skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They do: I was. Admittedly, at the top end of that range, and so one might argue that inflation has hopefully made that statement not true now (I would hope Google's hiring salaries have kept up), but the person you're responding to is also discussing H-1B, and I would expect the salaries there are not as attractive as normal hires.
We use v2 API as well and like rblatz said, we haven't ran into any problems.

Our backend signs in to DocuSign as the main account. When a particular event requires it, the backend sends a POST to DocuSign and creates an envelope. In this POST request, we tell DocuSign that the user is going to be an embedded user. Once the envelope is created, we can ask for the "view url". In this request, we not only tell DocuSign to get us the vie URL for a specific signer (in case there are multiple signers), but we also tell DocuSign where we want the user to be redirected to after they are done signing. When this request returns, we will have a URL that we can redirect our end user to.

Also, in terms of their documentation, I think it is fantastic in it thoroughness.

All in all, I've had the opposite experience of OP.
No I don't think we are going to find common ground. As I said, I wasn't around in WWII. The victors of WWII decided on appropriate punishments for the losers, although obviously nothing can bring the dead back to live.

So the nation "Germany" is paying what the winners of the war decided.

Apart from that, who is "the nation" who is supposed to apologize, and in what way? Are Germans who hid Jews in their attics also to apologize? What about the queer Germans who were imprisoned in the concentration camps, and then returned to a free life in post war Germany? You don't really know anything about the individual Germans, so who are you to dish out universal blame? What about Nazis who emigrated to the US - does that mean the US should also apologize for the genocide of millions of Jews?

Yes sometimes crimes of nations can also be disentangled, and things stolen can be returned. But it is also not a card blanche for arbitrary demands, forever. There was in fact also a history before WWII, it was not just a bunch of people turning evil out of the blue. When do you stop - with Adam and Eve?

I feel a responsibility to all people, and Germans maybe are raised more sensitive to some issues than others. But that's about it. Maybe if I was sitting on a huge pile of nazi gold, I'd think different. But I am not. So maybe address your blame to the people who actually got rich.

"I believe those people are owed reparations"

But how much? Are you planning to leave the US, to give them back their land? Somehow I don't think so? How much would be enough, to acquit you of your guilt?
Why is this downvoted? Credits are based duration with an assumed correlation to workload (where workload actually changes pretty heavily with professor and field).
I'm 50% of the engineers who woke up and fixed this if anyone has questions.
I don't understand who's downvoting you, this is accurate. While AlphaGo/Zero improved quickly to superhuman play, we are just in this thread comparing timelines, so that is relevant.
There is absolutely a limit to the amount of unique ideas/efforts which make a return across a large percent of the population. That population has an upper limit on spend and time spent adopting said product. They don't have an unlimited amount of time and that's exactly what companies have been hammering on to extract more of. Facebook, for example.

It's time we stop pushing this STUPID narrative that software can make you rich if you are just willing to throw your user's interests out the window and "work harder". That is not how this works.
> At the end of the day, hard work, contacts and luck leads to success

Did you read the blog? This is essentially the tl;dr without a defeatist attitude.
> Putting SSH on a nonstandard port is pretty silly.

what's the alternative while still keeping ssh logs that aren't filled with thousands of login attempts from bots per day? afaik there isnt any solution that is both as simple and as effective as changing the port.
Even the 200ms reaction time seemed overly slanted towards the AI. I don't think that is the actual reaction time of top pros, in the matches the AI played the human player would teleport in from complete invisibility and try to use an instant cast spell and the AI would have already teleported out. Yes the theoretically may have been constrained to a 200ms reaction time, but in practice the AI was playing at a superhuman level. Even with that advantage in fights, the human team still demolished the AI. Oh well, lots of things to learn still.
Interesting...
I take my initial comment back.I wasn't aware that people actually abstain from eating for long periods of time (+24 hours).
But it was answered: AlphaStar pulled a huge stalker army that was about to hit MaNa's base all the way back home to (attempt to) answer the drop, repeatedly. If you have more complexity to your army but fewer army units, as MaNa did, a delay like that is how you win the game.
>we need to build the social and political structures to be able to handle it.

This would be a massive waste of resources depending on how far you misinterpret the nature of the “AI thats here to stay”. There is little to support that we’re near-approaching a general purpose, “true” AI, the kind of superintelligent, creative, potentially world-ending and self-improving thinking machine that brings us to the singularity. Its much fairer to characterize current technologies as an algorithm that excels in certain fields, with distinct limitations that we’re still exploring, and have some idea but not perfect of where those limits are.

