skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You don't get a re-do just because you didn't like the outcome. To say otherwise opens you up to the same kind of bullshit when things turn out the way you like and the _other_ side doesn't like the result.

Sure you do. Why not? And everyone is always vulnerable to revisions of their accomplishments: the fact that, in the US, the ACA was passed in 2010 doesn't mean that Republicans are banned from amending or changing it for all eternity.

Every two years, Americans get a re-do on voting for their representatives. And we... kind of get by.

I don't see why giving UK voters another vote is some terrible Stalinist undermining of democracy. It's split near 50/50 either way, and it seems silly to let whether it's raining or not, or Russian-sponsored media campaigns, determine an important policy matter like this. Voters in 2016 are not sacrosanct, brilliant policymakers whose decisions have to be respected for all eternity.
> However, I think enthusiastic, organized and proactive engineers don't need any process to be productive.

I understand the point you're driving at, but process is essential. It makes bad engineers less dangerous, and good engineers more productive.
What are you all actually using Netflix for anymore?

I keep a subscription for my kids, and will watch a documentary maybe once a month, but their in-house content seems to be the primary offering now and my impression has been that it's mostly terrible.

$13 isn't a deal breaker, but it's definitely creeping toward breaking point for me. I think I would probably drop it somewhere between $15 and $20.
If the belief is both justified and true, how is it not a justified true belief?
The "T" at the end of the URL shouldn't be there.
That sounds like how all my best managers have worked, whether on site or remote. Their job is to facilitate your work, not control it.
The article quickly discussed fecal transplants, which seem to be an extremely promising and underexplored avenue (for obvious reasons) for dealing with obesity without surgery. I always figured if I got seriously overweight I would try it. I first heard about it from the Freakonomics blog (different episode than was mentioned in another comment: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/freakonomics-radio-the-power...)
Referendums should be reserved to societal/moral issues (gay marriage, etc.). Otherwise, let's have a referendum asking the people if they want to keep paying taxes -- that should work well.

Quite extreme, I know. My point is that the government is elected to make decisions taking the economical and political consequences into account.

Expecting the general public opinion to be the end-all response to whatever decision is simply wrong.
How we build services fast: A look at the Grubhub service framework
They are trying to squeeze every last ounce of profit they can out of the carbon economy with the full knowledge that it must be dismantled within the next few decades. It’s a cynical game, externalizing the catastrophic costs of climate change on to billions of current and future people for the benefit of shareholders and executives, a tiny minority.
From a previous thread:

I've been wondering if the last Great Unbundling will be followed by another Great Rebundling. I'm no expert in any of this, but it seems unlikely that the new "channels" of Netflix et al. will prevent their programming and delivery methods from be bundled until it becomes disadvantageous to their growth (ie monthly subscriptions can't generate enough revenue).

It seems to me there is an explosion of content that will be able to be monetized far beyond just subscription lock-in. I wonder what the method of monetization will be after the gold-rush of building subscriber bases?
Netflix's original proposition and value was one of convenience (and price), but I wonder how long that will last. Will households juggle 4+ subscriptions of $15/mo? I'm not sure that is why cord-cutters originally cancelled their cable subscriptions.

My off-the-top-of-my-head list of current and coming soon subscription services (that also produce content) is: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO, YouTube, CBS, Disney/Fox, NBC, Apple. Technologically, it seems like there are some serious hurdles to "bundling" these together.

I wonder if the future "bundle" will actually be a service that manages subscriptions for you, with things like highlighting newly available shows since the last time you subscribed.
Lots of things come with tradeoffs but relative to a certain set of goals and priorities there are design decisions that are net better than others. Not everything is a zero sum game.

In this context 'zero-cost abstractions' refers to zero runtime performance cost and C++ comes closer to achieving that than most other languages. It doesn't mean zero compile time cost or zero implementation complexity cost but both of those things can end up better or worse due to design decisions and quality of implementation. Given that zero cost refers to runtime performance however, the committee is not 'pretending' they have zero cost abstractions.

It is true that simplicity and comprehensibility are not C++'s highest goals / values but they are not ignored or seen as having no value. Indeed they are major topics of discussion when new features are being considered. Sometimes they are in tension with or even in direct conflict with other goals but not always.
War between who and who?
May is prime minister. Practically this role is similar to president and majority leader combined. Essentially she is finally responsible for everything.

