogenic training https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogenic_training
Complete Sources for a Thermostat UI Control
This is so reprehensible! They must champion political freedom fighters! They should've let their business in Saudi Arabia to go down to make a big statement.
It's clear that's what you mean. But derivative works are covered under the copyright of the original. Not just exact versions.

That's why I can't go out and record a cover version of a Beatles song without paying to license it. It would be a derivative work, and not covered under fair use. Weird Al probably can, though, because parody is fair use.
Community-based, human-centered design
a question....we are forgetting history...

I live close to a city that sprang up because Gary Indiana got its first black mayor in the 1970s is Merrillville Indiana
had a large group of white flight from Gary to Merrillville

How deep was the white flight from Detroit's impact on the future lived now?
I sometimes wonder why Firefox needs to be actively developed at all. The Web already has all the features it needs to be insanely successful, as evidenced by the fact that it's insanely successful. Why do we need to add more?

Sure, security fixes are important, but it seems like browser developers spend more of their time on new features. Things like a new and exciting way to use asterisks in JavaScript, or another UI redesign, or an API for websites to interact directly with smart waffle irons. Maybe if Mozilla didn't develop these things, they wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on their browser.
Yes thats the pattern I ended up using with the help of `custom_error` crate which automates the implementation of `From` for your custom errors. I guess the disconnect for me was that in Java/Scala all custom exceptions extend `Throwable` so types always line up, in rust custom Errors are disjointed so you have to wrap everything yourself to align the types.
The Fediverse is a successful case of decentralization.

You can't say that decentralization as a whole is a failure or, worse, that blockchain is synonymous to decentralization; saying so would be an insult to e.g. the original World Wide Web.
Same for me. I've been at SAP for nearly 7 years now, and I know only a handful colleagues who left the company. Some people moved to different teams though, so that may count as well, but retention is still way way way higher than 1.5 or 2 years.
But drivers aren't smarter
Password recovery, set new password, promptly delete account.
Thanks! Really great to see this article getting publicity on HN. :)
GemCraft TD's solves this by making it more and more expensive to build each block.
Oral History of Massimo Banzi (2016) [video]
~20% of my shop's jobs came from LinkedIn 2018. All those jobs landed by me surfing on the couch watching Netflix (senior dev in Sweden).

But I use it as hunting grounds. Can't stand how people portray themselves on LinkedIn - so much bullshit going on.
OP used an argument I see too often: that the (current) market success of centralization is evidence of centralization's superiority with consumers. For instance:

> Open platforms can’t win by directly appealing to users on philosophical grounds, or even cost (see Linux on the desktop). Mainstream users have no good reason to directly interact with blockchain technology—or any piece of code—without intermediaries involved. Openness and decentralization matter to _developers_.

I think both centralization and decentralization can appealing to consumers, depending on the case and on zeitgeist.

For instance, personal computers were decentralization of computing power, back in the days when the Mainframe (centralization) was dominating. Apple is a decentralized computing company. Often decentralization can become businesses through products, read more https://staltz.com/layers-of-the-internet-economy.html

There are also other "stealth" success examples of decentralized software and protocols that are directly appealing to consumers, such as the Camera and Gallery apps on smartphones and the use of JPEG (open standard) and Bluetooth (open protocol) to create (offline-first) and socially share pictures.

The problem with "decentralization" in 2018 is that it was a buzzword related mostly to blockchain technologies, and software built with those were often shadowing and imitating the recent success that tech giants have accumulated. But decentralization goes way back and its success cases are so ubiquitous that we take them for granted and leave them out of the discussion.
The Commerce Department is considering national security restrictions on AI
> Whilst you loved the variety, etc., can you say you were actually doing good work?

Yes. I'm proud of what I built, and think I would be happy to inherit it as a first timer. And I would be willing to trade on that as my reputation.
so whats your point? yes people going back 10 generations can be intolerant fucks, meaning there is no difference between the people who've been here for a long time vs people who just came here, proving my point. the segment of people who are intolerant, in my experience, is much more people who have been here for a very long time and not immigrants.
They have new cars, but it's a pretty small percentage (looking now, it's ~300 new vs. ~8000 used), and it appears to be only Toyotas (?). So that's a good option if you're interested in new versions of Toyota Yaris or Corolla, at least.

Edit: I had the default 250-mile radius setting on. It's ~500 new vs. ~60000 used. Still looks like it's all Toyota, though.
IINA: the modern video player for macOS
There's a lot of different wines that go under the champagne moniker because that denominates the origin region.

Sugar content vary wildly between labels and with that the taste. A lot of people whom don't like wine do like champagne because of the sugar overwhelming much of the other acid tones, and call it "fruity".