Functionally, they just find probabilities matrixes for a certain sequence of actions, and can search the problem space much faster than we did before, by simulating the event indefinitely. And they come with the issue that anything that can’t be well-simulated and quickly can’t be “AI’d”, as well as the common issue of catastrophically failing due to not actually understanding the object in total (eg change a picture of a cat to an ostrich by editing key pixels). And afaik, they’ve shown no ability to “change the problem”, a key component of creativity (if you can’t find a good answer to something, consider changing the question; our “AI”s do not.)

And this is naturally why they excel at games (almost by definition a repeatedable simulation) that typically have a very well-defined question. But at the same time, we don’t expect current AI to be capable of taking its “strategies” forward to the next update of starcraft (the problem changes) without re-searching a lot of the problem space (there exist algorithms for training future networks; I don’t know how much progress they’ve made), because they don’t really have strategies in the first place, or a real model for how things interact (they struggle to predict new interactions without sinulating them, or rather, “experiencing” them).

Which is also why its difficult to imagine AI’s will ever truly be driving cars around with the current tech — rather, they’ll succeed likely as an awkward combination of nueral networks, expert systems, hueristics and safeguards. We’d naturally expect most sci-fi usecases of AI to be the same — eg political decision making. And they’ll be limited to the extent that we can render simulations.

And if we pretend these distinctly limited algorithms are in fact the predecessors to our post-singularity successors, simply because they’re able to do a few things we weren’t really expecting (just as computers have proved to be a whole lot more capable than the 60’s general population thought, but far less than what 60’s scifi thought), we’ll do a whole lot of work for quite a bit of nothing.

The fact that its called AI doesn’t mean we’re quickly approaching star trek’s Data AI. It didn’t mean it in the last few AI hype cycles either.
Dejan Milojicic reveals methodology behind selecting Top Tech Trends for 2019
“Deadbeat Debtors Near Me?” China Has a WeChat App for That
>
Dumb question, but has the industry decided on what they want to call TLS/HTTPS? Majority of people I talk to still refer to them as SSL certs...

They are all independent terms.

Secure Socket Layers (SSL) is an outdated term that refers to any network data transfer over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) using the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, of which the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol is an application layer implementation.
White House preparing draft national emergency order, identified $7B for wall
Whoa, yeah, I tried "55 water st, brooklyn,ny" in maps.google.com and it dropped the pin in Manhattan (the gigantic office 55 Water building that houses DTCC.)
It is a reasonable assumption given that you didn't know what a Viewfinder was, and keep insisting the screen on the back is one even now.

When your mistake was pointed out by multiple posters, you then doubled down, called the industry standard terminology that is likely older than either of us "pedantic."

It is fine to not know things, or to have holes in your knowledge. It isn't fine to keep on doubling down rather than admit obvious mistakes.

All you had to do was read the Wikipedia article on Viewfinders in the "decades" you've been "professionally" taking photos.
I use both Office for Mac and Windows all the time and Office for Mac is pretty reliable IMO. They pretty much have feature parity. Which features are you missing?
............... .............. .....

............. ......... ....... ........ ....................

....................... ............... ................. ...........
I think this was one of the most interesting aspects of seeing AlphaStar play.

MaNa already started to use oversaturation when he played live game against the AI. I'd bet soon this will be the new meta, and everyone will play this way
I wanted to add that in principle turning it off is enough -- in practice, with human foibles, you should leave it at home.

It's easy to stray into leaving your phone on too long or forgetting one of the times. Leaving it at home is much harder of a boundary to cross without knowing.
Historically, this defines the exact point at which a union forms.

Once everyone realizes they need nothing else in common as long as they have this, it all becomes quite obvious.
How could you prevent users installing their own TLS certificates, changing the ones in the binaries or patching the TLS library form inspecting the data and detecting that a ghost user joined or that the number of keys increased?

Also, I think that this is a really bad approach as anybody who manages to compromise the server can add a ghost user. This is a step backwards as E2E won't protect against active attacks anymore.
I read this book and, to be honest, did not enjoy it very much. It consists largely of profiles of people involved in this sort of philanthrocapitalism. The main theme seems to be that the ultra-wealthy have coopted the work of social institutions in such a way as to undermine efforts for truly revolutionary change, that is change that might threaten them. The premise is interesting but the content is pretty boring. I got tired of reading about people whom the author believes to be mislead or malicious or otherwise on the wrong path. For those interested he gave a talk at Google in Cambridge that was pretty good.
https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM
Really well-written. I especially agree with two points - "focus" and "learn to work hard without burning out". Those two skills will take you far, no matter your field.
Not sure what you're talking about. I've been using Office on OSX since it's been a thing and it's always been pretty much equivalent. Especially recently.
The only difference is, the metrics I listed are all metrics of success in life (according to different viewpoints). The personal feeling of satisfaction is a metric from the viewpoint of an individualist. The impact on society is a metric from the viewpoint of a socialist (or possibly a historian). The number of offspring is reproductive success, which is all what counts from the viewpoint of an evolutionary biologist. (And of course I completely forgot to account for the viewpoint of a theologian.)