Unfortunately for her there are essentially three groups. (1) Brexit on WTO terms, (2) cancel Brexit and remain, and (3) those that largely support her deal. These groups are more certain what they don't want than what they do want. This means that 2/3 of the MPs oppose this deal. But 2/3 will oppose any option.
I'll probably drop it for 6 months or so, I've gone through pretty much everything I want to see for now, I'll switch to hulu for a while (with "free" Amazon prime streaming as a backup)
> 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not voting as such individually.

Also an American, but from the outside I don't see how a majority desire can be so accurately determined beyond a vote.

> Some portions of the UK [...] are strongly aganst this voting result.

This I definitely see from the loudest. So strongly that the vote has been tarnished every which way (which, let's be honest, you can do with any vote you want due to all the malfeasance you can find by campaigners). It's becoming a pattern. The votes that the loudest in democracy don't like or can't understand are being challenged on several grounds, most boiling down to assuming ignorance and gullibility of the other side. Accepting results is becoming harder and harder for some to the point where the larger-yet-silent groups feel no recourse but to use the polls and the louder feel no recourse but to invalidate votes and/or prevent them from happening and/or try again.
CBSA uses the exact same security standards as TSA, but manages to make the airport security process much, much faster. I think it comes down to airport design and staffing resources.
Is BERT computationally (and sample-wise) equivalent to previous SOTA?

(I do DRL but not NLP)

I sometimes read these DL papers and the requirements are not really feasible if you have to re-implement them in a modified domain.
Reality, Portugal and basic logic all beg to disagree.
They're definitely not the majority, could be as high as 20-30% of jobs being secondary to the government (varying by location). The US Gov't employs nearly 1% of the population as direct employees and roughly the same as contractors.

Not all of the 20-30% would be bound to US employment for all projects, but wouldn't be surprised if a large portion have U.S. only requirements by locality (citizen + visa employees).

Note: I currently work for an election services company, and have worked in eLearning development though am no expert on the field of labor, law or guesstimates, just going from past reading and other loose knowledge. I did a brief google search to try and track down sourcing, but unable to find anything firm.
There are 2 gaps here, at least as they relate to my understanding of what "canaries" are (based on experience):

1. Requiring manual validation of canary results is antithetical to CI/CD principles. If you can't trust your canaries enough to automatically promote or block based on results, doing manual validation is just a band-aid that will have to be ripped off painfully eventually.

2. Canaries should run continuously against all deployment stages, not just as a one-time approval process in your pipeline. Good canaries give visibility into baseline metrics at all times, not just when validating a new application version.

Overall I would say this guide aligns more with what I would term as a non-CI/CD load-test approval workflow rather than a "canary".
Don't forget a Doom Button that randomly selects from the worst X% of Star Trek, Friends, and Simpsons episodes.
There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs:

http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/

It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think that adding the "plus" to a Canada type deal is a "sensible" thing. It's sensible only for the brexiteers who peddled Canada+ as a real thing.

Never-mind the fact that, in order to export to the EU market, UK still needs to respect the EU regulations, like any other trade partner of the EU. Only now, they no longer have any say over those regulations.
Leaving the EU and expecting to get most of if not all the benefits with no sacrifices, as it was sold to people is insane.
Was anyone actually paying $7.99 though?
There also wasn't an election in 2014. His party won 1 seat in 2015 and got 12.6% of the total vote.

12.6% is really high to be getting only 1 seat, but it definitely isn't 20%.
When you say "had more quality content", do you mean that some content was removed ? Or that the rate over which great content is produced has decreased ?
Do you live in Europe? I don't know of anywhere that McDonald's costs that much in the US. Maybe the Times Square one if you get a full combo.

$13 gets you a nice entree in most any US city. Not white table cloth service of course, but you can find good and healthy food. Especially if we are talking just about the entree.
Yes, OSM can give truly excellent results for certain areas. And truly awful results for others.
A significant advantage of chunked (DASH, HLS) is bandwidth adaptation. This is done with substantial magic on the encode side to produce chunks of various bitrate all aligned. Then the client can move to a higher or lower bandwidth stream but without much fuss in maintaining the timeline continuity of the playback. It's been a while since I worked with media streaming, I'm interested to check in with ffmpeg to see how far it has progressed on this.
Everyone's take on "mediocre content" is different. My wife loves a lot of the low-rated Netflix shows. In the same way our dishes might not get washed as quick if I didn't have my favorite podcasts, I don't know if our laundry would get done as quick if she didn't have Fuller House or that mermaid show.
Doesn't that just highlight how undemocratic and unrepresentative the EU actually is?

Remain voter, just to be clear. I know it's got better over the last decade, but the real mistake of the EU was letting in a lot of countries without any say from the populace.