Also tannis contents vary a lot between bottles which can cause varying reaction to taste and enjoyment, up and including migraine.

With all that I mean there's a chance that a champagne/wine of your liking is out there but it's hard to find because labels prefer to talk about flavors and notes instead of giving out useful information
their agenda seems to be to make more money.
There is no left party in America.
In contrast to the other comments, I actually found this to be a good read, especially going into 2019.

I’ve always wondered why I don’t care as much for vacations as others seem to. This was especially apparent in business school. I spent spring break working on my business while most of my classmates traveled.

Based on this read and a little reflection, it might be that I care more about satisfaction than happiness. And that’s good to understand.
see also Gervais Principle: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

edit:
elaborating a little on why I referenced the Gervais Principle:

It's an interesting guide to understand the relationship between executives, middle-management, and the worker/producers and the relationship each has with "The organization".

Per the gervais principle, a lot of the bullshit job phenomenon is explained through the relationship an employee has with reality and the organization in which they work.

In gervais, the sociopaths at the top (executives) and the losers at the bottom (actual producers of some value) both have some grasp on reality - whereas the clueless middle are full of cognitive dissonance about the reality of their position and loyalty to the idea of the organization. So, IMHO, the clueless category, in moments of honesty are the ones most likely to call out their position as a "bullshit" job.
Probably just taking for granted (understandably so) the fact that so much of what we develop with has extremely flexible/forgiving licensing
I think the focus on extremely divisive issues like abortion, lgbt, climate change, etc... has brought the two parties more into line on most other issues, to the delight of many low key interest groups.
cool pointless pedantry, irrelevant to their main point. native americans were seen asa homogenous group by white colonizers, despitr the fact that they weren't actually. quibbling about technicalities doesn't change the fact that america was built on genocide of a group of people seen as different and inferior.
Unfortunately "just learn to code" which is what I understand your argument boils down to is, in my experience, false. I've mentored many young adults who mostly had zero IT experience and were looking to break into the field to do exactly what you're suggesting.
A lot of them succeeded. But a lot of them didn't. And not just because they "were not good/smart/hardworking enough", but because they were people whose personality was incompatible with IT.

IT isn't for everyone nor should it be. What would the world look like if everyone worked in IT? Well our paychecks would be a lot lower for one.
I am amazed at your stupidity.
It's worth to point out that there is a great focus on Disney lobbying and Mickey mouse and so on, and of course these were major factors in getting the Sonny Bono passed, but originally one of the motivations was to harmonize the US copyright terms to the european ones which were already 70 years back when that law got passed. It's not the US where this term increase originated but europe.

Now in 2018 we are in a similar situation: again, europeans are passing new legislation that gives teeth to copyright by introducing censorship machines.
> And despite all the armchair economists repeating the refrain that the economy is not zero sum, people aren't blind and know that their relative losses to their peers affect their future prospects and likely stunt them for life.

Economy as a whole may not be zero-sum, but this reminds me of the stuff we did on maths/physics classes. You'd have a thing X with some aggregate quality, but there was a way of "drawing a circle", selecting a subset of X which has the opposite aggregate quality. It's easy to draw circles over our economy that surround areas that are zero-sum, or even negative-sum. I think a lot of complaints about bullshit jobs come from people who realize they're stuck in one of such areas.
> I'd be so excited if Superman ever entered the public domain. Then I'm convinced we'd get much better adaptations than the drivel we've been seeing for the last several years.

Individual works are entering the public domain, but what you’re proposing is much trickier and largely unsettled legal territory.

When early Superman stories enter the public domain there’s no legal guarantee that courts will agree that this includes the right to tell new stories with the character. Further it almost certainly DOESN’T include the right to tell stories about the characters using elements that come from later, still-under-copyright works — and much of what we think of as Superman’s mythos comes not from the early comics but from the 1940s radio show (flight rather than big jumps, The Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, kryptonite, “look, up in the sky...”), or from silver age comics of the 50s and 60s (Braniac, Bizaro, Zod, most of the characteristics of the arctic fortress of solitude, vision powers, breath powers, kandor...).

It’ll be decades before a recognizable Superman mythos is public domain.
How can I find these?
I work in auto finance for a lender. There are so many gimmicks used by a dealership to get a customer into a car with financing. A lot of it is the lenders too because they offer incentives like markup to the dealers. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes as far as car market value, backend products like warranty and GAP, and dealer incentives from lenders. It is just too much to understand for the typical customer.

My recommendation is to research the car you want and understand the market value. Then get pre-approved financing through a trusted lender. This will leave a lot of the confusion out of the car buying experience.
Question: C-Corp vs Public-Benefit companies in similar situations.

