skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We haven't built anything flawless so I'm not sure if it is fair to blame anyone for building something that might not be secure without any evidence.

No matter who is going to lead 5G technology, The service provider will have full control as they already have. They will be still able to do everything that they are doing already.

So we will have our domestic controls and it is secure it that sense.

Perhaps, What we might not have is having our backdoors to have the same powers in all other countries around the world.
No, not even close. 20 quadrillion calculations per second= 20 petaFLOPS. A Nvidia DGX-2 is only 2 petaFLOPS and that "AI" supercomputer costs $399,000. Far cry from $6,000.

You are just hand waving to try to defend a definitively failed prediction.
It's before my time, but I'm pretty sure people had at least an intuitive understanding of what partitioning does to a datastore before Eric Brewer wrote it down.
All of these stats look to be from American sources. Did you consider the overall rest of the world, when you used the all-encompassing statement "The Tech Industry Has a Drinking Problem"?

If not, then I think that, whilst you might have had the best intentions in mind, you really miss the mark for actually covering the whole industry.

In other words: How apt are your statistics, anecdotes, and points of view to be applicable in countries where the drinking age is far lower than in the states? What is the actual ratio of those countries having alcohol at company events versus after-work events, coordinated by workers at 'x' company? How much more or less-likely are those countries to have drinking problems (statistically, speaking) in their populace?

You seem to ignore this, whilst simultaneously stating that an entire industry has a problem - using a sample-set from a small portion of its total whole.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if this results from jingosim or if you just haven't considered any of this but it comes across as askewed American exceptionalism: We have this problem and so, by that logic, the whole world must.
Most recipes are very lax in their quantities. The size of an egg doesn't usually make much difference, at least for the cooking and baking I do.

For the most part, they are a mixture of sizes including both large and small, so it usually evens out. They are rejects primarily because of shape (can't be packaged in standard containers, too long and they would break when the lid was closed; too small and they would move around and crack) or because they have double yolks (purely cosmetic). The cosmetic look was a bit offputting at first--we are all used to the expected appearance with a single yolk--but it makes zero difference to the taste.
But what does it mean in the context of a mouse? The mouse isn't using it's free will to decide whether to become a computer programmer or a doctor, it's responding to stimulus and environment. If an AI is trained to mimic the responses of a mouse is that intelligent?

Agency in the context of a machine seems purposefully impossible to reach - its decisions are always somehow tied back to how it was programmed to react.
Startup Hardware Research, how to?
We've seen the Y Combinator how to start a startup videos and blogposts, but one topic I can't find much information on is how to do market research when your idea depends upon some hardware.

For instance, let's say I want to build an app for pressure cooker users. I have a big list of pressure cooker manufacturers, how can I find out how many of my customers exist (people in the US, Europe, and world that own pressure cookers)? It's not straightforward to me how to figure out how many pressure cooker owners there are in the US.

Another example could be for treadmill owners. Let's say I want to make an app for this customer segment. I can imagine using other "treadmill owner" apps to estimate my customer base, but is there a way I can find out how many people bought a treadmill, or a pressure cooker, in the last 5 years?
Allow me to provide a link from the NY Times article your shared.

The TL;DNR: Nuh-uh!

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/04/why-should-...

In the future, you really shouldn't link to dueling articles in an opinion section. It makes this all too easy.
That and the fact that amiga was clean room design. IBM Pc was already old and even x86-64 won over itanium. Backwards compatibility has a cost but also gains. Amiga wasn't even compatible with c64.
So basically we just need to show a computer can beat PacMan?
Life evolves at linear rates, while computers at geometric.

Even more to the point the cycle time for human evolution is at a minimum 14 years (biological limit to reproduce) and around 25 years (today's societal constraints). Whereas cycle time for new computer generations is what 12-18 months?

So at best every 14 years we get a new 'human model' with some random variations. Meanwhile in that time frame our computing hardware is 2000x improved (hopefully improvements in software accelerate that improvement further).
You can differentiate the Moore's law / AI stuff which seems fairly sensible to me and the nanobots and vitamin pill stuff which I've always thought a little nuts. Hans Moravec did a much more down to earth analysis on the Moores/AI stuff if you'd rather avoid Kurzweil.
> Out of the two I trust my family more than I trust a bureaucrat that has no loyalty to me.

I think you oversimplify the question.

That bureaucrat could be implementing policies that help you (and others) without counterproductive emotional baggage that affects many relationships.