I am not sure these viewpoints are reconcilable.

As opposed to financial success.
I don't think you actually do this.
Show HN: Play Game of Life in a Shared Universe – Pay with Lightning Network
I mean, this is the reality of using a product. Should all the difficult parts and smells be removed, or should you have to experience the downsides as well as the upsides of consuming.
I get what you are saying, but the two cases are different. Typescript is a whole different language from Flow, so they can't interoperate. Every package that migrates to Typescript deprives the Flow ecosystem of compatibility and mindshare, so a win for one is always a loss for the other. Nobody wants to be a loser, so this will eventually resolve itself into a single dominant choice.

NPM and Yarn don't have this problem, since they are pretty much drop-in replacements for each other. As long as `yarn install` and `npm install` both get the job done equally well, picking one becomes a personal choice. Every project that adopts a standard package.json is a win for both NPM and Yarn. There doesn't need to be a loser in this case, and diversity is good.
He is, he played off-race, that's why they invited MaNa to allow AI play against very strong protoss
"What would you suggest people who encounter a problem such as this do if they personally don't have the ability to personally fix the problem themselves?"

There's a difference between getting someone's attention, and then them disagreeing with you.

If you are trying to get attention, i'd go with the mailing list in this situation.

If they just disagree with you, sometimes, you gotta accept that someone doesn't agree with you about the product vision and let it go (this assumes your constraints - they don't have ability/time to fix themselves). They will either be right or wrong, and it will succeed or fail.

"This isn't an issue specific to chromium or even google. There are a lot of projects that seem to have an inside and an outside with those on the outside rightly-or-wrongly feeling unheard."

Sure, and i think companies/people should be very clear with governance models, participation models, etc. I also think they should be very clear about things like this.

Actually one of the hugest clashes i often see is open source projects that do have a product vision end up clashing with minorities of their user bases who don't fit in that product vision (either due to changes or never fitting in the first place), etc. Those clashes often seem much more emotional for people.

(I honestly don't know enough about chrome anymore at all to know whether that's the case. I'm only talking about the general situation you are describing).

A lot of the inside vs outside cases that i've seen fall into "product vision decided inside, you are welcome to participate if you want but we aren't changing it" style of project.

It's more rare (though i've seen it) to see "we have no vision of where we are trying to go but we still are going to semi-ignore random contributions/etc. We're gonna make it so you think we might care, but not actually try enough that anything happens "

Worse, a lot of the time the latter prevents other competing projects from existing because people spend time trying with the existing one then are too burned out to do anything else.

The product ones often at least give straight answers, even if people hate the answers.
I always found the whole idea to be contradictory. They say that the pie isn't fixed, then go on to explain all the risky things you need to do get a larger piece of the expanding pie. Which does in fact mean the pie is finite, just not definite. Because outside of these texts online, success rate is a real limiting factor.
Its funny that I remembered the new york resistor group as the people who did my teensy morse code keyboard, when in fact its the same dude. (https://trmm.net/Morse_Code_keyboard)
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1088506051295567872

"MAC-SHA256 key for the secret authentication chip: a9ec1b1359251fdb4d06efb95dc19ebcfb39e72e08253e5ab2d603de5800f500

XORing every byte with the previous one, top notch obfuscation there rPi Foundation. sub_EC8ABBC on the latest start_db.elf."
Don't forget the part where the homeless walk down Dockweiler beach every morning and dump the garbage cans onto the sand to more easily pick through the trash to get at the cans.

What a lovely system we've created.
They mention that the latency of the neural network, from input to action, is around 360ms, which is on the lower end of professional level.

It can do context switches between micro/macro very quickly, which is where it's strength lie, and it did some very impressive micro in the later matches against MaNa, but it didn't win solely off the back of "computers are fast".
> How about promoting software companies being run as co-ops, where all workers have more ownership and are self-managed?

That's a fantastic idea. In all honesty, unions are merely a mitigation for some of the worker-hostile aspects of the division between owners and workers. That split is also seems like it's the root cause of a lot of pathological union practices. I don't think you'd have those problems if businesses were worker-owned or if a worker union had a significant ownership stake.
MaNa himself seemed to do it in the exhibition game.
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18990469
I've not followed this too much, but is this an intermediate step or can we expect more detail than this?
Ken Thompson is a person, plain and simple. He is not a god. Naming priority doesn't matter when most programmers haven't heard of old Bon. No one is going to think that new Bon is old Bon if no one knows about old Bon. Maybe there will confusion looking at the history if new Bon takes off, but when is there not in computer science? A simple footnote could suffice to avoid confusion.
So you want policy makers to not understand what they're making policy on?
Every single game does not have this.
Management can "demand" whatever they want, and employees can refuse whatever they want. It's how supply and demand works, and how free markets work.