As I understand it Netflix really doesn't have the option of taking a principled stand here (let me know if I'm wrong) due its financial responsibilities toward shareholders.

If they had incorporated as a public-benefit corporation would they have additional freedom to say "We won't participate in this market on ethical grounds?"
I just used it for exactly that purpose today. It's the modern successor to the Rolodex.
Sanctum wasn't much fun after a few levels. We ended up playing Dungeon Defenders instead. Still do now and then, great fun with the whole family. Just don't buy Dungeon Defenders 2, it's not as good and very buggy.
> It sounds like the highest levels of management have written what is being run, and yet not want to seem to maintain it, or directly lead the engineering org.

Well, in their defense: they have to, you know... run the company.

Engineering was supposed to maintain the current software, but they (engineering) chose to deprecate it and make a new version from scratch. It is just taking way longer than expected, three years and just a fraction of the original functionality.

> If an employee finds a much better way of doing things, the founders should be happy, but they may be sending mixed signals.

Problem is: they're not doing anything better. Customers prefer the old software. Other employees prefer the old software. Even some people on the team prefer the old software.
Oh, I've been had :D

Too bad I didn't know about the Dinosaur game in Chrome.
Hn just hates Bitcoin, they are too stupid to understand it.
How to Download Live Images from Government Weather Satellites
Hollywood talent (some of them) may be left-wing, but the corporations that hire them are corporations that care far more about lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and access to American law enforcement assets: all rather right-wing goals. If you want to go after megaupload, or prevent a new internet-related tax, you want to back right-wing parties. So don't assume that any corporation with hollywood links will automatically share left-wing opinions. Their employees, movie stars, might. But in the end, financial motivations trump all.

There is also a huge right-wing movement among celebrities. Ignoring one particular rap artist, many of the older and more successful actors are right-wing icons. From Clint Eastwood and Kelsey Grammer to Mel Gibson, once you are sitting on a pile of money one's opinions tend to shift right. The biggest and most successful media organization at the moment is FOX, and the biggest television stars are the fox presenters. IIRC Judge Judy remains the highest paid TV presenter/host.

And Regan. And Trump. Both hollywood personalities.
OK, here’s your original claim about what you were convinced about Apple’s strategy with respect to competition from web/ads companies like Google:

“Am I the only one who is convinced Apple is focused on privacy because its cloud tech is really far behind Google and privacy was a path largely ignored in a data driven world?”

I pointed to the explanation given in 2010 by the founder/CEO of Apple, regarding their stance on privacy — it was conceived because of the risk of third-party developers going rogue as has happened with Facebook/CambridgeAnalytica (even though Zuck was in the audience). Apple’s privacy position was taken independent of Google.

Google’s competitive advantage over Apple today wrt cloud tech comes from public-facing cloud infrastructure & expertise that was previously internal to Google — Google’s cloud advantage was completely non-existent back in 2010 when Jobs granted that interview.

In 2010, GCP didn’t really exist yet, developers/end users could only interact with sandboxed apps on App Engine; GCP was still in infancy, the market leader in cloud tech was and still is AWS.

Google’s main competitive advantage back then was in search, Apple recognized this and did not try to compete head-to-head with Google (like Yahoo! or Bing), or the way Google competed but failed against Facebook. (Apple would later go up against Google in maps.)

OTOH, Apple did try to compete head-to-head with Amazon using iBooks, but they shot themselves in the foot by colluding with publishers to raise prices.
> dollars lost per human life improved

This could be a fun 'fuzzy metric' to kick around for a while, I like it.

It would likely be way too inaccurate across different professions & regions to tie directly to anything with major consequences - especially quantifying "improved" - but it does seem likely to turn up some helpful insights.

I'd certainly be happy to see a more accurate reflection of this in how various workers are compensated. I expect there are more than a few superstars of positive human impact in our world just barely scraping by who are rarely properly acknowledged for their value.
Too recent. Panic was very late 90’s, IIRC.
I think the simplest explanation is likely the right one: the writing is on the wall for oil in this century. Tech is a sensible investment.
The amount of effort to know what can be done with trademarks, copyrights etc makes it just easier to blatantly ignore it all. Because of the gaming of IP law, I have zero respect for it. I'll do whatever I want at this point. Legally buy stuff or pirating it. Sure I might get a dcma notice that has no teeth. Sometimes I'll just buy it and sometimes it's easier to pirate it.

Why bother to worry about copyrights?
Obviously but I’m implying they also want to censor and push their own narratives. Related to Manufacturing Consent, what they’re doing is trying to push their narrative biases in media through ownership