An example might be home care: many daughters are guilt-tripped by society and family to look after their aging parents (this also happens but to a much lesser degree to sons). If the state provided paid care that took many of the burdens off those carers (changing nappies, some cleaning, perhaps meals) then not only could the children have more fulfilling lives without those burdens but they could have a much better relationship with the aging parent when there is no resentment injected into the process (by the child for having to do the "scut work" and by the parent who resents aging having forced them to depend on others).

There's no perfect balance here and perhaps you trust your family, but there is an implicit burden embodied in that.
Good point,

I am always telling people that you reach a point where you have enough money to live the life you want. That point is different for everyone and it also depends on where you are in your life.

If I made twice as much money where I live now. It wouldn’t have an immediate effect on our life. Even now when I get a raise it just goes to “increasing my net worth”. It doesn’t really change too much of anything.

We could retire earlier. But my hobbies are computers and working out and traveling. I dont see myself fully retiring, maybe just doing consulting/contracting part of the year. As far as health insurance, my wife specifically took a job with the school board so we could get benefits whether I am consulting, contracting, or working salaried and we are guaranteed coverage for the rest of our life after she has been working ten years. I work with someone whose wife gave up her demanding job that she didn’t like to work in the school cafeteria for the same reasons.

Recruiters and consulting companies are baffled why I don’t accept an opportunity to be a high price consultant and I am sticking with this small company I work for when I could easily be making 25%-50% more. But living in a low cost of living area gives you that optionality.

Heck, there is a 50/50 chance I could get a job with Amazon working as an in house AWS consultant without moving (but with traveling). I’m just not interested in large companies. I worked at one at the time Fortune 10 (non tech) company for two years and I said never again.
Five keys to a successful Google team (2015)
Planes don't fly like birds. We have ornithopter which are crude imitations of bird flight. Very crude. Similarly our AI are a very crude imitations of the real thing and I believe will continue to be for some significant time. At least a few hundred years for a somewhat plausible imitation of an intelligent machine. I believe extinction of the race within the next 10,000 years is incredibly likely. I also don't think the intelligent machines that we build will last very long because they will be difficult and expensive to build and because of the incredibly small size of their tech, say 1 nanometer or less, will be prone to various kinds of failure and also require rare materials that are in limited supply and can't be recycled so they are difficult to obtain for both us and for the AI to maintain its own supply chain without us. So our bots will go extinct soon after us.

Consciousness transfer is probably 10s of thousands if not millions of years away.
Hi, I'm a Redux maintainer. I'd be interested in hearing how your experience with Immer went, as well as any other feedback you can offer.

Also, as I mentioned just below, please try out our new Redux Starter Kit package, which uses Immer internally (and offers several other useful utilities for simplifying common Redux use cases, like store setup, reducer definitions, and even creating entire "slices" of state at once):

https://redux-starter-kit.js.org
If the default was not to track the user, it would not be a problem. Advanced settings could allow the user to opt-in to various forms of tracking.
> It's kind of like how all those sweeteners sold as being stevia are actually only like 1 or 2% stevia.

Sometimes they add filler to match the volume of sugar for equivalent sweetness. This makes it easier to proportion out for baking and adding to drinks. Otherwise the baking might be off or the drinks too sweet.
You’re right, it’s the current year. That means it isn’t 2014, which was the last time this histrionic social justice mindset was genuinely trendy.
> Do you remember that typical user visits Google web site NOT to setup his privacy settings, but with a totally different goal (such as do web search)?

EXACTLY! Why should the user then have to give up their privacy? All they wanted to do was a simple search, not be tracked and profiled. So it's the unneeded collecting of personal data that's the problem here, not the ux.
Yes, it seems to be mostly supported by the left in the Sanders/Cortez camps. It’s very convenient to not have to pay for anything when proposing monumental social programs.
>And the stock grants won't begin to compare.

If you're counting stock separately, $180k salary isn't well, well below Amazon. That's the max they pay, and only in Seattle and the Bay Area.
>I mean there has been a long history of "you can't do this with computers".

Historically, people have both grossly overestimated and grossly underestimated future technological progress. Some people thought computers would never be able to play chess; others thought we'd have superhuman AGI in 2001. The bottom line is that people's past and current ignorance tells us nothing about what the future is actually going to be like.
I bet compensation in the US will go down once businesses figure out a way to really outsource to programmers around the world.

The last push failed but businesses will adjust their conceptual models and try new things. Eventually, something will stick.

Heck, maybe the last round failed because the technology culture needed to develop more in different areas. If so, how long before local geeks do to their area that has apparently already happened in the states?
I came to the conclusion too. I was working as a reverse engineer and realized my job was basically just reading. Modern scribe.
i guess i’m not sure what the solution is. are we not supposed to drink? Any hobby or activity that not everyone participates in has the potential to be non inclusive. At my last work a lot of people loved camping but i didn’t. Should i stop them from camping because they might make social bonds that aren’t available to me?
^ mirror
More importantly, even if the standard wasn't required to have lawful intercepts, carriers want would provide it. They aren't in the business of making legal stands to protect privacy.