The problems happen when the government interferes in this process. For example, recently Washington State removed the exemption mentally disabled workers have from minimum wage laws. This was hailed as a victory for justice and fairness. The result is those workers can't get a job anymore.
No one is under the illusion that Bitcoin is not a human written piece of software. However, the network has a an incredible uptime of 99.9832335764 % since jan 2009 (http://bitcoinuptime.com/)

Yes, of course. Like all software Bitcoin has bugs, however, none of Bitcoin's bugs has been catastrophic, or else it would have collapsed to $0 and stayed there. The odds of catastrophic bugs still exist but with the most development moved to layer 2, it's hard to see any more changes coming to the core software for the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect and it has many problems. However, the problems you bring up are mostly incorrect.

* Mining centralization is an issue. Due to the fact that Mining hardware is currently produced mainly by 1 company. Hopefully, simple economics will change that and larger companies will start making dedicated mining chips.

* On chain transaction costs. If the number of transactions on BTC spikes, the fees will also skyrocket. LN is the solution to this problem but the network is still in development.

* Confidential transactions (CT) and fungibility. Currently, Bitcoin is not fungible and you must go through several steps in order to clear coin's history. Gold is fungible and so is cash. However Bitcoin devs have been working on CT for some time now and hopefully, we might see an implementation this year and pushed on to the network within the next 2 years.

* Push of centralization. Everything naturally trends towards centralization. A centralized bitcoin is useless, no matter how secure the chain is or how stable the software is. The community must reject all centralization efforts so BTC can keep its value

To your point that if a catastrophic bug is discovered which enables double spend and/or inflation, the Ethereum community showed that it is possible to hard fork and reverse the chain given unanimous approval by all factions of the network. So if you wake up one day and the network has collapsed due to some bug in Bitcoin Core then Bitcoin's governance system will kick in to save the network.

To your point that you think i'm "scamming" you. I couldn't care less if you bought Bitcoin or not, that's the beauty of Bitcoin. No one is forced to use it and no one really cares about what anyone thinks. You can sit there and call everyone a scammer, you can sit there and point out all the problems it has (Like anything man-made is perfect), people can write all the research paper they want about how it will fail HOWEVER, The reality is that the Bitcoin network and ecosystem is thriving and has survived incredible obstacles. The fact that you've pointed out at all the past issues and the fact that it has overcome just says that Bitcoin works!

Have a good day sir :)
This is the correct answer. Management promises a unicorn, works you like a dog, and then pulls the rug out from under you, just before you deliver.

Alternatively, if you dig in, and refuse to deal with that bullshit, quitting, or being dismissed for not being a team player, half-way through crunch on a shitty project is a great way to burn bridges in that industry.
> The question in my mind is whether you've soured on the entire imperial project or not.

That presupposes that at one time I supported the “imperial project”; as someone who repeatedly argued that it was an example of the crime of aggression for which we rightly hung a bunch of people after WWII, I don't think that is a valid premise.

OTOH, I don't think the illegality of how you got into a position does anything to.absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of the manner of your exttication; quite the opposite.

> Were the American objectives there ever realistic? Did the war ever make sense?

No, and no. But, unless we are in a sci-fi scenario where we get to rewind time and attempt to alter the past, those are entirely irrelevant questions—as they address only should we have intervened (and actually address some of the less important factors of that question, as prospexts for success are only relevant when provocation is established) but are largely irrelevant to the question of “given that we are there now, what is the most appropriate manner for extricating ourselves from that situation.”
There are many problems with the thesis that sapiens is oh but so special (and of "special" being good).

One is that our species is at least 100,000 years old, most probably 200,000 and possibly a million years old. Yet, culture, history and "world dominance" only happened very recently. Why did it take so long?

Another is that there were many "sapiens" species and they went extinct, either because we exterminated them, or nature did, or we absorbed them by cross-breeding. Being cognitive is no guaranty of success and even, it turns out, no protection from extermination.

Yet another is that other species have language (dolphins for instance, which are neither "dogs" or "fish" or "ants").

And finally, talking of our "success" is the most ironic way of putting it, since we're in the process of destroying all mammal life on earth (including us). Maybe ants "eat our garbage" but they are likely to survive us, unlike anyone who's reading this.
Digital detoxes are a solution looking for a problem
Sounds like the - unfortunately very common - thing where sales people make promises which aren't delivered on.

Seems to be the sales people doing this get bonuses regardless, even though the customers get shafted, and their own tech staff generally get shafted too. :(