It was an ideological decision, with no democratic mandate, and it's ripping the union apart.
How is it not insane? Why would the EU give the UK a "better deal" than it would to members?

From the start, it was insane.
Off topic, but I really wish Netflix had an open API again. Or heck, even one I could pay for, for a small fee. There is so many cool things I'd love to do with my user data on there, but it's all so closed off. Unless that changed of course, and there is something available again?
Said Shiripour Erfolgschallenge
The problem is that the politics are not partisan and instead divide the main parties.

It would be similar to half the republicans and half the democrats agreeing on a key policy & fundamentally disagreeing with the other half of their respective parties.

(it's actually even worse than that because there are at least 3 main positions [hard exit, soft exit, no exit] which divide the two main parties, meaning nothing really has a clear majority).

The way the UK government works is: from the majority party a government of ministers is formed from their group of MPs. By convention individual MPs in this government (called front-benchers) have a cohesive support for the overall government policy (if they disagree with the policy or vote against it then by convention they have to resign). Anyone from the ruling party NOT on the front-bench can (and often will) vote against the government.

Brexit has been insanely divisive. Internally, the ruling Convservative party have at least 4 different positions, including the official government one. Many front-benchers have resigned.

Fundamentally the problem is this; people voted for Brexit. But only just. So really nearly half the population doesn't want it. It was simple to answer a simple yes/no question. But exiting is a hugely complex question whereby it is nearly impossible to negotiate a compromise that works for everyone.
Not in a strictly expected value sense, no. It's never going to be a rational choice from an financial point of view (i.e. there is always something else you can do with the $5 with better expected returns).

But if you get some other value out of it you place at least $5/wk utility on, sure. Maybe you get more utility out if it than a movie a month, or whatever.
The Record Layer doesn't currently support foreign key constraints, so foreign keys are more of an “design pattern” than a first-class feature. For example, in a sample schema in the repository, an “Order” message has have a field called “item_id” that points to the primary key of an “Item” message: https://github.com/FoundationDB/fdb-record-layer/blob/792c95... There isn't an automatic check to make sure the item exists, though, nor are there cascading deletes. That being said, I don't think the architecture is incompatible with that feature, so it would be a reasonable feature request.

There are some guidelines regarding field type changes in the schema evolution guide: https://foundationdb.github.io/fdb-record-layer/SchemaEvolut... Most data type changes are incompatible with either Protobuf's serialization format or the FDB Tuple layer's serialization format (which the Record Layer users for storing secondary indexes and primary keys). The general advice for type changes (if there are existing data in your record stores) would instead be to introduce a new field of the new type and deprecate the old one.
Straw man. I say nothing that would suggest "keep asking". A single re-ask is justified by the change in available information. And in indeed, if the stay option was selected on this re-ask, but there was enough momentum for one of the leave options, that could merit another referendum in two, five, ten, whatever years— the key is to make certain that any future referendums on this subject are asking about clear, concrete options that are grounded in reality, and not fairy tales.

In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.
> You will never be able to come up with all possible test cases to cover all possible scenarios.

Technically it's possible and is called "exhaustive testing", you can do it for fairly small input states e.g. you can test trig functions on all 32 bits inputs, that's only 4 billion values.

Non-trivial programs have way more state than that, consider a vector of f32, just the full vector (2^64 items) contains 2^96 possible states.
Add driving a compact, low-to-the-ground car in a world of giant SUVs and pickups to that.
There's a serious chance that life will not go on for some in Northern Ireland. People might die there as a direct result of this. Jo Cox already died in England. This is not scaremongering.
I think that this link has most of the conversation on the topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18914411
> Why is May being held responsible for this?

In short, May has never taken a WTO ("no deal") exit seriously. Since she won't walk away she's had no leverage, so the EU predictably gave her the worst "deal" imaginable, to the extent that polls show Leave voters would prefer staying in the EU and Remain voters would prefer leaving with no deal. It's seriously awful.

> Where are the people who initially brought in Brexit- why are they not supporting May?

If you're talking about the various Leave-supporting ex-ministers like Boris Johnson and David Davis, they quit when it became clear that they were only there as window-dressing for consumption by domestic Leave voters, and had no influence at all in negotiations or planning. When May came up with her "Chequers" plan, she showed it to Angela Merkel before her own Cabinet; this in a political system that supposedly follows a principle of collective responsibility.

> What is preventing the referendum from being declared stupid and that the UK gov't is not going to do it?