There is a new standard to replace SMS in flight called RCS. Arguably, this makes the world better -- SMS sucks, RCS brings a lot of the iMessage features to standard carrier messaging. But therein lines the problem: it's carrier-controlled, and carriers want lawful intercept. So, the standard does not call for end-to-end encryption and it is not implemented.

I still think this is a better state of the world than SMS, but it's pretty depressing that it's 2019 and e2e encryption isn't the default. I understand why it isn't when there's government interests in play, but it's still depressing.
I think that is indeed the majority case, and it's great you have that, and also that you recognise that it's not universal.

It's unfortunate that people who can't have that for whatever reason get shamed for it.
I'm not sure that longevity and resale value are necessarily their strong points any more, since everything (at least in a laptop) is glued together and essentially non-fixable for mortals.

My mid-2013 Retina MBP was a very nice system, used it lots every day. When the battery went, it's now a big deal; it's not replacing a battery, it's replacing the entire top case, trackpad, keyboard... and battery. That combination was never in stock when I visited Apple stores, and I don't live near one.

A local shop that does Apple-authorized work had to bring in that "part" - really, half a laptop, and change it out. Days later, the charging circuit failed on the main board, and it's become a doorstop with a new top case/battery. I couldn't even pay for a RAM upgrade (soldered on) when replacing the board, so I just didn't. Bought a ThinkPad that I can open and add things, and put the Mac's SSD in it.
Looks like a referral link?
My guess is that a huge majority the software engineers in the Bay Area are making less than half those numbers. If you value pre-IPO options at the proper discount, I would guess a majority make less than $250k. That’s a high total compensation, to be sure, but, given the cost of living, and the value a good engineer can create, it’s not absurd.

Full disclosure: I work at a public company (not FAANG) and my TC is under $250k.
What makes you think a mouse (71M neurons) has agency\free will? Does a cockroach (1M neurons), fruit fly (250K), jellyfish (5k) have agency? I don't think we're gonna get far by relying on a phenomenon that we can't clearly define or even (externally) observe.
Here Come the Internet Blackouts
Couldn't the developer contract with Valve to allow that to happen?
Wayback Machine mirror http://web.archive.org/web/20190121183722/https://guerrilla-...
I cannot disagree more.

There is a general confusion that the job of a user interface is to simplify the system, where that is the last thing a user interface should do. What a user interface should do is to make it as simple as possible for a user to understand and interact with the system.

Google's system is immensely complex and they have intentionally not given their users all the information and not all the options for interaction. This is intentional of course, but by looking at the user interfaces they provide as is we have to conclude that they are doing a very poor job of giving us access to understand the full complexity.

Imagine if Adobe replaced all their interfaces with a few simplified buttons, one brush to use, filters are automatically applied, lighting automatically adjusted based on personal history etc. No one would use such a program.

The GRPR in this case is pointing out that Google is not showing all the options and when they are they obscure them, ie they have bad user interfaces by making it as difficult as possible for a user to understand and interact with their system.

If anything, this will force Google to make good user interfaces. For, if the measurement of a good interface is about how simple the interface is regardless of the complexity of the underlying system, then all good user interfaces should be reduced to one button. Such a measurement of quality is ignorant and cannot further any skill in designing user interfaces.
‘Heroin for middle-class nerds’: how Warhammer conquered gaming
AI is sending people to jail–and getting it wrong
Business Advice from Aristotle
A bit like the Asiana Airlines crash in SF, where 1 out of 3 dead was a passenger who got flung out of the plane, survived, but died after getting run over by a fire truck.
You turn on WPA to stop other people from using your WIFI, and to provide a minimum level of protection for your non-encrypted communications (legacy apps).

And, of course, every few years the current wireless protection systems are defeated, rendering the whole thing useless until you upgrade your hardware (because nobody wants to spend money to provide a software fix for something you've already bought).
> This pricing is, of course, hidden from most patients, except those without insurance, who have to pay full freight.

The rest of the story flows from this. The ordinary price mechanism is broken because the patient isn't the customer, and the customer is paramount to any business. As long as most patients don't care what it costs most of the time, it will stay broken.
> Once we get computers as smart as a mouse, we'll be at most 3-5 years

But how long did it take Nature to get from a mammal with mouse-level intelligence to a human-level brain. I think 200-ish million years [0].

You might be right that a mouse is a good indicator of high-level intelligence and that you don't need human-level intelligence to make a good AI, but there might still be some considerable way to go until we have an AI that can significantly outperform us.

[Edit - I agree that natural selection wasn't aiming or directed, and thus wasn't forced to be as fast as we could be. But a human's higher brain functions might not be simple incremental improvements over a mouse's, and there could still be a long way to go]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal
In Germany the landlord isn't even allowed to keep a copy of the key for the original lock, so obviously you don't have to give them a key of your own lock.

All clauses in contracts that require you to give a key to the landlord are automatically void.
There is a fundamental reason. Read Penrose on Gödel.
High-Fidelity Streaming Is the Audio Revolution Your Ears Have Been Waiting For
Funny thing is, that is what ACH and many other banking systems are today, or at least back then. "Reconciliation" can take days.
Here's a Nature opinion piece arguing in favor of N=1 studies: https://www.nature.com/news/personalized-medicine-time-for-o...

And another more recent one https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07535-2
There are different number of prizes at each value, so each prize has a difference chance (higher the value, lower the chance).

You get to choose what you want, so I think it's actually a pretty interesting way to set up the rewards.
What I mean is that some of the powerful components we can leverage today solve problems that did not exist in 1985, so having these available then would not really help.

I mean: what would you use Node.js for - in 1985 - even assuming you had access to a system to develop and test stuff made with it?
Sorry to bum you out. That's not my goal.

As one becomes more senior the hiring manager expects a candidate to do their due diligence and ask some questions beforehand rather than hopping right into the application process. For a referral, that has already happened somewhat as the candidate already presumably talked to the the referrer about working at that company. You don't have to be a referral but a hiring manager expects you to do this due diligence. You don't necessarily need to go through a friend and you don't have to work with your friends. However, having an acquaintance at the company even in a different team is a massive help.

Think of it from the company's perspective for a second. They don't want somebody who just "wants a job". Money is always a factor but if somebody takes a job solely for money then they'll jump ship the moment somebody offers more. Companies want somebody interested in their space who wants to work there. You mentioned that you purposefully pursued some roles that looked like they'd be good fit for you. That's smart! Make sure the hiring manager knows it. By just clicking apply on the website, that may not be communicated clearly.

Here's two concrete pieces of advice:

- Before going in the front door and applying for roles, reach out to the hiring manager and ask them some more details about the role and what working for the company/team is like. If you know somebody at the company who can put you in touch (even if it isn't the same team), that's better, but even if you don't that's ok. They will talk to you and if they don't you probably don't want to work there anyway. LinkedIn is useful for this.

- If you're applying for a local job, try to meet the hiring manager or somebody else at the company in person if possible. Don't stalk them but to give you an example, I know that a CEO for a local security startup runs the local OWASP meetup and I told a person interested in working in security to go to the meetup and talk to him if she was serious about working there. I've been a hiring manager before and I looked way more closely at any candidate I talked to in person. Don't sound desperate but show them that you're interested and serious enough to go out of your way to talk to them. I had a couple candidates who I didn't know reach out to me via Meetup.com for roles posted to the company website and I had no problem meeting them for coffee.

On a related tangent, I help organize a local meetup and I get asked the question "how do I land my first dev job" a lot. I've helped half a dozen people land their 1st or 2nd tech job. Assuming they already have tech talent, I essentially offer them the above advice. It works at that level but it works for senior roles too! As a hiring manager, you want to talk to qualified people about your open role.

Good luck!

Edit: formatting only
> I am seriously interested in understanding why a lot of people have no issue accepting the idea of humans evolving from simple immaterial matter into biological beings and all the way up to our current reality but have a hard time believing that can be done via computers.

And similarly, I’d love to understand why you’d believe in something for which there’s zero evidence and ask with incredulity why others don’t also believe it. Isn’t it reasonable to be skeptical until it actually happens? Isn’t it possible that we don’t understand what intelligence is, and that there could be an undiscovered proof that computers can never attain it? It seems too early to call.

Computers haven’t to date ever done anything on their own, what reason is there to think they ever will? We made them. Neural networks are nothing more than high dimensional least squares. Maybe humans are also least squares, but my money is on there being more to it than that.

> ...they don’t actually need to reproduce the lungs and the intestine...

Obviously, but the one thing that all intelligent life does is reproduce and contain a survival instinct. No computers have a survival instinct, and thus no reason to get smarter that we don’t imbue them with artificially.
Chinese scientist who gene-edited babies fired by university
Public & untrusted != Unencrypted. Otherwise TLS ain't doing shit for you if I control everything you see at layer 2 and up, including the encryption keys and their validity.

Would you care to try doing your banking over my WEP-only secured 802.11b network?