As an American, what prevented the election of Trump being declared stupid and that the US gov't was not going to accept him? Because I suspect it's pretty much the same answer: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." You can't hold a referendum for tactical reasons and then welsh when it doesn't go your way without thoroughly destroying faith in the legitimacy of your political system.
The EU already said there will be no renegotiation. That's why May put the current draft up for a vote in the first place, even tho she knew it would likely fail.
Habr
Honestly when it comes to movies instead of shows I find it's likely cheaper to rent 3 movies/month than subscribe to netflix. And I get to watch the movies I care about.
That view of what the EU is, an integration project of sovereign nation states without war, is one way of looking at it. A way the EU themselves would certainly like to believe. An alternative view is that the EU is the soft landing place for collapsing empires, that the idea of independent European nation states is just that, an idea, a fiction in the general sense. Timothy Snyder's youtube videos do a good job of explaining this.
If "insane" is not the right word then perhaps "immature" is a better fit. Part of being an adult is understanding that most choices in life are compromises.

On balance, the UK is better in Europe, despite its human-made failings. Trying to achieve some impossible ideal, without understanding or acknowledging the realities, might not be insane but it's not the way the world works.
This describes research published in 2012 by Arjen Lenstra et al. (https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064.pdf), which relied on a scalable n-way GCD algorithm that Lenstra's team thought best not to explain to readers (in the hope that the attack wouldn't be quickly replicated for malicious purposes). Coincidentally, another team (Nadia Heninger et al., https://factorable.net/) published extremely similar research in a similar timeframe, without withholding details of that team's GCD calculation approach.

The Heninger et al. paper explains quite a lot about where the underlying problems came from, most often inadequately seeded PRNGs in embedded devices. As the linked article mentions, other subsequent papers have also analyzed variants of this technique and so there's not much secret left about it.

If people are interested in learning about the impact of common factors on the security of RSA, I created a puzzle based on this which you can try out, which also includes an explanation of the issue for programmers who are less familiar with the mathematical context: http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/rsa/

Notably, my puzzle uses a small set of keys so you can do "easy" pairwise GCD calculations rather than needing an efficient n-way algorithm as described here (which becomes increasingly relevant as the number of keys in question grows).
> On top of that, passwords are at least hashed in the database and salted. And most frameworks promote this good behaviour nowadays and have extensive documentation on how to do this. But for API tokens we’re outta luck. We need them in their current plaint-text form to communicate with the API’s so all we can do is encrypt them at rest and decrypt them when necessary. Alas for many this practice is not widely communicated nor documented.

Half the reason to hash and salt is to prevent an attacker from obtaining the plaintext (often reused) password, which doesn't apply for API keys.

With that said, there's no reason why a service couldn't send you a plaintext API key but only store the hashed and salted key in their database. I suspect AWS, for example, does just that (you can't obtain your API secret except right after generating it). The API consumer needs a way to store/decrypt the plaintext API key, but that also applies to passwords.
Neither Serbia nor Kosovo are EU member states.
Serbia thinks Kosovo is not a country but a province/county of itself.
Volkswagen to invest $800M, build new electric vehicle in U.S
If you want access to the single market, you have to sign up to freedom of movement. The UK was never going to be able to have one without the other because it's a fundamental principle of the EU as an institution. It's a package deal.
> Some elections right here in the US are decided by as few as a dozen votes

This is a basic "false equivalence" logical fallacy.
Deploying SaaS software on-prem
I find myself spending way more time just watching YouTube creators at this point. The vast majority of Netflix content outside the Hollywood movies and TV shows falls into the uncanny valley of being not quite terrible in terms of production quality, but still extremely basic and derivative in terms of actual content. You’ll never learn anything new or interesting from one of their documentaries, it’s just the same rehashed top talking points for whatever subject is being covered.
The whole dollar
Wasn't $7.99 for the one-at-a-time plan? I also recall it being more like $10 or $12, but I wasn't paying for it at the time so I'm not an authority.

I felt like my family was lucky to get through 7 DVDs a month with one-at-a-time. We had a pretty good 3-4 day turnaround, but no matter how hard you tried to watch every movie the day you received it, we always managed to end up holding onto a disc for a few days. We eventually switched to 2-at-a-time so we could have one in-flight and one at home, that helped smooth out the gaps.

But even counting 2 or 3 at a time subscriptions, with unlimited streaming I am able to consume more content in a week and a half then I could in an entire month with DVDs, so in terms of content viewed per dollar I still think I'm getting a good deal. Streaming is especially a boon to anyone binging on a TV show. DVDs would have 3, maybe 4 episodes per DVD, so going through a show could monopolize your subscription for weeks at a time. Today I pop the show I want on and it just goes and goes.
And what's the cost of distributing data as opposed to distributing DVDs?